How useful are the teaching methods of some arts???

[zeeberex]

I want to agree to disagree on this point.
Sometime the SOB just deserves to live no longer

Self defense is self defense, if the lethal is the only route, it's not cowardly. That notion is just preachy crap.

 

[zeeberex]

I would call 911 and grab a baseball bat. What would you do?

in the dark, do what's nessicary, call 911.

 

[wolfeyes2323]

Sorry I thought we were on topic,
is the topic , what we teach and how useful is it ?
is this related to what we should and should not teach,
and why ?

So how do you teach Non-violence while teaching a Martial art ?
IMO
This is in teaching expressions of Martial virtues within
the context of training, and requiring them to be trained.

IMO - Okinawan karate is a set of very functionial , and potentially leathal
method. If they are understood they are as useful as you will ever
require them to be.

How do I practice virtue in Kata ?
I begin and end with courtesy, I practice non-violence as well
as violence within the same kata, we must know how to effectively
use kata movement in self defense , but , we should also practice
non violence toward our oppoent , doing no more or less then required,
maintaining discipline and controlling our emotions. There are recieving methods
with no counter strikes, there is gaining advantage but not finnishing,
and there is devastation , all must be practiced with purpose, and understanding,
and one easily becomes the other .

We should express Heart, integrity , courtesy , moral culture and
compassion , we should train hard and often so we have confidence
and not need to measure or prove ourselves.

This has a direct bearing on what we take with us from the dojo,
If I do not pracitce these virtues with my fighting methods, I do
not have a good compass for determining when it is appropriate
to use these methods within the context of the society in which
I live, This context is encompassed in the concept of Moral culture,
if I do not fully understand these concepts, I may use the methods I
have been taught to cause needless harm to my self and others,
if this is done , then how useful were these methods for me to learn ?

IMO, without, these expressions of Virtues and training of the mind as well
as body, we do not parctice a Martial Art, it may be a fighting art,
but, not all fighting arts are useful for survival outside the ring.
Okinawan karate was and remains a Martial art, I will not judge the others
based upon only the external understanding of what I see practiced.

perhaps others can offer a opinion
Romney^..^

 

[Xue Sheng]

I can think of some martial arts, such as Capoiera, that were taught a certain way to keep its practice secret, but the practices used to keep it secret (dance, music) are simply taught as part of the art, rather than the art itself being truncated or selectively suppressed in some fashion.

I find it more likely that aspects of some arts fall into disuse and are no longer widely practiced, thus when some people learn them, they may be unwilling to just show them to anyone.

I also think that the whole McDojo phenomena has greatly accelerated this for some arts; teaching for real world effectiveness requires a whole different type of training than what most McDojo customers really are prepared for. And so, parts of the art are "lost" due to widespread neglect.

Then you have the masters who want to enhance their image who either know, or allude to knowing these "lost" techniques, hint at it with fortune cookie wisdom, but won't teach it, for reasons unspecified, usually because they either really don't know it or because they know it, but don't feel that there is a demand for it.

Really, I feel that it comes down to the instructor, not the art:

Some instructors always want their students to feel that there's something more, special, deadly, a secret only imparted to a student once he or she is worthy, thus the student is kept around longer awaiting the opportunity to pick up this "final technique."

Other instructors will teach everything they know to a student and dispense with the "mystic master" thing.

Then there are others who don't know much of anything beyond the basics, but watched too much Kung Fu and strive to be seen as some sort of Master Po or Kwai Chang Cain.

So here's my own bit of fortune cookie wisdom: there are many instructors out there, but only some are right for you, so...

...Choose... but choose wisely.

Daniel

Agreed but some of that loss is due to the student’s lack of desire to put in the time and actually learn the art they have chosen to train, some want shortcuts and in the west it is fairly easy to shortcut many things in MA, declare yourself a master, and go off and open a school. In the east it might constitute a visit form the teacher in the form of a rather nasty conversation or beating but in the west it is pretty easy to get away with this. Not much an MA teacher can do about it here.

But then this, IMO, is where many of your McDojos come from as do the “mystic master” or they have “deadly secrets”

Regarding the comment that a teacher may teach a given way because they don't understand why the art was taught a given way, if he doesnt understand the art, he shouldn't teach it.

