Teaching ability vs. Technical abilty

[bluekey88]

I see it this way, natural talent (being gifted) makes picking up a skill easy. I've see it time and again with young, hotshot guys in sports, MA, etc. They just pick up the skills with little or no effort. Based on the fact that they look great doing it, people assume they really KNOW what they are doing. Some may...in my expereince, many do not (without some extra help).

Then, there are the rest of us. We struggle. The skills do not come naturally. We have to break things down, practice over and over...it's very frustrating...AND, no matter how hard we work, it is rare for us to look like the gifted ones amongst us.

Generally, the guys/gals who struggle tend to make better teachers. I feel this si so because of the struggle. They've had to really delve into the nitty gritty of what they do to get to where they are. They are familiar with the mistakes. They KNOW how to correct them. They can see the same in others. The person with the natural gift has not had to struggle. He/she avoided many of the pitfalls through their gift. They've never really ahd to think about what they do...so it becomes very difficult to transmit that knowledge to others...they've just done it, no real thinking or struggle necessary.

NOW, if the gifted athlete has some penchant for teaching and takes the time to delve into the nuances of what they do. If they enagge in the struggle to really learn how they do what come naturally, then oyu get the best of both worlds.

Peace,
Erik

 

[Grenadier]

It is important to have at least a decent measure of technical ability at one time of another. Sometimes, experience, and being able to do a particular technique, can be the best teacher, and for someone to teach another how to do that technique, it may be extremely difficult to do so if he has not at least performed it in the past.

We're all getting older and older, as we type these forum messages. This is a relatively irreversible process, and as we get old, our physical abilities decrease, once we've hit our peaks. Sadly to say, I think many of us have already passed that peak of physical condition.

However, the mental abilities stay sharp, and there's no reason (other than brain damaging circumstances) why someone can't improve on that aspect. The teaching aspect is, of course, more mental than physical, and even after the body has atrophied, can continue to get better.


Just as an example:

Let's put it this way: I know a good number of 60+ year old instructors who can certainly teach their students how to perform advanced techniques, even if they themselves might not be able to do so. While these guys may not be able to perform certain kata that requires a certain type of physical ability anymore, such as the 540 degree jumping, spinning, crescent kick + back kick combination in kata Unsu, they don't have any problems teaching their younger students how to perform such a feat.

Even if those guys are keeping their feet in the ground, instead of making that jump + spin + double kick, they can still teach the foundation of the technique, and then let the student's natural abilities take over from there.

However, if that particular teacher never did perform kata Unsu at one time or another, it may be very difficult for him to explain to his budding young student how to perform such a technique, no matter how talented the student may be. It's difficult to build something without at least having the foundation in place, after all.

 

[kwaichang]

Are you saying some of us are over the hill? What hill, there was a hill, I didn't see any hill; oh you mean that mountain.

 

[kidswarrior]

I'll just add an ancient example--it's from my youth.

My boxing trainer was mid-40s when I was mid-teens, and he had coke bottle glasses, a huge belly, and was always chewing on a stogie (thank God he never lit it). But he'd been a top 10 contender middleweight 20 years before. So, while he would have trouble just going one round in the ring, he could probably walk into most waterfront bars (where our gym was) and wipe out about half the 'tough guys' there--and that was just with his left

So while he couldn't 'compete' in a rules duel, I have no doubt he could fight. Oh, and he was a great teacher. I owe him a lot.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Hee Il Cho wrote about how he laughed at old grand masters who couldn't do super jump kicks anymore. He said later, as he grew older, well he found he couldn't do so much of that any more either.

I'm not expecting super gymnastics from my instructor. BUT, I do expect good technique and ability (within reason) for what they teach.

Deaf

 

[MBuzzy]

Hee Il Cho wrote about how he laughed at old grand masters who couldn't do super jump kicks anymore. He said later, as he grew older, well he found he couldn't do so much of that any more either.

I'm not expecting super gymnastics from my instructor. BUT, I do expect good technique and ability (within reason) for what they teach.

Deaf

Agreed - In fact, I expect that my instructor has some technical ability. At least better than the majority of the students. Not the jump spin kicks, but just general technique, crisp movements, good knowledge of the curriculum, etc. I say these as personal preferences for an instructor.

But I think that the major question here is whether it is POSSIBLE to teach without technical ability and moreover, whether it is possible to be a GOOD instructor withouth the technical side. There are some great examples here and excellent points about age, ability, etc. But that doesn't account for someone just being a great teacher. Very good at explaining things, putting things in the audience's terms, relating to students, etc. It doesn't take a master to do that. I've known white belts that can teach OTHER white belts how to do something better than most Dans can.

