What's your opinion? When do you think you "understand" your art?

[pesilat]

I didn't really read through this thread. I just read the original question and am responding to it. So if I repeat things said by others ... well, it never hurts to revisit good points

An instructorship doesn't mean you've mastered anything. It simply means, according to your instructor or organization, you've demonstrated the required understanding to start teaching others.

It doesn't take a great level of understanding to start teaching. I mean, a high school graduate has a lot he/she can teach a grade schooler.

To teach is to learn twice. -- Joseph Joubert

If you would thoroughly know anything, teach it to others. -- Tryon Edwards

These two quotes are important. Gaining an instructorship really means that you're ready to really start learning.

With only 3.5 years of training, his depth of understanding is probably somewhat limited. But if he can communicate what he understands, then he can teach it. And, by teaching it, he will gain more depth. Unless he puts blinders on and stops accepting input, then his student(s) will never catch up to him because he'll be learning as much from them as they do from him (this is true of any instructor, regardless of background).

As for him being an instructor after 3.5 years ... every one progresses at different rates. Assuming he's legitimately trained and not making up his rank, then, according to his instructor, he was ready to start teaching.

It took me 4.5 years in Sikal to get my instructorship, but I was the exception that proves the rule. The other instructors (my peers, there are only 4 of us currently) took an average of 6 years (one took 5, one took 6, one took 7). But during those 4.5 years, I was training 20 - 30 hours / week, every single week - and I had a mind/memory which allowed me to absorb and remember so I could analyze and understand later. Also, I had a very understanding wife However, I also had 15 years of previous MA background before I started training in Sikal, and it helped.

Could I have done it 4.5 years without the previous training? I think so. It may have taken me 5 years, but I don't know. But the curriculum my instructor was teaching was extensive with a lot of material to train and retain. Other systems may have more or less.

Each person is different. Each system is different.

I've never trained in Shotokan, but when I trained in Okinawan Goju-Ryu, 5 years was about average to get a shodan. Which means that, theoretically, if someone was really driven and dedicated, they might be able to do it in 3.5 years.

Would they have the depth of understanding of someone with more background? Probably not. But they should have enough to teach newbies.

As far as "mastery" goes ... one of my Eskrima instructors says, "I didn't feel that I had 'mastered' anything in Eskrima until I'd been training in it for 40 years." And he wasn't saying he'd mastered the art, just specific aspects of it. He's in his 80s and started training when he was, I believe, 6. He goes on to say, though, that he learns something new each day, even with 75+ years of training

As far as your friend's specific situation ... only time will tell whether his instructor is worth his salt or not.

Mike

 

[r erman]

Good Evening,

Understanding an art has myriad levels of meaning. The most obvious would be cultural, technical, philososphical, or strategic/tactical. Yet each of the above have so many sub-categories it boggles the mind--so much more than people realize when they take up training. I think that's why so many have alluded to never fully knowing an art, especially if it is a system where rote imitation is not encouraged, and finding your expression is not discouraged.

In the system(s) I study there is so much more than just the technical sylabus. I can remember when "knowing" all of the core waza was so important to me. Then I found that I didn't know much at all. The mechanical techniques were far less important than realizing the principles expressed through the techniques. How the relationship between tori and uke was managed. How controlling/exploiting/fitting-into the space and timing interval of the opponent was handled. How to lock the entire skeletal structure rather than just relying on the torque and momentum of winding a single joint or limb. Those are just basic examples of understanding the physical part of an art.

There are so many other factors that are on a so-called higher level; whether dealing with the understanding of the psychology of cofrontation or the manipulation of the opponent's psychology(might call this mental misdirection). Or simply trying to understand the mental/cultural paradigm that created the "feeling" that your chosen art has.

All of these factors are lifelong studies. So I would say understanding is not something you arrive at, but rather something that only broadens throughout a lifetime of study.

 

[Yari]

Originally posted by Arithon
What are you saying with your last statement?

You cant judge a technique from what you see, but how it's handled in the style it's presented.

What your saying is defining your own style and filosofi, shich is OK for me.

/Yari

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by Yari
First you state that there is no reason to understand a martial art.

