The importance of real experience

[skribs]

My first Taekwondo master was a US Special Forces instructor. My second master (for TKD and HKD) was a Korean Special Forces instructor. In those roles, you know they've seen combat, and that carries some weight to what they teach. My BJJ professor, as far as I know, doesn't have any real-world experience, but has plenty of competition experience in an art that's known for being up there in realism. My Muay Thai coach (also a BJJ black belt at my school) has had professional MMA fights and documented real-world self-defense results. I've seen the pictures.

My Dad and I recently tried a Hapkido class with a guy with credentials on IMDB, and we found him rather pompous. On the drive home, we had a lot of criticism for his approach. One question my Dad had is if he'd ever really used martial arts, because our old Hapkido Master has most likely killed before.

This brings me to me. I plan to continue learning BJJ and Muay Thai for the next several years, after which I'd like to open a TKD school. I'm doing these as a hobbyist; especially Muay Thai. I don't want a concussion. I don't want to give anyone a concussion. If I do compete in BJJ, I'm going to be competing at the beginner belts. I don't have much competition record from TKD either.

I guess its a bit of an identity crisis. I feel blessed to be trained by people that I know have done real stuff with their martial arts. I feel I'm a great teacher (based on my experience teaching for several years). But I don't really have the real-world experience to back it up, and I feel that gaining such experience is not really in anyone's best interest. I'd rather not fight than fight (and have successfully done so on many occasions since I got back into martial arts).

 

[JowGaWolf]

My first Taekwondo master was a US Special Forces instructor. My second master (for TKD and HKD) was a Korean Special Forces instructor. In those roles, you know they've seen combat, and that carries some weight to what they teach. My BJJ professor, as far as I know, doesn't have any real-world experience, but has plenty of competition experience in an art that's known for being up there in realism. My Muay Thai coach (also a BJJ black belt at my school) has had professional MMA fights and documented real-world self-defense results. I've seen the pictures.

My Dad and I recently tried a Hapkido class with a guy with credentials on IMDB, and we found him rather pompous. On the drive home, we had a lot of criticism for his approach. One question my Dad had is if he'd ever really used martial arts, because our old Hapkido Master has most likely killed before.

This brings me to me. I plan to continue learning BJJ and Muay Thai for the next several years, after which I'd like to open a TKD school. I'm doing these as a hobbyist; especially Muay Thai. I don't want a concussion. I don't want to give anyone a concussion. If I do compete in BJJ, I'm going to be competing at the beginner belts. I don't have much competition record from TKD either.

I guess its a bit of an identity crisis. I feel blessed to be trained by people that I know have done real stuff with their martial arts. I feel I'm a great teacher (based on my experience teaching for several years). But I don't really have the real-world experience to back it up, and I feel that gaining such experience is not really in anyone's best interest. I'd rather not fight than fight (and have successfully done so on many occasions since I got back into martial arts).

I don't think it matters as much as you think. Sparring is a good learning tool. Use sparring to train your techniques and skills so that it will be their when you need it the most. That is the most important thing. Think of it like this. Soldiers with no war experience still train for war and it serves them well for when war comes.

Everything else is mindset strategy and tactics. Spar against other systems so that your strategy and tactics become well informed.

 

[drop bear]

My coach is doing some sort of special forces stuff at the moment. And was in a class where the instructor said confidence comes from being able to choke out everyone in the room.


And he is like. Can you though?

And the instructor had to rethink his pitch.

 

[skribs]

Everything else is mindset strategy and tactics. Spar against other systems so that your strategy and tactics become well informed.

This is a big part of why I want to focus exclusively on BJJ and Muay Thai for the next year or two, at which point I'll add TKD back in for some unfinished qualifications. But I want to do BJJ and Muay Thai at least 5 years before opening my own TKD school.

My coach is doing some sort of special forces stuff at the moment. And was in a class where the instructor said confidence comes from being able to choke out everyone in the room.


And he is like. Can you though?

And the instructor had to rethink his pitch.

This reminds me of an old joke.

The drill sergeant was getting ready to teach Combatives to his group of new recruits. "Do any of you maggots think you can whoop me?"

One man raised his hand. "I can." This guy could dwarf an NFL lineman. 6 foot 7 inches tall, 400 pounds of pure muscle. (200 cm and 180 kg for some of you folks).

"Stand right here," said the drill sergeant. "Maggots! This is my new assistant! Do any of you think you could whoop both of us?"

