Experience...helpful but not necessary?

[StudentCarl]

I'm pulling this from the ATA thread to address separately:

"I know this is off topic here, but while experience is helpful, I don't believe it necessary. I remember when our KJN had opened the branch school where I teach now, he was traveling 70 miles to teach. Obviously he could not come every class, so a 1st gup was teaching the class (approximately 3 years experience). To take it one step further, at the beginning of the school the next highest rank at the branch school was a 7th gup. He is now a 7th dan, and recalls teaching classes as a 7th gup, and while he admits it wasn't ideal, it was what was required at the time. Anytime you are teaching someone of lower rank and experience, there is something to be offered and something to be learned (both ways).

The school I began under had a similar situation, my Sahbumnim was travelling 45 miles to teach at the school I started under. He had produced a couple of 1st dans, that happened to quit. That left my father (a 3rd gup at the time) as the highest ranking student there. He took over teaching, and we were travelling 45 miles once a week to receive instruction. Now he is a 6th dan.

While I see your point, I don't believe it is necessary to have 4-10 years of experience to adequately teach the art. Is it helpful, yes, required, no."

This is interesting. I agree that the best teachers are not always the most experienced, though it is important to have good judgment to teach only what you know. Good teachers are good at analyzing what they see and communicate effectively the corrections needed. It's also clear in the above that the junior teachers had regular access to more senior mentoring. Those who are analytical and dedicated to learning make better use of their experience/time too, so a dedicated 2yr student might know more than a senior who isn't like that.

However, some of the senior masters I've met have honed their analytical skills, teaching skills and understanding of the curriculum so much that they can cut to the absolute core of an issue and adjust a student in a more effective manner than a more junior instructor. They simply have more tools in their bag and know how to use them in more ways. IMO, that's why there's a separate term for master and instructor.

 

[dancingalone]

I think a distinction between material levels is important as well. Could a colored belt teach a beginner the rudiments of stances and striking to a satisfactory level? I think so. Would I want the same colored belt running a multiple attacker drill? Probably not.

 

[andyjeffries]

I think the rank/experience level of the instructor is important, but it's not the be all and end all. As well as my Taekwondo training, I am also learning BJJ. My BJJ coach is a purple belt (admittedly that's equivalent to a 1st Dan Taekwondo). I'm happy to learn from him, he knows way more than I do. Would a black belt know more, absolutely, and I'm sure they'd be able to point out lots more detail. The reality is though there isn't a black belt within easy driving distance.

That said I think there is a minimum level for instruction though and I consider that in Taekwondo to be 1st Dan. Below that is really not ideal, and I'd prefer that club instructors were more senior. However, it's better to learn something from a 3rd Kup than nothing from no-one Mistakes can always be corrected (as much as it may infuriate senior instructors having to unravel them)...

 

[Dragons TKD]

Teaching really depends on the person. We have 2nd, 3rd and 4th dans that are not good at teaching. They certainly have skill, but are neither able nor willing to teach. In a pinch, sure they would be able to cover a class here and there, but acting as 'the instructor' would not go over well.

When I was coming up through the color belts, my instructor saw something in me and pretty much trained me to be an instructor. Even though I despise public speaking, I'm told that I do a very good job instructing. So much that I've won instructor of the year 2 of the 4 years it's been available to me at my new club.

I know it's been said repeatedly, but just because you're a good student or have exceptional skill, that does not necessarily mean that will translate into teaching. Some of the best coaches across different sports were just mediocre athletes themselves.

 

[terryl965]

Well I will be the one to dis-agree here, I would never ever go to a school that had a blue belt teaching as the main instructor even for a class. There is something to be said for experience withen the art. At the same time I believe we can all learn something from everyone.

To me an experience martial artist that is a bad teacher is better than a good teacher that does not know the material.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Carl, you beat me too it! Thanks for starting this thread.. .

On the other hand, most other fields will require either a four year degree or a masters degree for a teaching position, and will probably want experience on top of that. A school teacher is required to be a student for thirteen years, plus go to college as a student for an additional four to six years, before being able to be an assistant teacher for a period of time (I'm pretty sure that you aren't handed your own classroom right out of college).

A high school PE teacher, at least in my area, will need at least a four year degree in PE. Again, this is after having been a student in school system for thirteen years plus four years plus of college.

Put in that perspective, less than four years seems rather brief. I suspect that the four year comment is based on many schools being four years to black belt. In those that are not four years to black belt, four years puts you half way between second and third dan.