Then you call it a tool for understanding yourself.

I can follow both , but only upto a certain point. And that's because you base your thought on what is best.

Best is a personal opion. You can think that the greatest momentum is best, while another means that the more circular you are is best (and therefor not greatest in momentum). If there really was one thing that was best, dont you think all of us would be doing it.

So to find the best you cant look at the tool, but to the art. You cant call a weapon dangerous without looking at who's handling it and how, even if the weapon is very effektiv.

/yari

Care to elaborate what an "opion" is? Just kidding.

The "best" is referring to us as individuals and our self dicovery as to what is best for "us" individually.

I say a lot that I am a grappler at heart but I am a standup fighter by nature. By undestanding my "best" it would not be the same for a BJJ fighter.

Its the process of using the tools which themselves are individuals in a toolbox. Which tools used depend on the situation. When you are proficient with your tools you dissolve the tools to where there is just you.

You don't use tech #2 for A attacks B. There is no thinking involved, you just do.

The tools or weapons are not what matters. The only thing that matters is the reaction.

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by Arithon
There is no reason to understand a martial art. They are simply tools for help you to understand how your body works against (or in conjunction with) another person(s).

I do not agree with the there is no reason to understand a martial art.

If you have no understanding, you should be running not fighting!

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by chufeng
Define "understand."

If you mean an intellectual understanding of the principles, then it is never-ending because as you understand one level, another more complicated one waits for you.

If you mean a KNOWLEDGE of your art, then the time it takes is much longer...

Never-ending multiplied by much longer equals NEVER.

Perhaps when you take your final breath, you will know.

:asian:
chufeng

I may never get there. But I will still be me and I will continue on...

 

[Yari]

Originally posted by akja

The "best" is referring to us as individuals and our self dicovery as to what is best for "us" individually.
.....
The tools or weapons are not what matters. The only thing that matters is the reaction.

I agree most of the way. But..... "the only thing that matters is the reaction".

Which reaction?


/Yari

 

[A.R.K.]

I suppose when you successfully use it to defend your life, or the life of a loved one in real life and death combat. Does that mean you know everything there is to know about the art ? Maybe not, but you understood it enough to use it for it's original purpose....survival.

 

[JDenz]

I think the problem is there is a diffrence between mastering and understanding. When I hear understand I think of knowing what is going on not understanding the art inside and out.

 

[Yari]

Originally posted by Mya Ryu Jitsu
I suppose when you successfully use it to defend your life, or the life of a loved one in real life and death combat. Does that mean you know everything there is to know about the art ? Maybe not, but you understood it enough to use it for it's original purpose....survival.

Ahh, it rings so true, but....... if there is a fight and I clobber him with my wallet, which is full of dimes, and it frightens him so he runs away. Can I really defend myself?

Yes in this case I did, can I do it again? Probably no.

Everbody can get out af one fight in there life, but slanting the odds so that you have a bigger chance of getting out of every fight is something else.

/Yari

 

[A.R.K.]

Ahh, but I'm specifically refering to using a technique or techniques as well as tactics to obtain a successfull conclusion.

One could also argue that getting oneself out of the fight, be it verbage or evasion is also understanding the art.

Things that make you go Hmmmmm

 

[tonbo]

I will never understand my art.

I understand ideas and concepts, based on what rank I am, how much training I do, and how much I learn from those my rank and above. I understand these, but only for a little while, and then I lose it again.

It is a LOT like that quote from "Men In Black".....think about what you'll *know* tomorrow. I learn things as I progress, and I feel like I "understand" them.....until I learn something that builds on that piece of information, and then there I am again, back at the beginning. It's a neverending process.

This is good, because it always gives me a reason to smile. I smile because my old ignorance and misunderstanding is replaced with a new ignorance and misunderstanding.

When I fully understand my art, I will be long dead.

Peace--

 

[KennethKu]

Probably when you finally figured out what parts of your art/style actually serve to maximize effectiveness and efficiency, and which parts of it merely serve to differentiate it from another art/style.

People tend to say they have to perform the blocking in such and such way, or to strike in such and such way, otherwise, they wouldn't be following their style.