I agree wholeheartedly. Of course the teacher in question would need to understand that they do not understand.

Daniel

Agreed which can lead to they had an unqualified teacher or they did not actually take the time or put in the effort to learn what their teacher was teaching them.

One of the hardest things for me to understand in CMA was that the sifu actually DOES no better than I do what I am ready to learn. There are no secrets just information you are ready for and information you are not ready for and you need to put in the time that is all.


But then this too is not exactly the topic

"How useful are the teaching methods of some arts"

The topic itself is a rather hard one to discuss without multiple people with a lot of training in multiple arts and you would actually need a list of arts to talk about.

And the bottom-line is that they are all rather effective if you are taught by someone that truly understands the art they teach and then train them the way they are meant to be trained. If it was not effective it did not last.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Sorry I thought we were on topic,
is the topic , what we teach and how useful is it ?
is this related to what we should and should not teach,
and why ?

No, it isn't. It is regarding the teaching of an art in such a way as to hide certain aspects from the general public, and the continuance of such a practice when it there is no longer a reason to hide said aspects. Here is the OP:

If an art form was originally taught a certain way in order to hide certain aspects of that art from the general public and there is no longer a reason to hide such things are they still taught this way for traditions sake??

Rather than use specific examples I'd like to hear peoples thoughts on this in general without any direction from me.

Cheers
Sam:asian:

With regards to this:

So how do you teach Non-violence while teaching a Martial art ?
IMO
This is in teaching expressions of Martial virtues within
the context of training, and requiring them to be trained.

A good subject for discussion, but nothing to do with the OP. All of your posts have been regarding this subject of violence/nonviolence in martial arts.

It is a topic worth discussing, which is why I suggested that you start a separate thread rather than continuing to side track this one.

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

But then this too is not exactly the topic

"How useful are the teaching methods of some arts"

One of the problems I think this thread is having is that the OP doesn't match the title of the thread.

The OP talks about the hiding of certain, unspecified aspects of unspecified martial arts from the general public and why said unspecified arts are still taught in this way when the reasons for hiding such aspects no longer exists.

Very different from actual teaching methods, which are more a reflection of the instructor than of a particular martial art.

Daniel

 

[Xue Sheng]

One of the problems I think this thread is having is that the OP doesn't match the title of the thread.

The OP talks about the hiding of certain, unspecified aspects of unspecified martial arts from the general public and why said unspecified arts are still taught in this way when the reasons for hiding such aspects no longer exists.

Very different from actual teaching methods, which are more a reflection of the instructor than of a particular martial art.

Daniel

OK then along those lines many CMA styles are said to have secrets when they do not, it is these days in part, pretty much what I stated previously. The Sifu knows more as to what you are ready to train and the student does not want to wait. Or they Sifu is not trained properly himself and he is talking about all the secrets he knows to impress and gain students and teach bad MA and they teach 10 students and they teach 10 students and so on and so on.

Another thing to consider in CMA is that many of the form names have stories behind them that most in the west do not know but many in China know rather well just from that name and knowing that clears up a lot.

Also back in the old days many a Sifu was not all that willing to take on a student they did not trust and part of that was if that student went off and used what was taught to him to cause trouble in China that could come back to haunt the Sifu based on what the student had done. It could get the Sifu and his family killed actually if the offense was bad enough.

And lastly you can look to the Wing Chun of Ip Man. He was quite talented as were/are his students but he did not teach any one student all that he knew based on his assessment of that student. He knew what would work best for them so that is what he taught them. Back to the Sifu (a good sifu) knows more as to what you are ready to train

Any of these can lead to parts of an art disappearing or a change in method

 

[SensibleManiac]

What I can say is this,
"When there is an attempt to organize the truth it ceases to be the truth."
This is the problem I have with most martial arts.
Don't misunderstand me, I love the martial arts, I have a problem with organization.
As an instructor, I always try to guide the student to understand the truth themselves. When they rely on me for it, I've failed them.
Again I love the martial arts, what is more important? Myself imparting a "way" or the students development and understanding?