By contrast, in Japanese kendo, you are not considered an instructor until about fourth dan. The equivalent to sabeom is usually higher than that. Yes, there are kendo clubs with second and third dans instructing, but these instructors have a sensei of fourth dan or higher who most likely is visiting the club periodically (much like the scenario with your father). But in Japanese kendo, you are usually looking at four years to black belt, and first kyu and higher grades require testing before a panel of judges from outside the school, so no dojo-dans.

In taekwondo, the average seems to be two years, and the ATA seems to follow suit. Chances are, an ATA instructor in ATA Krav Maga or stick fighting has much less time in the add on than they do in Songahm taekwondo.

Auxilliary, Balrog, or anyone else ATA, at what rank is a Songahm practitioner considered eligible to instruct?

And with the add ons, am I accurate in the notion that these are certifications picked up through seminars or substantially shorter periods of training time than the core art?

Daniel

There are a couple of ways to look at this. One is the way that Daniel has described; elementary school, middle/high school, undergraduate collegiate degree ~14-16 years of experience. With the martial arts history in the U.S. being atleast 50 years old now, that is a luxury most of us have, since martial arts has spread throughout most of the country at this point. I have 25 years experience now, so I fit that criteria. Also, my sahbumnim fit that criteria when I started training under him 25 years ago. However, I could see how many people would never had begun training in martial arts when they did if this was an enforced standard. How many clubs/schools sprung up when someone moved due to work, and there were no clubs/schools in the place that they moved to? How many of these people did not have 14-16 years of training?

The flip side of this coin is how watered down have these systems/clubs/schools become due to this lack of experience and training.

If we think about it from a "coaching" perspective rather than a "teaching" perspective, some high school coaches at smaller schools may have only played the sport in high school, never having competed on the collegiate level, so they may only have 4-6 years of experience in the sport; less than half of what it would require to be a "teacher."

I am not suggesting that any of this is right or wrong, but merely looking for some conversation on the topic.. .

 

[SahBumNimRush]

I think a distinction between material levels is important as well. Could a colored belt teach a beginner the rudiments of stances and striking to a satisfactory level? I think so. Would I want the same colored belt running a multiple attacker drill? Probably not.

That is really the meat and potatoes of what I'm getting at. Circumstances may arise, where this is a necessity if the club/school is to continue to operate. Should they close altogether because there isn't someone with the "required" experience? A colored belt could teach the material that he/she knows, which is quite different than teaching something that is beyond their individual knowledge and skill set. Would this set back the students at the school? Maybe, but is something better than nothing?

Again, I don't think this is really an issue these days, since most cities/towns/communities have something of a martial arts community. However, 20-30 years ago I could see how this could've been a common dilemma.. .

Again this poses the question that if this is justified, how much did this add to the "watering down" of the arts in the U.S.?

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Well I will be the one to dis-agree here, I would never ever go to a school that had a blue belt teaching as the main instructor even for a class. There is something to be said for experience withen the art. At the same time I believe we can all learn something from everyone.

To me an experience martial artist that is a bad teacher is better than a good teacher that does not know the material.

If the choice was between 3 schools with black belt instructors and a school with a colored belt instructor, then I agree it would be a no brainer.. . Would you have the same opinion if when you started there was only one available school in your area, and the instructor was not yet a black belt? Again, I'm not looking for any particular answer, other than honest opinions.. .

 

[terryl965]

If the choice was between 3 schools with black belt instructors and a school with a colored belt instructor, then I agree it would be a no brainer.. . Would you have the same opinion if when you started there was only one available school in your area, and the instructor was not yet a black belt? Again, I'm not looking for any particular answer, other than honest opinions.. .

Simply put I would drive two hours to a Black belt that could teach me the entire curriculum. Not saying anything wrong with people ideals, but for me I do not want to go to a Unniversity that has a Instructor or professor that is 21 and just got a teaching credintial. Experience and age has alot to do with certain things in my life. Now with that being said if I walk into a school that had a 17 year old that was a BB and he knew the material and could teach it than that would also be a place I would go. If it had value than why not I do not see value in a 17 year old orange belt. Sorry just my opinion...

 

[dancingalone]

Again this poses the question that if this is justified, how much did this add to the "watering down" of the arts in the U.S.?

