Should you teach???

[YeutYatChapChoy]

Just a quick question to ponder.
2 students. Both are techniqally adept at their art. Student 1 has the full package. Form,Fighting,theory,weapons etc,etc,etc,.
Student 2 has the same, EXCEPT he/she cant fight.
Should student 2 ever teach? Are they qualified to teach? Should their role be more of consultant,support staff etc??

My view, for what its worth is that kung fu is a martial art. Plain and simple. I would not learn from a sifu that just theorixzed his way through a lesson plan. Just my view.

[joedoe]

Just because you cannot fight does not mean that you don't have anything to offer as a teacher. They should be allowed to teach, but if their student(s) want to learn how to fight then they should be referred to the other teacher.

The martial arts aren't ONLY about fighting.

-------------------------------------
You have no chance to survive - make your time.

[Kung Lek]

Well, what do you say to the master who has succumbed to disease or a debilitating accident?

All the info is there but the ability to "fight" is no longer with them.

Or how about school teachers in high school who give their students the fundaments of physics?
They are not in the research field and nor are they building applicable devices with that knowledge, does that make it any less relevant?

any great boxing coaches don't fight, but they are great coaches.

Training to fight is different from learning to train.

If you need the other student to learn to "fight" then teach him. It will take much less time than the rest of it. Learning to fight is a very short learning curve. Learning the background stuff is where all the most important stuff is.

peace

Kung Lek

[UberShaman]

Its much more important that they can teach well

[Fu-Pow]

What made you ask this question? Real names are not necessary......

[YeutYatChapChoy]

Kung lek:
Dont agree here:-)
Glad to hear you have found learning to fight such an easy task. Good for ya'.
As for the disabled sifu, one that could really come to task, would have lots to offer. One thayt couldnt do combat to begin with, would have very little to offer at a higher level.
I have met many sifu. Some were the whole package, some were only in their own minds, or students imagination. No problem here. Just not my choice for a sifu. Not what I would look for. Martial arts without the martial is only dance and time wasting.(my opinion only)

[illusionfist]

I totally understand both sides to this, and actually i kinda agree with both. But to be truthful, i think i would much rather go with a teacher that knows how to use their stuff. I just dont see a person being able to convey a FIGHTING art to somebody when they themselves dont have the proper know how, or fighting savvy.

Good boxing coaches always have some good fights under their belt. They usually have something to offer cuz they speak from experience. I think experience is a big factor in all this because you can help the person learn from your own mistakes.

But i also feel that being a good teacher is a plus too, hehe :)

Peace :D

[Kung Lek]

Hi-

The reason I described fighting as easy to learn was because it is something that many of us do, as opposed to our other option of running away or cowering in a sportive setting.

Training to fight is different than fighting itself. To have had real experiences and tests is what martial systems are born from in the first place. I agree that you need to practice these systems with martial intent.

But if what you are focusing on is strictly fighting then by the criteria you have laid down the student should not be allowed to teach in your system/school according to the gist of what you are saying.

All I'm saying is that you have already said the student has everything but this one aspect, how did the student get so far, without ever demonstrating ability to apply the teachings?

peace

Kung Lek

[YeutYatChapChoy]

Yep. Just like the myth of the hooker with a heart o' gold.
Just disagreeing here. Dont believe that ther are any great coaches with NO experience or ability. (in the area of combat) Possibly in the area of imagination and illusion. Not in real life combat.

"how did the student get so far, without ever demonstrating ability to apply the teachings?"

I dont follow. I did not say how far the student got. Only that he/she believed they had the ability to teach.Also this is a hypothetical question for discussion purposes :-)

llusionfist:
I agree totally.
Being a good teacher is a plus too. I have trained with sifu that could really kick butt, but couldnt express themselves, or the material very well.

[Kevin Barkman]

Firstly, it is almost impossible for people to conceptialize (sp) "real life" physical confrontation, if they don't experience such trauma in their everyday life. However, here goes nothing.