It's hard to "know" how people really trained a long time ago, and does it really matter?
I'm not saying we shouldn't respect those who came before us.
I'm not saying traditionalism is bad. What I am saying is, what is important to you in your training?
If it is a pursuit of truth then what is the best way to understand that truth?
And if it isn't the truth then aren't you just pursuing fantasy?

 

[Cirdan]

There are no secrets just information you are ready for and information you are not ready for and you need to put in the time that is all.

You hit the nail.

 

[wolfeyes2323]

Greetings – I would be of the opinion that there really is much Hidden in
Traditional martial Ways, and for very good reason.
Most importantly, in a civil context we should not teach the use of violence
Without also teaching the consequences of this usage.

This reason will ALWAYS EXIST and is more important then ever in modern
Society, because our culture increasingly conditions us to reactionary
violent reactions, without concern for consequence.

All recent studies indicate, that as a general population we are increasingly
Violent, this increase is a result of Training. The training methods
Of the Military have been loosed on society in general,
These methods teach pure reaction, and a detachment from consequences.
Most of society has moral checks and balances which counter act the
More popular forms of this training in Video enabled violence, but there
is a element in society which does not have these innate checks and
balances, it is a percentage of the general population
And not a ethnic group or economic class of people.

If we do not take responsibility for what we teach to whom, then
We may very well condition , a violently inclined individual ,
Without a moral compass to use extreme violence in a reactionary
Manner. If we do this, we have done society , this individual
And our selves a great disservice .

So No, I do not agree at all , that we should teach everyone and anyone
The same methods at the same time, and then allow them to judge or
Decide when and where it may be appropriate to use what has been
Taught to them.

If you do not believe that this has been a concern since Budo was
Taught in a civil setting, then I believe you are ignorant of History,
And further more that desiring or working to change this ,
Will be a death sentence for someone , as most untempered,
Extremely violent Conditioned reactions, are not justifiable
In a civil context. (so are hidden or remain untaught or trained)

Bottom line , I believe that training methods I have been
Taught are very useful, they are useful in concealing
A reality which, in most cases should not be revealed
To those who’s only need for these methods will be
In civil context.

And NO, I do not trust the average person to be able to
Decide for their selves when to use them or not , as far as
I’m concerned if I trained them I share responsibility for
their actions, both good and bad.

There is just no place in society for certain methods,
and this is why I believe that most teachers say that the
hidden does not exist, and perhaps I should begin
saying the same , it , might be less truthful ,
but , somethings are better forgotten, and this truth
might actually become a less violent reality.

Romney^..^

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Greetings – I would be of the opinion that there really is much Hidden in
Traditional martial Ways, and for very good reason.
Most importantly, in a civil context we should not teach the use of violence
Without also teaching the consequences of this usage.
No disagreement here. People need to think it through and understand that their actions do have consequences.

This reason will ALWAYS EXIST and is more important then ever in modern
Society, because our culture increasingly conditions us to reactionary
violent reactions, without concern for consequence.

Totally not true. Our society has, if anything, become less personally violent. That is why the divide between the majority of society and those who choose to commit violence is so great. Gone are the days of two men having a scuffle and having gotten it out of their systems. Gangs no longer rumble; they shoot eachother from cars.

All recent studies indicate, that as a general population we are increasingly
Violent, this increase is a result of Training. The training methods
Of the Military have been loosed on society in general,
These methods teach pure reaction, and a detachment from consequences.
Most of society has moral checks and balances which counter act the
More popular forms of this training in Video enabled violence, but there
is a element in society which does not have these innate checks and
balances, it is a percentage of the general population
And not a ethnic group or economic class of people..

So few people in society have any of these 'military methods' that you say have been 'loosed on society in general' that you can't pin violence in society on training. And incidentally, video games don't enable violence: a broken justice system sure does, though.

If we do not take responsibility for what we teach to whom, then
We may very well condition , a violently inclined individual ,
Without a moral compass to use extreme violence in a reactionary
Manner. If we do this, we have done society , this individual
And our selves a great disservice .

So No, I do not agree at all , that we should teach everyone and anyone
The same methods at the same time, and then allow them to judge or
Decide when and where it may be appropriate to use what has been
Taught to them.