I think of it this way....Someone with a doctorate in physics, specializing in moveable bodies, reactions, and dynamic motion SHOULD be an expert at pool. If that person is a good teacher, they could easily train a pool player to be an expert with little problem. The game is nothing more than physics and someone with the appropriate level of knowledge will understand all aspects of the motion and behavior of the balls. But it does not follow that the physics expert will even be a DECENT pool player. It takes fine motor skills, very good muscle control and years of practice to play well. But that physics doctor could examine tapes, watch people playing, comment and make tips on how to hit the ball in what way, at what angles etc....all that is required is that ability to relate it to the student.

I can see MA in the same context. It is body mechanics and remembering combinations of movements at its base - to teach. But to learn and be GOOD, it takes athletic ability, muslce control, and certain instincts and talents that we can't codify. You don't need those instincts or talents to tell people about what they should be doing.

It just helps a lot.....

 

[terryl965]

I look at over all knowledge of the techs. being tought, remember when some one really teaches SD how many of these instructor have actually ever used any of these techs outside the school. The percentage is probaly real low. So it really depends on how well they can teach and conveye what they are teaching.

 

[kwaichang]

Again: linquistic competency is also necessary to be able to explain all of the technical aspects. Many cannot express this verbally and must rely on demonstration, which helps but takes longer for most students to absorb as they must watch repeatedly to see all the nuances; and not all will be seen for every technique.

 

[Nomad]

I agree with this pretty much wholeheartedly. I think often those who struggled with a technique can make better teachers because they've had to break it down already to learn it themselves.

Sometimes the most gifted among us just can't understand why something they're trying to show us isn't as "easy" for us as it was for them, and are unable to articulate the technique because they never had to analyze it in detail themselves... for them, it just happened.

 

[AJPerry]

I think Nomad has nailed the main point.

I find I can best explain techniques that I first struggled with and then figured out how to do correctly. If the technique clicked for me straigt away then I didn't think too much about how I was doing it and hence had trouble explaining to others what they were ding wrong. if I had been making mistakes and fixed them then I knew where to look for the other persons weakness in a technique when teaching it.

The only other thing that worries me is people that can show great techniques in the air but can not do it on a live target. Techniques change dramatically when you have the resistance of another body as your target.

If people are trying to learn to defend themselves then they need to find an instructor that lets them hit and be hit during training. Learning to hit, kick or grapple without real resistance is like learning to water ski on dry land and hope it works if you ever get thrown in the deep end.

Cheers
AJ
www.martialgames4kids.com

 

[punisher73]

As a student I think it is what YOU PREFER. If you are a talented visual learner you can learn a great deal watching someone that is very technically gifted even if they can't explain it.

Many more of us would get more out of watching an average person do the technique and then through our OWN PRACTICE start to refine and then have questions that can be answered by a knowledgable instructor.

I think all of us would agree that we would want the best of both worlds though.

 

[snoack]

Learning to teach is my next hurdle. Starting in the fall I'm going to try to devote more time to it, and it certainly isn't easy.

One of the things I need to do is spend more time with the beginners/kids, that's where my greatest development will come into play. I can take one of the adult or intermediate/lower advanced students and work with them very easily and quickly to correct a flaw in their technique, but teaching it as a learned value is very different.

wish me luck...

 

[Bodhisattva]

We MA folks are really fond of our discussing (endlessly) whether rank, technical ability, lineage or any list of other things make a good instructor. I feel like I need to weigh in on this & give my thoughts based on my years of observation.

I've come to believe that teaching ability has very little to do with whether or not one has technical ability in MA. Experience does, however, play a huge part in one's ability to teach MA, but technical skill does not. What I mean is, just because someone can perform techniques well, does not mean they are my first choice to teach.

I've trained under a man who was a skilled kickboxer. He retired & then trained other fighters. By the time I met him he could barely walk due to a brain tumor. Yet he could explain the technical aspects of his Art in great detail without needing to demonstrate. Also, Master Schmidt of Combat Hapkido fame teaches from a wheel chair. I'm sure his his ability to teach a side kick is probably pretty good after all these years.

I've seen 20 year old athletic brown belts stumble over how to explain a side kick (or correct one in another person) & 45 year old un-athletic, overweight soccer mom green belts teach an entire room of eager kids a belt form in an hour.

There are many great teachers out there who are also great technicians (Wallace, Inosanto, just to name two). But there are many other folks in many a training hall who can share information & enthuiasm for their Art without being the finest example of skill in their Art. All that glitters is not gold: their are a few diamonds in the rough, too.

Lots of peole have technical ability but do not have teaching ability.

However, in the case of fighting, if you can't fight, you probably can't teach.