Instructor metric

[kenneth fish]

Looking at the "Sifu Flow Chart" on the BTDT page, this came to mind - this is my metric for assessing a teacher:

1. Teacher has spent not only years in training, but put in several hours each day of those years under the guidance of a strict teacher
2. Has an understanding of, and can clearly explain (verbally and physically) the physical mechanics of the system
3. Understands that things like pushing hands or sticking hands are exercises that develop certain atributes or test structure and alignment, but are not ends unto themselves and that time spent in trainng these exercises may not have actual value in real world application of the art
4. Has experience (police, military, criminal organization, security) that put his/her training to the test. Has been in situations that required him to defend him/herself for real.
5. Understands that martial arts are not a vehicle for competitive sport (unless one is looking for sport oriented martial arts), and does not confuse tournament activities (sparring, push hands) or compliant application drills with actual fighting.
6. Can demonstrate the techniques of the art against full speed, non-compliant (or relatively non-compliant) attacks.
7. Has no "cult of personality" - students are not encouraged to see the teacher as anything more than a teacher deserving of respect.

[KEND]

Excellent points,
I would like to add:
Is a lifelong study which keeps you healthy in old age, many practitioners are good fighters when they are young but train at the expense of their body.
The teacher has experience in healing as well as destroying

[johnwang]

2. Has an understanding of, and can clearly explain (verbally and physically) the physical mechanics of the system
5. Understands that martial arts are not a vehicle for competitive sport (unless one is looking for sport oriented martial arts), and does not confuse tournament activities (sparring, push hands) or compliant application drills with actual fighting.

I would like to comment on this two.

2. If online class is possible then "detail text" plus "video clip from different angles" should be able to explain anything in TCMA. But some people still believe that "You have to touch in order to feel".

5. If you don't fight on the street daily, sparring/wrestling will be the next best training that you can have. If people look down on sparring/wrestling, I just don't see any other options. I have seen people in their 70 still enjoy their sparring/wrestling. The sparring/wrestling is just fun that even money can't buy it.

[I am...]

Looking at the "Sifu Flow Chart" on the BTDT page, this came to mind - this is my metric for assessing a teacher:

1. Teacher has spent not only years in training, but put in several hours each day of those years under the guidance of a strict teacher
2. Has an understanding of, and can clearly explain (verbally and physically) the physical mechanics of the system
3. Understands that things like pushing hands or sticking hands are exercises that develop certain atributes or test structure and alignment, but are not ends unto themselves and that time spent in trainng these exercises may not have actual value in real world application of the art
4. Has experience (police, military, criminal organization, security) that put his/her training to the test. Has been in situations that required him to defend him/herself for real.
5. Understands that martial arts are not a vehicle for competitive sport (unless one is looking for sport oriented martial arts), and does not confuse tournament activities (sparring, push hands) or compliant application drills with actual fighting.
6. Can demonstrate the techniques of the art against full speed, non-compliant (or relatively non-compliant) attacks.
7. Has no "cult of personality" - students are not encouraged to see the teacher as anything more than a teacher deserving of respect.

Your list just knocked pretty much every martial arts instructor I have ever known off of it. I agree that each point is a good one, but also would say that there are people serving in military special operations that would not qualify to teach what they do if this entire list was applied to them. How much more so for most of the civilian sifu's out there?

One example: Find me a teacher that has fought and put their training to the test, as well as can demonstrate things against full speed attacks, that does not have some sort of cult of personality built up around them by their less capable students? Add in that many people grow increasingly eccentric or particular the longer they are alive and practice, and you have a recipe for disqualification from the list above.

[kenneth fish]

John: Sorry, but your comment only works as far as applications. As far as touch sensitivity, reactivity, and understanding what muscles are used (for example the sequential activation of the multifidus and semispinalis in spinal wave), you must learn this from a teacher in person.

I am...: most of my teachers fit this bill: Zhang Junfeng (taught secret police), Abbot Heng Yueh (former military), Henry Leung (I witnesed him dispatch 3 thugs very quickly, two of whom were armed), Hu Jiemin (former bodyguard to both Chiang Kaishek and Du Yuehsheng), Yu Chenghui (instructor to one of the largest triad groups in Taiwan, was a footsoldier in the triads as well as a guerilla fighter against the Japanese), Charles Nelson (former Marine as well as Shanghai police force)

All of them could demonstrate their techniques at full speed. None of them were full of themselves or encourage personality cults. All were very good at explaining, in great detail, the physical and technical aspects of their systems.