If you do not believe that this has been a concern since Budo was
Taught in a civil setting, then I believe you are ignorant of History,
And further more that desiring or working to change this ,
Will be a death sentence for someone , as most untempered,
Extremely violent Conditioned reactions, are not justifiable
In a civil context. (so are hidden or remain untaught or trained)

Bottom line , I believe that training methods I have been
Taught are very useful, they are useful in concealing
A reality which, in most cases should not be revealed
To those who’s only need for these methods will be
In civil context.

And NO, I do not trust the average person to be able to
Decide for their selves when to use them or not , as far as
I’m concerned if I trained them I share responsibility for
their actions, both good and bad.

There is just no place in society for certain methods,
and this is why I believe that most teachers say that the
hidden does not exist, and perhaps I should begin
saying the same , it , might be less truthful ,
but , somethings are better forgotten, and this truth
might actually become a less violent reality.

Romney^..^

So how do you go about determining who gets taught the secret sword number 7 and who just gets the basics? If you don't trust the average person to decide when and when not to use deadly SD, are you somehow unable to teach the average person the whens and when nots?

Daniel

 

[wolfeyes2323]

The military has commissioned studies during different eras,
those pertinent to the USA, deal with the
Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam etc,
They have concluded that Modern man is much more trainable as
a killer than were those of the the 1800’s , and that each American
War since the civil war , has resulted in a Higher ratio of
active participants who kill when engaged in combat,

This increasing ratio, which began at about 50% in the Civil War
is now In the high 90’s , and this increase is directly related to
The methods used in training.
It is NOT THE PHYSICAL TRAINING, or even the weaponry that
has increased this willingness to use violence, it is CONDITIONING THE MIND,
AND UNCONSCIOUS REACTIONS that has resulted in this
increase. The methods used by the Military to do this
mental reactionary training are replicated in our
general population in the form of violent Movies,
Violent Video games, and quasi-military games like paint ball etc.

There is also a statistically provable segment of society which
does not have the same inhibitions regarding killing their fellow
man as the majority do , In the military these are your
Special forces, snipers , sappers etc, and they have always
existed, and are responsible for the majority of close range
Casualties in wars throughout history,

When you take these same individuals out of a military setting ,
Put them in a contentious civil environment , and subject them
To VIOLENT CONDITIONING (the same as proven effective
by the Military) , a stone cold killer may be produced,
undirected, loose and ticking in society.

You need look no further then recent school violence
In High Schools and Colleges to see the effects.
These young men, did not suddenly materialize and start killing
People, they were conditioned and enabled by our culture
to do what they did, and this is also verifiable , by
looking at their activities and habits, before they went on
their rampages.

Don’t take my word for this get this book and those recommended
For the most recent studies and information
http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316330116

As for how I decide who to train in particular techniques and methods , I think you
Are missing the point, There are training methods which teach us to Kill by reaction,
Unconsciously almost, as a first response , This type of training is appropriate if you train Military men or Mercenaries etc, it is not appropriate in society.

I was speaking with a friend who recently trained in Japan,
He trained in a school with a pre-meiji restoration philosophy,
They do not teach defensive skills with a weapon, a warriors
Duty is to attack, they do not teach empty hand fighting methods,
They view this as a distraction from the purpose of the warrior
Which is to fight and die for their lord ,
Contrast this the teaching of Morhei Ueshiba and Akido and I
Think perhaps you will understand me better.
It is not WHAT YOU TEACH, IT IS HOW YOU TEACH IT,
It is not the methods a student knows that make him deadly
Or a menace, it is the methods that he is conditioned to
Use without thought or concern for consequence that
May make him a killer.

Some thing are better not to teach, or condition into individuals
Unless they have a express need for this conditioning,
The average civilian does not fit this condition,
And should not be taught to react in the same way.

I was taught different levels of kata, some could
Very definitely be lethal, what do I teach and condition
my young Students to do , Control , strike to non-lethal targets,
their first responses should not be the same as a Marine in a
combat zone, to them much is hidden, to the Marine what is
hidden is conditioned.

And all of the above is directly related to HOW and WHAT
We teach to WHOM.

If we train a traditional Martial art we may still
wonder how effective our methods really are,
My answer, would be, they are as effective as
a conscientious teacher thought they needed to be.

