MA Instructor Certification

[Strange]

though speaking from an ima point of view, i do believe that it is applicable to all forms of ma, be it external, western, korean, japanese, etc.

for something that your life or love ones may one day depend on, i personally do not think that there is a formal, codified, body of knowledge that has been established so that a person may be tested before to demonstrate that he/she has the pre-requisite knowledge and skills to teach other people.

from an individual's pov, everyone think that they are the shit; but without a "official" list of knowledge and skills to grade oneself, it may be self-deception in the long run. also, for a person who wish to open a school and teach for a living; how does he/she knows that his/her learning is now up to par and most importantly can produce skillful students capable of holding their own, capable of winning the opponent's respect even in defeat.

further, for the prospective student would it not be nice to have an "officially certified" teacher/trainer/master who they know they can safely invest their time and money, and they will be guided onto the correct path of their respective chosen ma?

so i'm thinking: sure would be nice if we are able to come up with something like a BoK.
for example:
1) skill: taiji, xingyi,bagua jibengong and basics
2) specialisation (or any no. of the big three)
3) applications and sparring skills(distance timing, etc)

4) knowledge: taoist philosophy, history of warfare
5) MA specific: history of ma, major schools/styles timeline
6) Books: major classics and interpretations

7) medical: first aid, cpr, defibrillator, sports injury, fractures/sprains immobilisation
8) chinese medicine: basics, jow formulation
etc

just thinking out loud

[Chris McKinley]

That's a reasonable list, Strange. For myself, one of the problems I would likely continue to have with such a program is that I would personally not find many who already fit that bill as being qualified to teach real combat skills. The list strikes me as better suited as a yardstick for determining whether or not a teacher has a minimally comprehensive grounding in the factors that would be necessary to call him/herself an instructor of a given Chinese-style internal martial art rather than in the specific skill sets that would qualify him or her as a trainer of combat skills specifically.

[NoSword]

To paraphrase Robert Henri (the full quote is lying around somewhere in a book of R. Crumb's, I don't have it handy at the moment):

"An artist is only an artist at all because he has managed to persuade at least one other person that he is an artist. How do we separate true artists from charlatans? The only rules available are those of the gunslinger."

[Strange]

"How do we separate true artists from charlatans?"
ed zachary, NS

"That's a reasonable list, Strange. For myself, one of the problems I would likely continue to have with such a program is that I would personally not find many who already fit that bill as being qualified to teach real combat skills."
albeit a crude one, Chris. yes you are correct, but i suspect you understand this is one of the reasons why there should be such a list of knowledge in the first place. if we take a page from SAS and Delta, they did the same thing; the founding members formulated a tough selection and they put themselves through it to qualify.

"minimally comprehensive grounding in the factors that would be necessary to call him/herself an instructor of a given Chinese-style internal martial art rather than in the specific skill sets that would qualify him or her as a trainer of combat skills specifically."
well, "you" can set the level of competency as high or as low as you want; or you can have grades. but as a general rule i think it is good to set a simple but comprehensive one first.

for example with modern technology, it is conceivable that a mechanical & sensor system be design to measure:
1) distance/timing judgment
2) single step lunging/launch speed and distance (attack)
3) twitch/telegraphic movement amount (kimbo vid and recent one by ashe's kungfu sister)
4) balance at the end of attack
5) power of strike
6) ability to launch subsequent attacks (balance & no discontinuation of intent)
(no the system will not respond to any amount of kiai/empty force)

with data recorded such that it can be reviewed and improved upon.

further, i believe that we're done. by that i mean what jbg you want to know? the tendons are set/changed and the musco-skeletal structure formed. what you want to do it all over? i think we are kidding ourselves.

the only way is to set something that will produce really good new comers; and for that to happen the first thing you need is very good instructors/teachers/masters. there is really no other way.

[qiphlow]

add to the list: ability to teach.
having students does not necessarily mean that one can teach.

[Strange]

add to the list: ability to teach.
having students does not necessarily mean that one can teach.

i agree, i've had experience with that.
then one would need to define the ability to teach, or at least come up up some attributes or character traits for ppl to know what we are trying to say

[Overlord]

I think a good teacher should be more like a coach.
Thus she or he can be assessed.

Aside for technique/skills wise, he or she is able to gauge student's mental status.
It is a matter of more than empowering the student, but train the students to be the next generation of independent teachers and thinkers.

Over

[Chris McKinley]

+1, Overlord. Very much agreed. We've got plenty of zombies to last a while anyway.

[Bhassler]

Maybe about 2 years ago I got serious about finding someone to teach RBSD/personal combatives, etc., based in large part on conversations I had here on RSF. Since then I've spent about 18 months training with Marc MacYoung. Marc's writings often come off like he's selling something, but that's not really the case-- he's just trying to address a really big and complicated subject and present it in a way that people can understand and remember.