[Activeghost]

Things I look for:

1. Has outstanding character and genuinely cares for students (and potential students) well being.
2. The students have outstanding character and genuinely care for each other (and newbies).
3. Can demonstrate their skills against non-compliant *skilled* opponents without injuring them.
4. Transmission: has demonstrably passed on skill to more than one student (unless you are the first or second).
5. Holds no secrets: clearly instructs you in what he/she was instructed in (back to #3 and #1) assuming you meet their bar (which should contain #1/3).

Lately I am also starting to think about judging fighting skills / training separately from the effectiveness of their internal power / qigong training after a discussion with one of my teachers ...but I'm not skilled enough at either to do so yet. I also feel so immensely blessed to have found people of such good character in the arts to learn from through the years (Bill Grey, Howard Popkin, Dan Harden and Yang Jun) that I owe a real debt to my teachers to give that experience to my own students (hence it's importance in my list).

[edededed]

Good points above, I would only add one more:
8. Intent to teach

[Andy_S]

Ken:

Had no idea that you had trained under Nelson. I was always of the - perhaps wrong - opinion that his stuff was basic, entry-level unarmed combat of the Fairbairn variety, with not much beyond that.

Given your extensive background in CMA, what did Nelson's training offer you?

[kenneth fish]

I met Mr. Nelson when I was managing the retail outlet of a clothing factory (I was assisstant to the owner/director of the factory, Joseph Love Inc. It was the oldest manufacturer of children's dresses in America, and I was hired to set up and run the China manufactring and import end). The shop was on West 72nd street - just a few doors down from Charles Nelson's studio. Yes, he taught basic level stuff - but also some very sophisticated and effective material as well - some very good defenses against blades and handguns, as well as control of multiple attackers. At the time he was contracted to teach personnel from the FBI office downtown - they were specifically interested in his defenses against handguns. I found his concepts and techniques quite sound and incorporated them into my own teaching later on.

[jonathan.bluestein]

Also - is the teacher not holding back, and can teach the art within a reasonable time frame? ( = not a decade or two to learn a system)

http://cookdingskitchen.blogspot.co.il/ ... l-art.html

4. Has experience (police, military, criminal organization, security) that put his/her training to the test. Has been in situations that required him to defend him/herself for real.

In agreement with all the rest. This one's problematic - it rules out the vast majority of teachers, including some really good ones with the bad. Goes back to the question of whether a teacher needs to be a good fighter or have real-life fighting experience in order to be a good teacher. I think many western boxing coaches throughout history have demonstrated otherwise, and in TCMA too not all teachers who produce great fighters are such themselves.

[willywrong]

[quote="jonathan.bluestein"]Also - is the teacher not holding back, and can teach the art within a reasonable time frame? ( = not a decade or two to learn a system)

http://cookdingskitchen.blogspot.co.il/ ... l-art.html



If you can do two decades of drilling in a week then I guess you can become a master in a week. It looks like your putting it on the teacher who's cup is already full and not on the student who wants to fill his cup. The sad fact is that most are not capable of mastering an art so some of them that aren't engage in the art of snowing the few that do have the ability in an avalanche of words. Just because you agree with somebody's metric doesn't make it so. Teacher/student transmission is different in every instance. Any attempt to set up any form of metric is about control over others and not about enhancement for the individual involved in the attaining of whatever.

[jonathan.bluestein]

Also - is the teacher not holding back, and can teach the art within a reasonable time frame? ( = not a decade or two to learn a system)

http://cookdingskitchen.blogspot.co.il/ ... l-art.html

If you can do two decades of drilling in a week then I guess you can become a master in a week. It looks like your putting it on the teacher who's cup is already full and not on the student who wants to fill his cup. The sad fact is that most are not capable of mastering an art so some of them that aren't engage in the art of snowing the few that do have the ability in an avalanche of words. Just because you agree with somebody's metric doesn't make it so. Teacher/student transmission is different in every instance. Any attempt to set up any form of metric is about control over others and not about enhancement for the individual involved in the attaining of whatever.