Romney ^..^

 

[BrandonLucas]

The military has commissioned studies during different eras,
those pertinent to the USA, deal with the
Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam etc,
They have concluded that Modern man is much more trainable as
a killer than were those of the the 1800’s , and that each American
War since the civil war , has resulted in a Higher ratio of
active participants who kill when engaged in combat,

This increasing ratio, which began at about 50% in the Civil War
is now In the high 90’s , and this increase is directly related to
The methods used in training.
It is NOT THE PHYSICAL TRAINING, or even the weaponry that
has increased this willingness to use violence, it is CONDITIONING THE MIND,
AND UNCONSCIOUS REACTIONS that has resulted in this
increase. The methods used by the Military to do this
mental reactionary training are replicated in our
general population in the form of violent Movies,
Violent Video games, and quasi-military games like paint ball etc.

There is also a statistically provable segment of society which
does not have the same inhibitions regarding killing their fellow
man as the majority do , In the military these are your
Special forces, snipers , sappers etc, and they have always
existed, and are responsible for the majority of close range
Casualties in wars throughout history,

When you take these same individuals out of a military setting ,
Put them in a contentious civil environment , and subject them
To VIOLENT CONDITIONING (the same as proven effective
by the Military) , a stone cold killer may be produced,
undirected, loose and ticking in society.

You need look no further then recent school violence
In High Schools and Colleges to see the effects.
These young men, did not suddenly materialize and start killing
People, they were conditioned and enabled by our culture
to do what they did, and this is also verifiable , by
looking at their activities and habits, before they went on
their rampages.

Don’t take my word for this get this book and those recommended
For the most recent studies and information
http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316330116

As for how I decide who to train in particular techniques and methods , I think you
Are missing the point, There are training methods which teach us to Kill by reaction,
Unconsciously almost, as a first response , This type of training is appropriate if you train Military men or Mercenaries etc, it is not appropriate in society.

I was speaking with a friend who recently trained in Japan,
He trained in a school with a pre-meiji restoration philosophy,
They do not teach defensive skills with a weapon, a warriors
Duty is to attack, they do not teach empty hand fighting methods,
They view this as a distraction from the purpose of the warrior
Which is to fight and die for their lord ,
Contrast this the teaching of Morhei Ueshiba and Akido and I
Think perhaps you will understand me better.
It is not WHAT YOU TEACH, IT IS HOW YOU TEACH IT,
It is not the methods a student knows that make him deadly
Or a menace, it is the methods that he is conditioned to
Use without thought or concern for consequence that
May make him a killer.

Some thing are better not to teach, or condition into individuals
Unless they have a express need for this conditioning,
The average civilian does not fit this condition,
And should not be taught to react in the same way.

I was taught different levels of kata, some could
Very definitely be lethal, what do I teach and condition
my young Students to do , Control , strike to non-lethal targets,
their first responses should not be the same as a Marine in a
combat zone, to them much is hidden, to the Marine what is
hidden is conditioned.

And all of the above is directly related to HOW and WHAT
We teach to WHOM.

If we train a traditional Martial art we may still
wonder how effective our methods really are,
My answer, would be, they are as effective as
a conscientious teacher thought they needed to be.

Romney ^..^

I see where you're going with this, but the problem is that I believe you are actually looking at this the wrong way.

Stats and numbers are not going to provide you with the information as to how effective the art is or how good of an instructor someone was or any of those things that could lead to the answer as to why people do what they do with their knowledge of whatever art they have knowledge of.

People are different. All people. And situations are different. There are always going to be variables that are outside of human control that dictate how someone reacts to a certain situation, and no situation can realistically be recreated to provide accurate statistics.

Sure, you can say that teens now are more violent than teens back in the 1800's...but can you be certain of that? Maybe there's more documented incidents of violence, but that only proves that more people were caught being violent.

You can't go by numbers like that.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

The military has commissioned studies during different eras,
those pertinent to the USA, deal with the
Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam etc,
They have concluded that Modern man is much more trainable as
a killer than were those of the the 1800’s , and that each American
War since the civil war , has resulted in a Higher ratio of
active participants who kill when engaged in combat

More likely, military training has improved since the eighteen hundreds, and lets not forget improvements in hardware. Plus, given that the civil war had the highest death toll of American soldiers, I'm not sure that I'd agree with the outcome of that study.

