‘That’ Person

[Gyakuto]

We hear many people talking about ‘mastering’ a style by training hard and attending classes and seminars and even practising multiple arts at the same time with a view to mastery. But it struck me that, despite dedication, tireless repetition and vocalisation of the desire to be accomplished (often in the form of posts on this forum!) the majority of participants just don’t show signs of, or indeed, achieve anything but minimum competence. To add to the issue, it is not uncommon for such people to be unaware of their lack of ‘aptitude’ and continue to attend classes. In this situation, when a teacher recognises this trait in a student, they tend to gradually withdraw their attention and rarely ‘correct’ these unfortunates in order to concentrate their limited teaching resources on those they recognise as having the potential to advance.

Is this fair on these people? How do you, as a teacher, deal with them? Do you just shut up and keep taking their money as it’s ‘their problem’ or do you have sit them down and have ‘the conversation with them and recommend them to your rival’s club ?

 

[O'Malley]

Not everybody trains for the same reasons. Many show up to do something they enjoy without necessarily pursuing mastery, but is it wrong? And those guys pay your bills as much as the others.

 

[Gyakuto]

Not everybody trains for the same reasons. Many show up to do something they enjoy without necessarily pursuing mastery, but is it wrong? And those guys pay your bills as much as the others.

That’s true and we called them ‘sword wavers’ and they often appeared after the broadcast of the latest samurai film/series/anime. Does that mean you essentially ignore them in the class? Is it morally right to do this and yet take their money when you know they’re never going to progress? If you do give them significant attention, is that fair on the students that do have potential and who receive less of your expertise?

 

[O'Malley]

That’s true and we called them ‘sword wavers’ and they often appeared after the broadcast of the latest samurai film/series/anime. Does that mean you essentially ignore them in the class? Is it morally right to do this and yet take their money when you know they’re never going to progress? If you do give them significant attention, is that fair on the students that do have potential and who receive less of your expertise?

Since starting aikido, I've always been the most athletic and motivated guy in the dojo. I'm a former pro level athlete and, in addition to regular aikido training, I would often train daily (conditioning + aikido-specific stuff) and/or cross-train. I've done massive amounts of research into many styles of aikido and other martial arts and have gone abroad to train under obscure teachers because I wanted to improve. All my teachers have recognized my potential and dedication.

I've seldom trained with people at my level of fitness and knowledge, to the point where it held back my progression. There are techniques that I just couldn't get practice for because I was the only one physically able to take the ukemi (my dojo partners were too old/inexperienced). Lots of my training partners just showed up to relax and do something they enjoyed, because they didn't have the drive to become "masters".

Yet, I would never disparage them. Who am I to tell the father of a family, who's working his *** off all day, how he ought to engage with his hobby?

In the teacher's shoes, I would never hold back from teaching those people, out of respect for my role and for them, and for my love of the art. I might give more attention to the guys with potential (and for example set up an "advanced" or "competitors" class) but I would never hold back teachings. The only thing I might hold back would be a teaching authorization or instructor certificate if the person is not up to snuff.

 

[Gyakuto]

But the point is, by teaching the ‘untalented’, you’re taking away teaching time from those who might have a future in the art. That cumulative decrease in teaching time, may retard their progress and as a consequence, they give up due to the teachers egalitarian attitude. Wouldn’t it be better for the teacher to say, over a cup of tea (not too hot, just in case ) “Your dedication and effort are truly admirable but you’re clumsy, uncoordinated, you are incapable of implementing advice for more than one repetition and, quite frankly, you’re a bit ugly and spoil the aesthetic of the dojo. You’re welcome to stay and practise, but I will stop teaching you directly and concentrate on the good looking people. You might want to consider trying something that doesn’t require 1) intensive instruction 2) coordination beyond that required for breathing and keeping one’s saliva in you mouth 3) a paper bag, with eyeholes for you bulbous, misshapen head?” Something along those lines…

 

[O'Malley]

I disagree.

The "missing" teaching time would not make a substantial difference and is more than compensated by teaching the "talented" students to improve their proprioception and figure out stuff for themselves. If they are to have any future in the art, they cannot depend on being spoon-fed teachings. They should be training on their own anyway.

Moreover, teaching the lesser gifted and keeping them engaged raises the level of the whole dojo, albeit slower than one would like. This gives the talented folks better training partners to help them grow.

Again, this does not prevent one from focusing more on the students that are more motivated/gifted, or from setting up dedicated time slots for competitors or advanced students. But withholding teaching from people who trust you to teach them is a dick move IMO.

 

[Gyakuto]

I disagree.

The "missing" teaching time would not make a substantial difference

Perhaps it’s more art specific. My old Iaido class was choked by talentless anime swordscreature-wannabe beginners. The handling of a sword, the safety aspects and indeed general difficulty means you have to stand over them most of the time. It became so bad we had to organise an additional ‘feeder class’ where we taught these types exclusively and if they showed promise, allowed them to join the regular class. After years of classes of only 3-4, this system of selection has led to 12-14 regular students.

Moreover, teaching the lesser gifted and keeping them engaged raises the level of the whole dojo, albeit slower than one would like. This gives the talented folks better training partners to help them grow.

Would you want your maths-talented child taught in a class with children who do not share that ability? I doubt it because you know your talented child would receive less teaching and thus suffer.

Again, this does not prevent one from focusing more on the students that are more motivated/gifted, or from setting up dedicated time slots for competitors or advanced students. But withholding teaching from people who trust you to teach them is a dick move IMO.

If you have one poor student, perhaps but five additional poor students in a class of eight will destroy the teaching of your regulars.

Wasn’t the there a class called the ‘Sweat Hogs’ in Welcome Back, Mr Kotter? Maybe that’s what we need.

I remember, when my Karate teacher (8th Dan Hanshi) split from the main Japanese association because nepotism won over true talent and he wasn’t made the head of the school (in favour of the not-so-able founder’s son). He decided he was simply going to gather five to six of his very best students and train them alone, in Hyde Park, no less, to make them incredible practitioners. This hints at the fact he felt he was spreading himself too thin amongst the less talented students to the detriment of the good students. In fact he set up a new huge association and carried on making lots of money!