 

[Flying Crane]

I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that the hapkido master has probably killed before, simply because he was a military combatives teacher or in special forces. He would need to have been in an active war zone. I don’t think Korea sees a lot of hot action on a regular basis. And if he did kill someone, probably done with a rifle, and not hand-to-hand.

So it probably isn’t relevant.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Experience is relevant to what you are teaching. Do you need real world experience to teach TKD? Probably not. Do you need real world experience to teach BJJ? No.

However if you are going to teach tactical firearms, Concealed Carry and/or physical self-defense, I would say it's a lot more important.

Of course that experience will only takes you so far. You also have to work at being a good instructor and making sure the students know you care about them.

 

[skribs]

I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that the hapkido master has probably killed before, simply because he was a military combatives teacher or in special forces. He would need to have been in an active war zone. I don’t think Korea sees a lot of hot action on a regular basis. And if he did kill someone, probably done with a rifle, and not hand-to-hand.

So it probably isn’t relevant.

I knew the man for 9 years, you've read one sentence about him. But sure, tell me more about his past that I don't know.

However if you are going to teach tactical firearms, Concealed Carry and/or physical self-defense, I would say it's a lot more important.

In terms of gatekeeping, "you must have shot someone" is probably the worst I've seen.

 

[Jared Traveler]

In terms of gatekeeping, "you must have shot someone" is probably the worst I've seen.

Help me understand what you are trying to communicate?

 

[skribs]

Help me understand what you are trying to communicate?

Gatekeeping is where you set unreasonable barriers to entry. A common example is one I see on BJJ forums where if you're below brown belt or you do any other art except wrestling/Judo, they don't consider your opinion or experience worthwhile.

In this case, you're saying that for a firearms instructor to be worthy, they must have have real world experience using firearms. In other words, "You have to have shot someone" is the barrier for entry to be a firearms instructor. I'm sure there are plenty of people who haven't had to do so that are fully capable of teaching these skills.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Gatekeeping is where you set unreasonable barriers to entry. A common example is one I see on BJJ forums where if you're below brown belt or you do any other art except wrestling/Judo, they don't consider your opinion or experience worthwhile.

In this case, you're saying that for a firearms instructor to be worthy, they must have have real world experience using firearms. In other words, "You have to have shot someone" is the barrier for entry to be a firearms instructor. I'm sure there are plenty of people who haven't had to do so that are fully capable of teaching these skills.

I know what gatekeeping is, I just wasn't certain how you were implying it was being used. I'm not saying it's a prerequisite. I'm saying that type of experience is a lot more important, because it's directly relevant. Also because there is SO MUCH miss information out there on those topics.

I'm also saying that type of experience will only take you so far.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I knew the man for 9 years, you've read one sentence about him. But sure, tell me more about his past that I don't know.

In terms of gatekeeping, "you must have shot someone" is probably the worst I've seen.

You seem to have read his "not a foregone conclusion" as "no way in hell". Those aren't the same statement. He's correct that someone who was in SF woudln't necessarily have killed, though it's probably more likely for them than for the average member of the military (that's an uneducated guess on my part).

The point is that someone being in the military doesn't necessarily mean they had reason to use their MA training in combat. Some military roles would make that more likely (MP, probably SF, etc.). I trained with a few folks who'd been military but never saw combat. The cops, bouncers, and prison guards I trained with had a lot more experience using their MA than the military folks.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I know what gatekeeping is, I just wasn't certain how you were implying it was being used. I'm not saying it's a prerequisite. I'm saying that type of experience is a lot more important, because it's directly relevant. Also because there is SO MUCH miss information out there on those topics.

I'm also saying that type of experience will only take you so far.

Of course, it would also matter what they're teaching. If the point of a firearms class it to teach basic handling and safety, and how to hit a target, then good range experience would seem a reasonable entry requirement. If they are teaching room-clearing tactics, it'd be best if they had some experience with that. Of course, there's always the question about where the line should be between what meets that experience need. Does it suffice if the curriculum was developed with input from folks who do that thing, and is based on study of video and other evidence from actual use?

Your second point is important. Some folks won't learn well from their own experiences (I've seen people teaching irrelevant points based on their own experience and what they think it tells them), some folks aren't good teachers even though they learned welll and have that experience, and some people teach well (produce results) without what most of us would consider "requisite" experience.

 

[Holmejr]

Just because they teach special forces or law enforcement doesn’t mean THEY’VE seen any combat at all. Mostly, They are just instructors dressed in fatigues.