Good question. What do we mean by 'watered down'? Are we assuming for argument's sake that TKD as studied and taught in the US is different or lesser than that taught elsewhere? If that is the contention, I don't believe that is the case, so the issue of a colored grade teaching in earlier times in the US never is a factor in terms of present day quality or rigor. If anyone disagrees, I'd be interested in your reasoning.

On the other hand if watered down means that the rank and file students today do not practice as much or as intensely as people did during the fifties, sixties, and seventies, I would not argue the point. MA is a much more mainstream activity now, and this means an inevitable settling of standards to the lowest common denominator, which usually means hobbyist students that are also frequently children.

 

[dancingalone]

If the choice was between 3 schools with black belt instructors and a school with a colored belt instructor, then I agree it would be a no brainer.. . Would you have the same opinion if when you started there was only one available school in your area, and the instructor was not yet a black belt? Again, I'm not looking for any particular answer, other than honest opinions.. .

I think black belt rank is way too arbitrary a standard to pick solely as the basis of choosing a teacher.

Would I rather learn from a 17 year old black belt who has studied commercial TKD or would I pick the 40 year old ex-Marine brown belt who was an amateur boxer too, assuming both are of good character and have the ability to impart information efficiently? There's no contest in my mind.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Good question. What do we mean by 'watered down'? Are we assuming for argument's sake that TKD as studied and taught in the US is different or lesser than that taught elsewhere? If that is the contention, I don't believe that is the case, so the issue of a colored grade teaching in earlier times in the US never is a factor in terms of present day quality or rigor. If anyone disagrees, I'd be interested in your reasoning.

On the other hand if watered down means that the rank and file students today do not practice as much or as intensely as people did during the fifties, sixties, and seventies, I would not argue the point. MA is a much more mainstream activity now, and this means an inevitable settling of standards to the lowest common denominator, which usually means hobbyist students that are also frequently children.

By watered down I am more referring to the curriculum and knowledge base, which I don't believe is something confined to the U.S. I also don't necessarily believe it is confined to lack of time in training. If certain techniques were never taught to certain students before they went out on their own, then what the next generation learns is "watered down" from the previous generation.

This is a topic that is broader than the OP, but I wonder if what we are talking about in the OP has added it this.. .

 

[dancingalone]

By watered down I am more referring to the curriculum and knowledge base, which I don't believe is something confined to the U.S. I also don't necessarily believe it is confined to lack of time in training. If certain techniques were never taught to certain students before they went out on their own, then what the next generation learns is "watered down" from the previous generation.

This is a topic that is broader than the OP, but I wonder if what we are talking about in the OP has added it this.. .

I hope I am not going off topic, but I really don't think TKD has been watered down in terms of loss of knowledge... as long as we start with post-Kwan era TKD as the starting point. If anything, knowledge has been added, such as the creation of the jumping and spinning kicks, the evolution of the Olympic sport, the constant cross-breeding/or influence with/from hapkido, Krav Maga, MMA, karate bunkai, etc.

If we are willing to go back and look at the kwan era, then an argument could be made that certain techniques from judo should be in much more common within TKD than they are. But even then, this loss of knowledge has much less to do with colored belts teaching than it does with people like General Choi choosing to emphasize different things when they were codifying taekwondo.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

I think black belt rank is way too arbitrary a standard to pick solely as the basis of choosing a teacher.

Would I rather learn from a 17 year old black belt who has studied commercial TKD or would I pick the 40 year old ex-Marine brown belt who was an amateur boxer too, assuming both are of good character and have the ability to impart information efficiently? There's no contest in my mind.

This is much of what I am getting at.. . Time in rank/arts, doesn't necessarily translate into being better. However, the coveted black belt is a perceived value/benchmark of knowledge to the lay person, so it is inherently more marketable to the public.

I know an individual in my town that have THREE 10th degree black belts (albeit self-proclaimed), members of karate and black belt hall of fames (which you pay to get into), who's who of martial arts (again you pay for getting your name in), and 30+ years of experience. I would pit his "knowledge," skills, and teaching ability against one of my 1st or 2nd dans with only 4-6 years of experience any day. Again it is perceived value to the public, and the "10th degree" runs a successful commercial school. However, I would take my traditional training over his "mail order mastery" any day.. .

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Simply put I would drive two hours to a Black belt that could teach me the entire curriculum. Not saying anything wrong with people ideals, but for me I do not want to go to a Unniversity that has a Instructor or professor that is 21 and just got a teaching credintial. Experience and age has alot to do with certain things in my life. Now with that being said if I walk into a school that had a 17 year old that was a BB and he knew the material and could teach it than that would also be a place I would go. If it had value than why not I do not see value in a 17 year old orange belt. Sorry just my opinion...