A true test of one's kung fu must run the following way I suppose (sigh):

Go to the meanest, nastiest back alley in your city, armed with a tire iron. When you are mugged by a few hardened street fighters with baseball bats and knives, crush their throats, break their kneecaps, and gouge their eyeballs out of their sockets. You as a martial artist, must have therefore achieved the very highest level of kung fu skill, as you emerged with only a ruptured eardrum, broken arm, and a mild concussion, but in any case, are still standing!

Where do you draw the line for these combative scenarios? Or are we just talking about tournament fighting / class sparring? In my line of work, I am faced with hostile, physically aggressive people almost daily. I can usually resolve the conflict nonviolently, but if forced to defend myself or contain the violence, I can usually do so without hurting the acting out person. So can most peace officers, prison guards, hospital workers, etc - all of whom work in the "real" world.

If you back a dog into a corner, it will fight you - try to kill you, regardless of a normally pleasent & peaceful personality. In such a scenario, "skill" becomes largely irrelevant and your attitude / survival instinct becomes the only reality which will govern the outcome. Yes, and by the way, everyone (and their dog) has a survival instinct.

Better to focus on "reality" - e.g. developing better relationships with your fellow human beings - most people would benefit from a little training in this area! I would rather learn kung fu from a respectable and compassionate human being than a simple psychopath who "knew" (whatever that means)how to fight!

[Kung Lek]

Hi-

Ok, then hypothetically speaking, how is it that student #2 has forms, theory, weapons, etc.etc.etc, without ever having learned to apply any of it?

Isn't it reasonable to expect someone who has learnt all that to be able to at the very least defend themselves adequately? Or even how to avoid confrontations altogether?

I would surmise that in most cases after the amount of learning, years of study and practice that student #2 may only be not as good a fighter as student#1, but nevertheless when measured by only the ability to fight, student#2 is a better fighter than 90% or better of the population.

The whole idea of propogation is the ends and the way to it. The ends being the survival of the art.

Also many coaches produce fighters who are ultimately better fighters than the coach was, but still, it was the coach who gave them all or most of the material they needed to refine their natural response to fight, or to quell their natural response to run.

peace

Kung Lek

[Fu-Pow]

I think it is important to remember that Kung Fu (and Tai Chi for that matter) developed as ways to stay healthy...not just for fighting. It is dangerous to look at cultural phenomenon such as kung fu in the abstract...you must also take into account the history. One thing that my first sifu said that stuck with me is "I will teach you how to beat the crap out of somebody, then I will teach you how to heal them afterwards." Many traditional kung fu men (and women) were also healers (bone setters, acupuncturists, herabalists)...healing and destroying are two sides of the same coin. Knowledge of anatomy, which these people had, could be translated into medicinal application or application for combat (ie accupuncture/pressure vs. pressure point fighting, They would also know the best bones to break in the body). Although, their "theories" might not always be street tested they are based on what SHOULD work...years of accumulated knowledge not only from fighting but from traditional chinese medicine as well. So to answer your question, no they wouldn't necessarily have to have "proved" themselves as fighters but would definitely need to have a deep knowledge of application.

Fu-Pow
http://www.makskungfu.com/images/Graphics/logo.gif
"If you are talking about sport that is one thing. But when you are talking about combat-as it is-well then, baby, you'd better train every part of your body" - Bruce Lee

[YeutYatChapChoy]

Kung Lek:
Ok, then hypothetically speaking, how is it that student #2 has forms, theory, weapons, etc.etc.etc, without ever having learned to apply any of it?

Sadly there is a lot of this. Theory wont prepare you or make ypu proficient in anything but flapping your mouth.
Besides we talk about ability to apply. Perhaps they have lots of know how, but just are quite inadequsate in one department(application). This was the jist of my thread. You want to take this a diff direction.




Also many coaches produce fighters who are ultimately better fighters than the coach was

Yes usually this coach had a combination of experience and great insight. It takes much preperation, thought and as I said insight for those coaches to do so. But, I believe they drew from their ability as a martial artist/fighter and ut was the nidus or seed of their advances in training.

