‘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!

 

[HighKick]

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.

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.

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!

In part, your latter comments have very little to do with one another. Building a 'huge' association has little to do with training 4-5 people at the park. Even to the extent of gaining the reputation required to build an association. Yes, you have to start (somewhere), but there is So much more to it than training a few guys at the park.
I think you missed one of @O'Malley 's key comments. He mentioned having additional classes for advanced/exceptional students. We do this but also set a minimum number of required regular class attendance. This is a great natural motivator for all students and just makes classes flow better.

There is always going to be a mix of people in class that can be sorted into three main groups:

1. Casual attenders - those who train for fitness but are not interested in competition or (sometimes) hard sparring.
2. Mentally driven but less physically capable people - The people who will jump off a cliff if they think it will make them better. Great to have in class for the energy level but will most likely never be an exceptionally talented physical specimen. That does NOT mean they can't be a fantastic black belt. There are many intangibles.
3. People with God given talent and/or exceptional physical specimens who listen and learn. Fantastic to have and usually burn bright but usually do not hang around for a long time, as in 5+ years.

All three need to train together to keep a well-rounded mindset (the DO) alive and well in classes.

 

[wab25]

Some of us train simply for the sake of training. Sure, there are lots of things we need to improve.... but we keep trying to improve those things... only to find a new list of things to improve.... I don't want a high rank or title... I just want to train and improve a little each day. Don't promote me, don't give me a title.... but let me come a train.

I find that many times, when you correct the clumsy newbie in a technique.... that advice is actually really good for everyone, at all levels. No matter how good you are at this part of the technique... it can always be done better. Maybe you need to help the different levels out... the beginners need to get the basic mechanical motions, the intermediate need to refine those movements and the advanced need to internalize those movements.... now everyone is working on the same thing, but each level has their own unique focus... everyone should improve.

I have met and trained with many people who are masters and have learned the art and man are they good at it and they definitely let you know it... and I have always been left underwhelmed. The people I have trained with who I and most other people consider masters, have always felt like they were still trying to learn their art. They were still studying it and had a long list of things that they needed to improve on. Their list may be different than mine and they may be able to help me with many of the items on my list.... but they still had their own list... and every once in a while, I may be able to help them tick a box on theirs....

Personally, when a dedicated student fails to improve, I consider that a failure of the instructor. Anyone can take a gifted student and make him good.... But it takes a really good teacher to take someone average or below average and make them good. But, if you are only able to teach the gifted.... do what you need to....

 

[JowGaWolf]

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 ?

I train Jow Ga according to the student's goal. I do not force them to learn applications. All student's I've trained received the following:

1. Form
2. Application Knowlege

Those who wanted to learn how to fight with Jow Ga Techniques would get this.
1. Form
2. Application Knowledge
3. Application Understanding
4. Sparring using the technique

#3 and #4 require sparring but not everyone wants to do that. Trying to force this on people is a waste of my time. It's like trying to train a cat to bark.

 

[O'Malley]

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.

All beginners start ignorant and many don't stick around, regardless of activity. It sounds like you added a beginner class, under a different name.

And FWIW, I know some kendo and koryu folks who'd call all iaido practitioners "talentless anime samurai wannabe" because they typically never fight, so as regards assessing skill or "pecking order" your mileage may vary.

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.

You will always have differences in level, even if you only stick to talented students. I'd move my talented child to the most advanced class we can access, and perhaps let him participate in extra stuff like the Math Olympics. I wouldn't ask the teacher to stop caring about the other kids.

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

If the three "regulars" are incapable of showing the basics to some of the beginners (while you walk around and correct everyone) then they're not much better than beginners themselves.

 

[Hot Lunch]

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.

Have you ever been on the receiving end of something similar when starting a new job? I have. And this isn't cool at all. And, more often then not, its the jaded people who are envious of the new beginner's optimism that are likely to try to break that optimism.

 

[jks9199]

Rather by definition, most people aren't going to be anything but average. That's true in martial arts, as true as it is in music, or soccer, or... what have you.

Does that mean that the presence of the "mere average" in class is a waste or detriment? Not really, not in my opinion. Whether commercial or club -- they help keep the doors open. Many, especially in a club setting, provide a lot of essential services to keep the doors open and running. One may lend his accounting expertise, another invites all her friends and get a few that stick and keep the club growing.

Nor do they subtract from the training for the students at the top end of the curve... The lessons can be presented and shared in such away that each student can gain what they're able; that's how my teacher taught, and it's how I strive to teach. As necessary and appropriate, senior students can be pulled aside or extra coaching be provided.

It can get frustrating for more dedicated students to have the dabblers pop in, disrupt class for a few weeks/months until their newest interest pops up or the nature of the material and teaching disillusions them. But, with a more positive mindset, it can be an opportunity to revisit and refocus on fundamentals that can slip off without that periodic review.

Another point... I was part of a class that closed itself to new members for awhile; while we got a lot of good material, stuff I'm still working on... it also killed the growth of the class. No new blood, and you start losing older members as their lives move on... and nobody replaces them.

I also prefer working with students who work hard rather than the very talented. So many of the very talented simply give up when they start to struggle...

Finally... y'know... pretty much by that same definition... most teachers/coaches are merely average, too... and will reach a point where that truly dedicated student has to be sent on to find more...

And, one more thing... Isn't it a little arrogant to assume that YOU aren't limiting another more serious or talented student?