When you can cut through the material force-fed to you and filter out the useful, then you have achieved a level of understanding and start the true journay of being free from the constrains of style. Note: Be prepared to be unbraided for your "arrogance" in defying tradition.

 

[twinkletoes]

not yet.

but I think I'm starting to get the idea.....

~TT

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

"When I started learning martial arts, a kick was just a kick and a punch was just a punch.

After studying a while, I found that a kick was no longer a kick, and a punch no longer a punch.

Now that I've studied a long time, I have come to realize that a kick is just a kick and a punch is just a punch."

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Unless you are a teacher or philosopher (or both), understanding isn't as important as practice and "being" your art.

If you insist on understanding, I always tell my students that only until you've done something a thousand times (no exaggeration), will it start to reveal its secrets to you.

But understanding and mastery are two not-so-interdependent things.

MASTERY is when you have "Kung Fu" in what you are doing. It is not only effortless and natural, but to others it looks easy.

 

[James Kovacich]

Understanding your art can "other forms" in the sense that a part of my art is ground grappling and I teach my students to understand the ground grappler before they specialize in their ground work.

Once they undestand "how" a ground grappler will come at them, how they will react and what they will try and look for, they will "understand" the ground grappler and be able to stop them.

The same goes for the stand up game. I find it important to teach my students to come to an understanding with all of their martial art training. I teach 65% stand up and 35% ground grappling (roughly). My students may choose differant paths or differant paths may choose them.

Its my job to guide them to their "understanding" so I must make them understand and be "functional" in more than just one primary art and help them to specialize in the art(s) according to their potential.

So I guess I'm saying that understanding can take on differant meanings but dosen't have to come late in your training. Some might not even realize how well that they understand their art.


:asian:

 

[twinkletoes]

Perhaps "understanding" an art is a little vague, but there are certainly specific milestones that every person reaches (if they study long enough) in any art. The ones I have in mind are:

-They acquire a good skill level with the basics.

-They become able to easily put the basics into combinations in order to achieve greater results with less effort.

-They become able to "lead" an opponent down a certain path by developing the ability to set him up (using any of the techniques of their art, not just their favorites).

-They become able to use the techniques of their art at will against a skilled practitioner of any other art.

Each of these stages happen at different levels in different arts. Many people think Black Belt is the level at which they have acquired a good skill level with the basics (and they may well be right!). In some arts the last level I described could well be 10th Degree black belt, or close to it.

Certainly talking about it in terms of skill level and results makes it easier to determine, rather than the notion of "understanding," which will mean different things to different people.

~TT

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by twinkletoes
Perhaps "understanding" an art is a little vague, but there are certainly specific milestones that every person reaches (if they study long enough) in any art. The ones I have in mind are:

-They acquire a good skill level with the basics.

-They become able to easily put the basics into combinations in order to achieve greater results with less effort.

-They become able to "lead" an opponent down a certain path by developing the ability to set him up (using any of the techniques of their art, not just their favorites).

-They become able to use the techniques of their art at will against a skilled practitioner of any other art.

Each of these stages happen at different levels in different arts. Many people think Black Belt is the level at which they have acquired a good skill level with the basics (and they may well be right!). In some arts the last level I described could well be 10th Degree black belt, or close to it.

Certainly talking about it in terms of skill level and results makes it easier to determine, rather than the notion of "understanding," which will mean different things to different people.

~TT

My definition of "understanding" is directly related to skill level.

I think some underestimate what they really know and as the arts do "humble us" to a certain extent, I can see that happening easily.

I tell my students that although we are primarily stand up fighters, that for them to reach Brown Belt they need to "functional" ground grapplers.

And also if they are not, I failed!

:asian:

 

[twinkletoes]

akja,

I agree. You make some good points there.

How can we bridge the gap between "understanding" an art and having skill in it?

Certainly reaching advanced skill levels requires a strong understanding of it, but what happens when the opposite occurs? What about schools where everyone can "talk the talk" but can't "walk the walk?"

Can an emphasis on "understanding" be a bad thing?

~TT