‘That’ Person

[ap Oweyn]

Can I ask how you got involved in martial arts, Gyakuto? I get that students may enter a dojo with images of anime swimming in their heads. But isn't that true of the vast majority of us, in one way or another?

I started out fueled by a ridiculous cocktail of Sho Kosugi and Daniel LaRusso myself. No shame in it. Whatever gets you through the door gets you into the room. What happens after that is a long game. And you can't know the outcome of it.

 

[drop bear]

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 ?

How are you determining competency?

 

[Gyakuto]

Can I ask how you got involved in martial arts, Gyakuto?

Minor bullying at school encouraged me to join a municipal Karate class as a 12 year old and the kung Fu TV series I watched as a child. It was £10 for ten weeks of 2hour training! I got a book out of the library called ‘Know Karate Do’ by Bryan Williams and absorbed every word. It was a really good introductory book and I recently bought a copy from ebay from nostalgic perusal!

I get that students may enter a dojo with images of anime swimming in their heads. But isn't that true of the vast majority of us, in one way or another?

I think it’s quite common for sword arts. Friend from my old club tell me that they regularly have beginners arrive for their first class with sharpened, totally white katana (which I think is an anime thing). Remember swords are illegal in the U.K., so this is very bold indeed.

I started out fueled by a ridiculous cocktail of Sho Kosugi and Daniel LaRusso myself. No shame in it.

No it isn’t. It’s your initial inspiration, which is great.

Whatever gets you through the door gets you into the room. What happens after that is a long game. And you can't know the outcome of it.

Yes that’s true, but, if like me you believe talent is made rather than inherited then be really involved in the training rather than coasting along in cool clothing, holding others back!

 

[isshinryuronin]

"The very first shot I let off after the recommencement of the
lessons was, to my mind, a brilliant success. The loose was smooth, unexpected.

The Master looked at me for a while and then said hesitantly, like one who can scarcely believe his eyes:
" Once again, please! " My second shot seemed to me evenbetter than the first.
The Master stepped up to me without a word, took the bow from my hand, and sat down on a cushion,
his back towards me. I knew what that meant."

I don't.

 

[Gyakuto]

How are you determining competency?

You don’t have to know anything about an art to recognise skill. The way a blacksmith wields her hammer, the way a water-colourist supply’s his paint, the way a driver drifts her car and the tango dancer struts his stuff. I guarantee that if you watched a good Iaidoka and a not so good Iaidoka, you would be able to tell which was the most competent performer. It’s not logical, but it’s often true.

 

[Gyakuto]

I don't.

I’m glad you said it first!

 

[JowGaWolf]

And ‘didn’t worry about’ meant what in real terms?

I would still teach the class and they would still do the class participation but they didn't attend enough to go beyond that. So, they were basically stuck with class participation. Until that person learns to do the basics correctly, there's no need for me to personally teach them anything more advanced than the basics. If I saw them do things incorrectly, I would correct them.

But because they only came to class once a month and didn't practice at home, there was a limited amount that he had to work on. He did the advanced class exercises and participated in those class activities, but that didn't make it more difficult for me. That made it more difficult for him. I can only help him with basics. In Jow Ga things don't get easier they get harder and with out the basics, it's going to be really difficult. He understood this and he still wanted to be a part of the school and I took he's membership dues and was grateful that he still wanted to be there.

I try not to burn bridges. Some of the worst students may be a schools biggest asset in other areas. You just never know how that plays out sometimes. I never made him feel like he was a waste of time.

I remember him coming to class one day and during the exercise he says in response to having difficulty with the exercises, "I need to come to class more often." The last time he came to class was because he developed high blood pressure, so he needed the exercise.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

There’s clearly a good reason I refuse to teach (except my friend because she 1) listens 2) writes stuff down for later reference 3) practises stuff at home 4) thus visibly improves each time I see her.)

Teaching was part of my day job in a university. There were those in my tutorials who did their best to learn and therefore improved. Significant numbers of others were only there to party and in the process held the keen kids back by not engaging with the material which required me to waste previous time and go over things in their one hour sessions with me. I didn’t like that and my colleagues and I referred to it as ‘lowest common denominator teacher’ and it produced barely competent students who, after some jiggery-pokery with the exam marks, left university will excellent degrees!

I offered to give the keen (and hence talented) students informal extra, high-level tutorials in the union coffee bar, in my own time (so they could freely buy me cakes and coffee if they chose too). I was told I’d have to make these sessions available to all otherwise it wasn’t fair. I decided not to deliver any at all.

I see this type of coasting attitude creeping into Iaido classes. I don’t like it.

Wouldn't the people wanting to come to the high-level extra classes be the ones that are keen and you'd want to invite anyway? And if not, you'd be under no obligation to teach to the lowest common denominator so you could teach the more advanced students what they're ready for anyway.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

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 ?

I disagree with pretty much your entire premise and views on this thread.

 

[Gyakuto]

Wouldn't the people wanting to come to the high-level extra classes be the ones that are keen and you'd want to invite anyway?

Yes

And if not, you'd be under no obligation to teach to the lowest common denominator so you could teach the more advanced students what they're ready for anyway.