But if you were starting out, then a colored belt could conceivably teach you the entire curriculum of your respective rank. Further, what in your experience is the average knowledge base of a colored belt holder of 2-3 years experience lacking that a black belt of 3-4 years experience holds when it comes to teaching a white belt?

Again, I respect your statement and I do not necessarily disagree with it. Just curious about your position/opinions.. .

 

[SahBumNimRush]

I hope I am not going off topic, but I really don't think TKD has been watered down in terms of loss of knowledge... as long as we start with post-Kwan era TKD as the starting point. If anything, knowledge has been added, such as the creation of the jumping and spinning kicks, the evolution of the Olympic sport, the constant cross-breeding/or influence with/from hapkido, Krav Maga, MMA, karate bunkai, etc.

If we are willing to go back and look at the kwan era, then an argument could be made that certain techniques from judo should be in much more common within TKD than they are. But even then, this loss of knowledge has much less to do with colored belts teaching than it does with people like General Choi choosing to emphasize different things when they were codifying taekwondo.

I am referring to specific techniques, and I can only speak from my perspective which is from the "kwan era TKD." I know there are techniques that my sahbumnim has told me about that our KJN has "inflicted" on him, but never taught, and there are other techniques that he has taught my sahbumnim that he has not taught anyone else. This could be an exception to the rule, maybe this doesn't happen outside of my association. They are more "SD" techs than anything else, and they possibly came from things he learned in the ROK army rather than from his TKD instructor. For example the hand shake thumb lock is something that, to my knowledge, he has only taught my sahbumnim, and my sahbumnim has only taught less than a handful of instructors. So the lineage of people that has never learned or seen the technique, it will be lost.

Modern TKD, I agree has evolved and added much more rather than losing.. . The KKW curriculum fosters an open book type of curriculum, where nothing is hidden. However, I believe it to be lacking in some of the SD techs that the "kwan era" may have possessed. I may be way off base on this, as it is only my speculation since it is way before my time.

 

[terryl965]

But if you were starting out, then a colored belt could conceivably teach you the entire curriculum of your respective rank. Further, what in your experience is the average knowledge base of a colored belt holder of 2-3 years experience lacking that a black belt of 3-4 years experience holds when it comes to teaching a white belt?

Again, I respect your statement and I do not necessarily disagree with it. Just curious about your position/opinions.. .

This is a fair question so let me start off with this, I learn from a six year old but that does not mean I would train under one. What I believe would be lacking is the complete understanding of the entire system, so for me to try and learn from a color belt would just not work for me. Not saying it would not for somebody else, I see a mature BB as a starting point for my question of what if's???? I do not believe a true color belt could answer those question as they become available during training. I would underrstand that most BB today probaly could not answer alot of question I would ask but than again I have been doing this a long long time and have seen very little coming down the pipeline as what I would consider what a BB should be, so many have mad skill but does not have the maturity or intrigrity I would want to be associated with.

Like I said we all can learn from every single person if we choice too, the problem is we as a society hold to much into rank and that includes me at times. None of us are perfect except in our minds and even then we second guess and wonder way to much. At the point I am at now I see tremendous value in a older wiser man or woman then me, the core of my art TKD has not been up to the standerds I learned over the last thirty years and even some of the oldest GM's I know are not the same in that matter. One thing for sure we Americans love the fact of being told we are great and superior than everybody else even if we are not.:asian: Sorry a little off topic probaly but I hope my point was in there somewhere.

 

[dancingalone]

I am referring to specific techniques, and I can only speak from my perspective which is from the "kwan era TKD." I know there are techniques that my sahbumnim has told me about that our KJN has "inflicted" on him, but never taught, and there are other techniques that he has taught my sahbumnim that he has not taught anyone else. This could be an exception to the rule, maybe this doesn't happen outside of my association. They are more "SD" techs than anything else, and they possibly came from things he learned in the ROK army rather than from his TKD instructor. For example the hand shake thumb lock is something that, to my knowledge, he has only taught my sahbumnim, and my sahbumnim has only taught less than a handful of instructors. So the lineage of people that has never learned or seen the technique, it will be lost.