Regarding the rest, my experience is that those who are violent are not necesarily greater in percentage. Also consider that we have strong influence of foreign gangs, such as MS13 that bring influences outside of mainstream media.

You'll get no arguement that mainstream media is a disease, but not because it produces violent people; rather it produces unthinking people. By and large, most people are sheep to the slaughter when called upon to defend themselves. And no amount of paintball is going to help you when you're mugged on the street.

Regarding the link, I'd prefer a link to an actual study, rather than a book I have to go out and buy.

Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Daniel

 

[wolfeyes2323]

Greetings – the studies are available online and via the library etc ,
and I will admit, they have been and continue to be
Somewhat controversial since published , starting with the Marshall report in 1947.
I am sure that every statistic is not reliable, but there seems more than enough
evidence to suggest that there is a connection between the better conditioning
And training currently used, being responsible for a increase in willingness to use violence.
It is also factual that many of the same type of training methods used by the military
Are readily available in video , I guess we all need to come to our own conclusions
And not rely on books or statistics alone, but, I do believe that I see
Enough evidence to agree with the conclusions .

If we better condition the minds of individuals to respond in a violent manner,
you are going to get more violent responses from more people .
This seems self evident .

The same can be said of learning a mostly attacking , offensive, killing art with little
Or no recourse it you fail, Win or die (learning a attacking method with a weapon,
With hardly any defensive skills and No skills if you lose the weapon) ,
( the mind set of terrorists both urban and international,
They kill and are killed, there is no going back once they start).

This is a very dangerous opponent, and as gang violence ,
And school violence , indicates,
Not the type of individual you want loose in society with their own
Leaders, and agenda for which they are willing to kill and die for.

It all comes down to training and conditioning.
Martial Arts can be trained in many ways, for specific purposes,
In a civil context, I do not believe that we should train
Students in methods that are contrary to responses appropriate
In the context in which the individuals will almost exclusively interact.

Give a dangerously trained and conditioned individual with a agenda or
a cult leader etc, and you might produce a urban terrorist ,
capable of a level of violence which is inappropriate within
our culture.

Assuming that we are capable of training and conditioning , students
to use the martial Art we teach in a spontaneous , aggressive , hyper-violent
manner without regard for consequence , the Question
really is , should we do so ?
My answer is NO.

Since I believe I could do the above to a greater degree than I do,
By teaching very aggressive potentially lethal methods , and instead
Teach them what could be termed Civil Self defense ,
Then , I must be hiding something from many of my students.

Since I am teaching civilians and not Military men, I am asserting
That some of these other methods of training and conditioning
Etc, are better off , untaught or better yet , Forgotten,
At least by those of us that teach in a civil context,
Where we will most certainly be held accountable for
All of or actions and reactions, and may even be
Held accountable or liable for what we have conditioned others
To do.

Romney^..^

 

[Cirdan]

Diluting the Arts because of fear of creating "urban terrorists" is NOT the way to go.
:BSmeter:

 

[Xue Sheng]

It all comes down to training and conditioning.
Martial Arts can be trained in many ways, for specific purposes,
In a civil context, I do not believe that we should train
Students in methods that are contrary to responses appropriate
In the context in which the individuals will almost exclusively interact.

Give a dangerously trained and conditioned individual with a agenda or
a cult leader etc, and you might produce a urban terrorist ,
capable of a level of violence which is inappropriate within
our culture.

Actually it comes down to being more careful and taking more responsibility for who you teach and not just teaching anyone that shows up and the school with cash in hand.

Assuming that we are capable of training and conditioning , students
to use the martial Art we teach in a spontaneous , aggressive , hyper-violent
manner without regard for consequence , the Question
really is , should we do so ?
My answer is NO.

Since I believe I could do the above to a greater degree than I do,
By teaching very aggressive potentially lethal methods , and instead
Teach them what could be termed Civil Self defense ,
Then , I must be hiding something from many of my students.