I’ve had more than one instructor, whose résumé included teaching law-enforcement, but these guys were never in a real life threatening altercation.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Of course, it would also matter what they're teaching. If the point of a firearms class it to teach basic handling and safety, and how to hit a target, then good range experience would seem a reasonable entry requirement. If they are teaching room-clearing tactics, it'd be best if they had some experience with that. Of course, there's always the question about where the line should be between what meets that experience need. Does it suffice if the curriculum was developed with input from folks who do that thing, and is based on study of video and other evidence from actual use?

Your second point is important. Some folks won't learn well from their own experiences (I've seen people teaching irrelevant points based on their own experience and what they think it tells them), some folks aren't good teachers even though they learned welll and have that experience, and some people teach well (produce results) without what most of us would consider "requisite" experience.

This is all spot on.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I knew the man for 9 years, you've read one sentence about him. But sure, tell me more about his past that I don't know.

Except you didn't say that you know he's seen combat. You said because of his role (and because of the role of your previous teacher) you know they've seen combat. Whether or not it's true that your specific instructors saw combat due to their role, it's not something you can say "If someone taught special forces, you know they've seen combat".

And if there are newcomers who read this, it's important to point out that the two don't have a 1:1 relationship, as there are plenty of instructors out there who use their military training as proof they've got real world experience.

 

[Steve]

Teach what you know. Be careful not to teach, or imply things you don’t know for sure. Don’t suggest or imply you have experience you don’t. And focus on the tangible value of what you are doing.

That said, if you’re going to teach a sport, I really think you need to participate in the sport. Whether or not you actively participate, your school should. I can’t think of any other activity where neither the coach/instructor nor the students do the things they learn. So what I mean is, if you’re teaching BJJ or must Thai, you’ll need to be a part of that community and encourage your students to participate.

Would you take golf lessons from someone who’s never played a round of golf?

That insecurity is your gut trying to warn you. Will you listen or tamp it down and ignore it? You could probably make a decent living either way.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Regarding teaching TKD, or BJJ or Muay Thai that is easily measured by the students performance in competition or even outside of competition.

Regarding firearms training, if your goal is range safety, weapons manipulation and range marksmanship, that can be taught easily enough by any student of the gun.

Using a gun safely and efficiently in a real situation is not the same as using it on the range. And yes experience actually counts for something. It counts for a lot actually.
When people try to kill you up close and personal, you tend to learn a lot in those moments.

But it's not all about shooting someone. Some people are very, very good at not getting into shootings. They didn't learn that from reading a book or taking a class, they earned that skill. Most of them do have valuable experience to pass on if people will take the time to listen.

Any guys I knew with experience that were great instructors before being in a shooting were better instructors after being in a shooting. But to be clear "pulling a trigger" doesn't make you a good instructor.

 

[Flying Crane]

I knew the man for 9 years, you've read one sentence about him. But sure, tell me more about his past that I don't know.

Why so quick to take offense?

 

[Jared Traveler]

What really makes a great instructor is someone who can use their skill, knowledge and experience to contextualize a class that's relevant for the students needs. And do it in a ways that leads to skill development and makes it clear to the student that they care about them and their needs.

 

[Steve]

Hey, just for what it's worth, I really respect the way you're approaching this whole thing. Doing the hard work up front and thinking long term. My points above are basically to recommend you trust your instincts. You're asking the right questions and have the right concerns, IMO. Some people rationalize those concerns away. Some don't. In the long run, you can probably do okay either way... but one school will just have more integrity than the other.

Here's a true cautionary tale:

There's a local BJJ guy. Way back in like 2009 or 2010, he competed a few times as a blue belt with mediocre results. He jumped ship to another school and started making bad choices. He got in with a guy who turned out to be a registered sex offender who promoted him to purple belt right away. Broke ties with that guy (for obvious reasons). He then opened his own school as a purple belt and affiliated with a well known black belt who lives in the mid-west, a few thousand miles away who has no other local connections. 2 years later, he's a black belt. Fast forward 11 years... this guy hasn't competed since he was a blue belt, but he's still running a school and I presume making a decent living. He's a pariah in the local BJJ community, and while his students sometimes compete in local tournaments and some do okay, he's an outsider and his skill level will always be a question mark. He may be really great... I really don't know at this point. He's been a black belt for over 10 years. But I don't think even he knows because he never applies his skills outside of his school, and at this point my guess is he'll never know because it's better to avoid the question than find out definitively that he's subpar.