They would complain to the director of learning and I’d’ve been made to cater to the dumbos doing an ordinary extra tutorial in my own time.

 

[Gyakuto]

I disagree with pretty much your entire premise and views on this thread.

I’d agree with your opinions but then we’d both be wrong!

 

[isshinryuronin]

some teachers teach the art according to the student, others the student to the art.

This should be based on the individual student and what you're trying to teach. If I was an animal trainer, it would be folly to try to teach a turtle to jump (assuming one could teach a turtle anything). Better to teach it to stay still on command. But I could teach a dog to jump on command and even hop around. This is teaching the art according to the student, according to their nature. It's a waste of time trying to teach something the student is unable to learn to do. I could, however, teach both to eat on command. It is both creatures' nature (and ability) to eat. This is teaching the student to the art.

In teaching MA, the default is teaching the art to the student whenever possible. But there are times when this must be modified (due to physical limitations or strongly ingrained tendencies) and that part of the art must be taught according to the student's nature. "Since you can't do a high head kick, let's work on bringing the head down so you can kick it." A kick to the nuts or breaking the balance and pulling the head down allows anyone to do a head kick, not just those with flexibility. Both methods of teaching in the quote are correct. When possible, teach based on the art, when not, teach based on the student.

 

[Hanshi]

While I won't get into the definition of talent there is no doubt some people simply, for whatever reason, seem to pick things up and/or learn things more quickly than others. Add to that the fact that martial arts are engaged in for a variety of reasons and most students are in that category called "average". Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with average or being average. I've always considered myself somewhere around "average".

The most important, to me as a teacher, criteria for a good student has always been a solid level of serious dedication to training. If a student had two left feet and nothing else in the way of "talent" I measured their growth on their willingness to sweat. As long as a student worked, learned and performed to the best of their ability they usually gained my respect. I didn't ignore poor performers just for the extra time to spend with the "gifted" as I found the gifted needed less to start with. Were there some I was glad to get rid of? Yes! Braggarts were sometimes a problem as were the yo yo dudes, the ones who learned from a comic book and who were there to teach! One individual came in and joined but would never get on the mat. She was adamant that she learned best by watching. No amount of encouragement would get her out of her chair. Plus she complained about the smell of sweat???

I never produced lots of black belts but the ones who made black belt truly earned them. I had a small school, relatively speaking, and had a reputation as a...well, let's just say a "demanding" dojo.

 

[windwalker099]

It's a waste of time trying to teach something the student is unable to learn to do.

In the old times teachers would weed people out or test them for a period of time
before teaching them. Times are different now.

"She asked the Professor why he hadn't taught me more, and he said that my leg was shaking like a pipa string.
* She said that times change, and the Professor shouldn't teach me like Prof. Yang taught him.

After this, the Professor began to teach me the next postures.

Later, he changed his teaching style when he came to the United States. "

But there are times when this must be modified (due to physical limitations or strongly ingrained tendencies) and that part of the art must be taught according to the student's nature.

For ingrained tendencies maybe they should do something else.
something that fits...

For physical limitations.

"I cannot teach you only help you explore yourself nothing more."

 

[Steve]

The premise of this thread is so arrogant it feels like an intentional stirring of the pot.

 

[Sammy Naur]

The premise of this thread is so arrogant it feels like an intentional stirring of the pot.

Well, projection is confession, so my initial thought upon reading the premise was "he's that person".

Now I don't know him from a hole in the ground but after reading this and that about masters and students and such, listen I'm glad I stuck with basic boxing and wrestling and proven combat sports like Judo...I really do worry that the lot of these folks who worry so much about "mastery" wouldn't survive a day in the wild against bad men, wolves, or the cold.

 

[Sammy Naur]

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 ?

I think it's important not to think of yourself as something other than "these people".

For example you appear to be into Japanese swords. Can you provide some examples of your expertise in Japanese swords?

I'll be the first to admit, I only know a little about knives, and nothing about Japanese, except what I just learned about "Gyakuto" with a quick search.

 

[Sammy Naur]

I agree with this because there’s no such thing as talent; it’s hard dedicated, repetitive practise, attending to minutiae that gives the illusion of talent.

Then there are those who just like to swing their sword, standing with their legs apart in no discernible stance, pretending to be <insert anime character here>

See this is just ridiculous.

There's no such thing as talent? A lot of sports scouts would disagree with that.

 

[Gyakuto]

See this is just ridiculous.

There's no such thing as talent? A lot of sports scouts would disagree with that.

Read these and then get back to me.

 

[drop bear]

In BJJ. Often

You don’t have to know anything about an art to recognise skill. The way a blacksmith wields her hammer, the way a water-colourist supply’s his paint, the way a driver drifts her car and the tango dancer struts his stuff. I guarantee that if you watched a good Iaidoka and a not so good Iaidoka, you would be able to tell which was the most competent performer. It’s not logical, but it’s often true.

It determines a bit on how the person is being taught.

If someone copies a move they see demonstrated. They may struggle to replicate it.

If someone can use that move they should have an easier time of it.

A blacksmith wedding a hammer is a good example. He is responding to feedback which makes his technique look the way it does.