Fu Pow:

to answer your question, no they wouldn't necessarily have to have "proved" themselves as fighters but would definitely need to have a deep knowledge of application.

You missed the point here. I wasnt saying they had to PROVE themselves 9in the way you mention. I am saying they are able to apply and teach application with a level of competence. That is really the question posed. What would be the level of competence needed to view yourself as an actual sifu, teaching and growing, not deluding and weakening the arts.

[Kung Lek]

well, sounds like your mind's made up then yycc.

peace

Kung Lek

[Fu-Pow]

In order to call yourself sifu you would need to know the application and purpose of every movement that you teach. ....In addition, you would need to understand the dynamics of the movements put together...(we are talking about form based arts..aren't we?) I don't know how you could do this WITHOUT sparring. Sometimes movements reveal there application in free sparring...(or need for modification)....in addition, you would need to know the theory and philosophy behind your art (as I stated above)....so that you could expand upon it. I guess what I'm getting at is that Kung Fu is souless without the history behind it. And it is dead if it is never revised or improved upon. But in order to revise you have to know what it is you are revising and why. Forms are not just a catalogue of movements that never change. Just knowing the movements does not mean you "know" the movements. In order to keep the art alive we cannot treat forms like they are written in stone. I think "real" sifus know this (because they've had their ass kicked a few times using flawed moves) and then there are the people who just copy EXACTLY what their sifu did. Those people are historians not martial artists.... I think you would agree with me on this....

Fu-Pow
http://www.makskungfu.com/images/Graphics/logo.gif
"If you are talking about sport that is one thing. But when you are talking about combat-as it is-well then, baby, you'd better train every part of your body" - Bruce Lee

[8stepsifu]

Yeah, you gotta be a has been, not a never was.

Then again it depends on how you mean by fighting competence. I have taken my licks sparring with gloves, I know people that can't fight in that context, but fight mean and would do way better than I would in a street fight hands down.

However, put the gloves on and I'd wup them. Everyone has their personal tastes. I think streetfighting stuff is too mean. I'd rather joint lock someone and try to cool them down. Since I probably will never get into a fight for the rest of my life, I concentrate on competition. Other people do it for the health aspects and learn the rest because its part of the package and their students do really well. I do think that if you ask your students to do something, you should have done it yourself. How can you lead them if you've never been there yourself?


Take the world lightly, and your spirit will not be burdened. Consider everything minor, and your mind will not be confused. Regard death and life as equal, and your heart will not be afraid.

[Sil Lum Palm]

Personaly , I wouldn't care to learn under a Sifu that claimed himself as a fighter. I have allways been taught that Kung Fu was for the preservation of life and health and to promote justice.
I do agree that sparring is essential in Martial Training to learn the application of skills, as well as developing accuracy and reaction timing. However , a Sifu that has not been in may "real" street situations , or fights , is a Sifu that has learned to control his total self and his actions. That is a thing to admire indeed. Peace is allways the greatest outcome.
Just because a person practices an Art they do not need to call themselves fighters, or train to fight. Some older people, and others with illnesses practice the martial arts to help them combat diseases and the sort , with no intent in ever fighting in their entire life.
I do agree that to teach one must know the application for techniques in Combat , and be able to properly execute them in a "real life" situation , however that doesn't mean that one must come from a background of fighting and such.
My Sifu could be labeled a "Good Fighter".. if he chose.. if that was the lifestyle he wished to live ( which wouldn't be admirable at all would it?). Also thats don't forget, every Master has something valuable to offer us , if only we take the time to listen.
Take care.

[unclaimed effort]

if student 2 can explain the techniques better maybe he can make a better teacher than the 1st one. but if the second teacher can't explain the applications and if his students ask he will be in trouble. :)

If two tigers fight, the result will be one injured tiger.

Stillness in stillness is not real stillness. Stillness in motion is real stillness.