Since I am teaching civilians and not Military men, I am asserting
That some of these other methods of training and conditioning
Etc, are better off , untaught or better yet , Forgotten,
At least by those of us that teach in a civil context,
Where we will most certainly be held accountable for
All of or actions and reactions, and may even be
Held accountable or liable for what we have conditioned others
To do.

Romney^..^

Again, IMO, it is more to being picky about who you teach and not just teaching whomever walks through your door if this is truly your concern.

My Sanda sifu (Police/Military Sanda) teaches only those he knows and trusts. If he does not know you and you somehow found out he new Sanda and walked up to him and offered him $1000 to lean it he would refuse, he does not know you and he does not want it used for purposes other than self defense. He does nto want to train those who will use it to pick fights or commit crimes or assault others.

Diluting the Arts because of fear of creating "urban terrorists" is NOT the way to go.

Agreed

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

If we better condition the minds of individuals to respond in a violent manner,
you are going to get more violent responses from more people .
This seems self evident .

Yes, it seems self evident. But is it?

For starters, most martial arts schools in the US do not have the personel capable of teaching people to kill as they do in the military. This really is not even a concern except for some highly specialized schools.

Military training involves a lot more than just teaching killing moves. It involved indoctrination and the military has you at their disposal 24/7 to accomplish this. Not a dig at the military, mind you. Regardless, martial arts studios by and large do not have the resource or the training to do what the military does. Even an instructor with a military background does not have students at their disposal for indoctrination the way that the military does.

A good hunter knows how to use firearms to kill, but isn't a violent menace to society. Children who grow up in households that hunt learn respect and responsibility with firearms and are actually less likely to commit violent acts with a gun.

By the same token, teaching an art in its entirety to civilian students is not going to turn them into urban terrorists. I personally know enough to very easilly kill another human being without a weapon and am very capable of evicerating someone is armed with a katana. None of that has changed my outlook regarding self defense, and I have been in numerous situations over the years that could have turned violent but where all involved walked away without any blows being exchanged. If anything, having the training makes me less likely to be violent because I fully understand the consequences of my actions.

Not only has martial arts not turned me into an urban terrorist, I don't even rate a suburban commando.

Daniel

 

[wolfeyes2323]

Greetings - If you read this thread from the top, I think we have come full circle.
Let me end by asking a few questions that were asked of me,
"of all you know, how much do you think you will master ?,
of all you master how much do you think you can teach someone else ?"
Dave Rapp sensei

Romney ^..^

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

"of all you know, how much do you think you will master ?"

For starters, the term 'master' needs to be qualifed.

In answering this question, I will treat this as a level of mastery above and beyond proficiency.

Since we're on a martial arts discussion board, most all of us understand that there are plenty of proficient practitioners who can effectively practice their art both in competition and in practical application who do not considered masters. In a non-martial example, there are many great painters, but few are called, 'the masters.' Michelangelo is called a master. Georgia O'Keefe's work is nice and it is popular, and nobody would argue that she wasn't a proficient painter. But nobody is going to call her a master either. Andy Warhol was certainly a very skilled painter. Check out his Campbel's Soup painting if you've never seen any of his work. Go to art school and study "the masters" in art class and his name will not be on the list.

Now to answer the question...

With regards to martial arts that I currently study, certainly the essentials I think I will master, and a good selection of advanced techniques.

"of all you master how much do you think you can teach someone else ?"

Entirely different skill. I don't have to master something to instruct someone else how to do it. This is where the differentiation between a master and a master instructor arises.

Some people simply are lousy teachers and can't communicate anything they know to anyone else, but they're masters of their craft.

Some very good teachers are not masters of the subjects that they teach (but are proficient and conversant), yet their students go on to become award winning experts in the field that they teach.

Does it help to have mastered your subject if you intend to teach? Absolutely. Is it essential? No. Being proficient and conversant are necessary. I can be proficient as a singer and be conversant in music theory, and as long as I can translate that knowledge into a lesson that the student can digest, I don't need to be Pavorotti.

The one factor that few people touch on in discussions about masters in a martial arts studio is that the ability to teach it is an entirely separate skill. Thus a master instructor is one who has mastered the skill of teaching the art. An instructor doesn't need to be Mike Tyson. More important that they be Cus D'Amato.

Daniel