By the time I got to Marc's class, I was already familiar with a lot of the information on self-defense, but it was really clear almost immediately that information is not knowledge is not wisdom. You can talk about all the things that happen leading up to a serious conflict, but until you see it (even at a low intensity) from someone who's been there and done that, it just doesn't resonate and connect in the same way. I could expand and give a lot of examples, but the point is that you can only legislate against information, and that's not the same thing as real experience. I can say all the words, and often I can say them better and more eloquently than the real experts, but there comes a point not too far down the rabbit hole where it really isn't the same because I don't have that kind of ugly real world experience (thankfully).

Sometimes there's a real gap that occurs despite everyone's best intentions, and I think it's something that's worth bearing in mind as we develop our utopian projections of what could be. The worst part is that even good people who train with real experts make the mistake of thinking their little taste equates to a whole dish, and they never really grasp that they're missing the heart of the thing.

[Strange]

Bhassler, i take it that you are not in favor of certifying the trainer. its cool, we are all entitled to our opinion.

as an aside, this term "reality based" had always tickled me; i just did't say it till now.
to me it conjures up images of old chinese fighters betting their skills with m&ms or candy bars; after they fought they would settle the score and sit around enjoying their sweets. yum yum.

but seriously, for me in reality based concept: why are you learning or teaching push hands, if you cannot cover you opponent's kicking leg distance without the opponent noticing your movement?

[Bhassler]

Hey Strange,

"Reality Based" has indeed become a buzzword and been co-opted by the McMilitary pseudo-hardcore, crossfit-wannabe crowd. And as you say, even in it's original meaning it was kind of odd, but it's a convenient way to get the idea across.

I'm a big fan of push-hands, and think it's a much broader and more effective training method than it is generally given credit for within legitimate fighting circles, so I won't argue with you on that point.

I'm not against establishing standards of competency, but I think by it's very nature a certification method large enough to be inclusive of a meaningful segment of the demographic will have significant gaps. Also, being certified in both Pilates and Feldenkrais and being privy to some of the legal stuff that goes with that, I will suggest that there's a lot of political garbage that goes along with it and ultimately doesn't benefit anyone except a few people who want to validate their own personal power issues and lawyers that get paid a lot to do lawyer stuff.

[Teazer]

so i'm thinking: sure would be nice if we are able to come up with something like a BoK.
for example:
1) skill: taiji, xingyi,bagua jibengong and basics
2) specialisation (or any no. of the big three)
3) applications and sparring skills(distance timing, etc)

4) knowledge: taoist philosophy, history of warfare
5) MA specific: history of ma, major schools/styles timeline
6) Books: major classics and interpretations

7) medical: first aid, cpr, defibrillator, sports injury, fractures/sprains immobilisation
8) chinese medicine: basics, jow formulation
etc

Interesting idea for a person just coming into martial arts. When you get down to it though, I'm just happy to find a person who can exemplify their style to respond effectively to practical situations - anything else is gravy, though I'd prefer them not to be too psychologically imbalanced. So drop 4-8 and the sparring requirement. For some of my past instructors I pretty much ignored everything they said and just watched how they moved and responded to pressure. If they can fight, they probably have an eye for taking apart the opponent though their weaknesses which can be used to improve students. If they can present their system in an orderly fashion, that makes it more efficient to learn for sure, or allows them to handle larger groups of students productively, or charge more for their services.
I think when you get down to it, if I couldn't gauge what they did myself, I'd want to see what their students could do and check their references from competent people (that don't have a financial interest in my decision) who say their teaching is worthwhile and follows that system. Those people are invariably going to vary in their standards though.

[yeniseri]

Hey Strange,

"Reality Based" has indeed become a buzzword and been co-opted by the McMilitary pseudo-hardcore, crossfit-wannabe crowd. And as you say, even in it's original meaning it was kind of odd, but it's a convenient way to get the idea across.
I'm not against establishing standards of competency, but I think by it's very nature a certification method large enough to be inclusive of a meaningful segment of the demographic will have significant gaps. Also, being certified in both Pilates and Feldenkrais and being privy to some of the legal stuff that goes with that, I will suggest that there's a lot of political garbage that goes along with it and ultimately doesn't benefit anyone except a few people who want to validate their own personal power issues and lawyers that get paid a lot to do lawyer stuff.

Reality Based isn't bad! It is only when everything else tries to suk up to the label knowing they are gawd dawg awful in their presentation

Reality Based Tai Chi Chuan is a positive spin so I guess it has a niche of some sort. It is visible and to the point.

[Bao]

An instructor certification means nothing. People learn shit and become instructor after a month in Beijing studying the 24 form for a shit teacher.

I have no instructor certification and no one of my main teachers were certified. I have no degress, except a black belt ... that I got for practicing breathing methods. Ive studied Tai Chi and IMA for quite many years now, so no one should tell me what I can teach or not.

[yeniseri]

If I were to chase an MA Instructor Certification (guessing CMA) it would have to incorporate a central thread of knowledge capable of transcending many martial system. This means that for any martial system I encounter, this instructor certification will lead me to equal most arts. Victory isn't necessarily the key but holding ne's own against any other art. Also saying that individual conditioning of the part of myself would have to be high enough to train and able to see through an art's raison d'etre.

The closest systems that I have encountered that fit the bill are shuaijiao, BJJ, Judo, silat, etc. Form and function follow one another and at times are each other's shadow