Modern TKD, I agree has evolved and added much more rather than losing.. . The KKW curriculum fosters an open book type of curriculum, where nothing is hidden. However, I believe it to be lacking in some of the SD techs that the "kwan era" may have possessed. I may be way off base on this, as it is only my speculation since it is way before my time.

That is interesting. Why don't you ask your KJN to teach these missing bits (might be a lot, LOL)?

Depending on whom our kwan era link respectively is, we might be watered down a lot, a little, or not at all. Many Koreans from that time also studied judo or what became hapkido. I bet your GM had a decent amount of hapkido training at the very least if he knew finger locks. Finger locks aren't usually taught in say aikido, until you've reached black belt rank.

The majority of Koreans I would venture to say studied Japanese karate and would have learned body hardening techniques from there but probably little to no bunkai. We discussed the body conditioning aspect before here - most TKDists are familiar with the methods but do not really actively train them. And there's the kwon bup oddity out there from Yoon Byung In's line. Those forms are still passed down, but I don't know if the meaning and usages have been.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

This is a fair question so let me start off with this, I learn from a six year old but that does not mean I would train under one. What I believe would be lacking is the complete understanding of the entire system, so for me to try and learn from a color belt would just not work for me. Not saying it would not for somebody else, I see a mature BB as a starting point for my question of what if's???? I do not believe a true color belt could answer those question as they become available during training. I would underrstand that most BB today probaly could not answer alot of question I would ask but than again I have been doing this a long long time and have seen very little coming down the pipeline as what I would consider what a BB should be, so many have mad skill but does not have the maturity or intrigrity I would want to be associated with.

Like I said we all can learn from every single person if we choice too, the problem is we as a society hold to much into rank and that includes me at times. None of us are perfect except in our minds and even then we second guess and wonder way to much. At the point I am at now I see tremendous value in a older wiser man or woman then me, the core of my art TKD has not been up to the standerds I learned over the last thirty years and even some of the oldest GM's I know are not the same in that matter. One thing for sure we Americans love the fact of being told we are great and superior than everybody else even if we are not.:asian: Sorry a little off topic probaly but I hope my point was in there somewhere.

I completely see where you are coming from, and I agree with the fountain of knowledge when it comes to questions being asked. However, if we assume that the colored belt is not in a static rank position, but rather he is earning rank on the same track that you are, then he would be gaining this knowledge while still imparting knowledge to you. So let's say he would be a black belt before you get 1/2 way through your colored belt curriculum.

I am not arguing for this, or against your statement. I am more interested in what it truly means to have a black belt these days in 3-4 years, and how important it is to merely have a BB to be able to teach.

I know that in some KMA orgs, you are expected to have your own school at 4th dan, and not before then. In that scenario, then I would expect there to be a great deal of difference between that school owner and a colored belt.

I am certainly not attempting to belittle rank or the value of a black belt. I'm just curious what everybody thinks.. .

 

[chrispillertkd]

Cross posted from the original thread:

Originally Posted by Daniel Sullivan
Put in that perspective, less than four years seems rather brief. I suspect that the four year comment is based on many schools being four years to black belt. In those that are not four years to black belt, four years puts you half way between second and third dan.

By contrast, in Japanese kendo, you are not considered an instructor until about fourth dan. The equivalent to sabeom is usually higher than that. Yes, there are kendo clubs with second and third dans instructing, but these instructors have a sensei of fourth dan or higher who most likely is visiting the club periodically (much like the scenario with your father). But in Japanese kendo, you are usually looking at four years to black belt, and first kyu and higher grades require testing before a panel of judges from outside the school, so no dojo-dans.

In taekwondo, the average seems to be two years, and the ATA seems to follow suit. Chances are, an ATA instructor in ATA Krav Maga or stick fighting has much less time in the add on than they do in Songahm taekwondo.

Hmm, I'm not sure what you're using to qualify your statement of "In taekwondo the average seems to be two years..." but that is decidedly not the experience I have. 3 to 4 years to I dan is common from what I have seen.

Like your statement regarding kendo, you're not considered an instructor until IV dan. You can end up teaching at a lesser rank but you can't actually be certified as an International Instructor until IV dan and that is required to rank students with the ITF. The bb's I have seen that run their own schools have either been 1) under a higher ranking instructor, or 2) at least having a relationship with the head of the national organization they belong to which is, if not strictly student-instructor, one where the senior is seen as a mentor to the junior.

Using the above time to I dan as a guide that means most people will reach IV dan after around 10 years of continuous training, sometimes (usually?) more.

Pax,

Chris

​