So by reading an article that roughly suggested, based on sound hourly calculations, common sense and historical precedent, that it ought to take someone 4-7 years (5.5 on average) to learn well the full curriculum of a traditional art under given circumstances, which also stated mastery is something that takes a lifetime, you have come to the conclusion that my writings suggest that I "seek control over others"?...

Pardon, but reading your post I had gotten the feeling that you had not read my article in depth at all. Additionally, your claim for the article being "contrary to enhancement for the individual involved in the attaining of whatever" makes no sense to me, given that the article seeks to provide people with a more conscious measure for their practice, and hence a way to improve it, and it is in this way positively supplemental and not detrimental.

You seek to claim that 'some things cannot be quantified', which is an idea I partially agree with. Yet the practice of martial arts has many creative ways in which it can be efficiently measured for the benefit of practitioners, and the article features some of them. In the martial arts world we suffer too much from lack of attention to what we do, and too little quantification. That is a problem. Excessive measurement is bad for one's physical and spiritual health, but moderate measurement is a good method for achieving greater success in one's practice. The fact that this is a Western approach does not mean it cannot be aligned well with Oriental traditions. There is no difference between measuring the times it takes to perform a movement form or how many repetitions of it you have made in a week to measuring progress through the course of years. Calling that an 'attempt to control others' is absurd in my opinion. The fact that you are personally uncomfortable with using quantification in that respect does not make the idea invalid or inherently negative.

One sees what one wants to see, and in what you have referred to as "an attempt to control others" I see an opportunity for a student to get a grip over his or her expectations, and a possibility of improvement through self-awareness. Going through the motions alone will not do. As stated on the cover of my book: "Skill is acquired through continuous practice. Sophistication and depth are achieved by giving thought to it". You want to tell your students they can "just train" and "one day they'll get it all" - that is your choice. I have chosen to give my students more concrete and honest answers. "I don't know how much time it takes" is also an honest answer, but luckily I have a better one, as featured in the form of that article.

[AllanF]

4. Has experience (police, military, criminal organization, security) that put his/her training to the test. Has been in situations that required him to defend him/herself for real.

Agree with comments of a few posters. While the list is sound for the most part this one is not indicative of someone who is a good teacher.
Wanting to learning from someone who has a background in criminal organizations is hugely worrying on a whole number of levels. True they maybe reformed citizens but then again they may not be.

While military/police experience puts them on the right side of the tracks, morally speaking, it would seem foolish to rule out someone just because they didn't have that back ground. Chen Fake for example was a farmer before he went to Beijing to teach full time. Although he did have a couple of experiences dealing with bandits one could hardly argue that it was on a volume a kin to police or wartime military who will be experiencing the realities of combat on a daily basis and yet were he alive today, i can think of no one i'd rather learn from.

[EDIT: In addition, just because someone was in the military does not necessarily mean they have front line experience, the military need people to work in stores as well.]

[Alexatron]

Looking at the "Sifu Flow Chart" on the BTDT page, this came to mind - this is my metric for assessing a teacher:

1. Teacher has spent not only years in training, but put in several hours each day of those years under the guidance of a strict teacher

4. Has experience (police, military, criminal organization, security) that put his/her training to the test. Has been in situations that required him to defend him/herself for real.
.

I agree with some of the points but after thirty years of MA and a dozen styles personally don't agree with the points below:
Re point No.1 - why? Some people pick stuff up extremely quickly and can understand the essence of what they're being taught and then do a good job of teaching it to others. Might be relevant for slow learners maybe. Plus you don't have to have totally mastered the system to be able to start teaching others. Say hypothetically my Bagua teacher has been learning for only 10 years but is a quick learner - he's still 10 years ahead of me and will always be ahead of me assuming he's still learning. From my perspective he's always going to be able to teach me new stuff.
Re point No.4 - really? why? How many shooting instructors have actually shot someone? If they haven't does that mean they can't teach you to shoot? Plus what works for your teacher in the realm of real self defense may not work for you (taking into account size, body type, mental state, restrictions imposed by what is acceptable in police/military etc). This could make their time in the police, military etc. irrelevant. Better to be taught an entire system and learn for yourself what works for you rather than have what you are taught filtered by only what worked for your teacher.

Guess it depends on what you're looking for in a teacher and what your reasons for training are.

[Bao]

Nice discussion!

2. Has an understanding of, and can clearly explain (verbally and physically) the physical mechanics of the system

I bet that this is maybe the hardest to find with a teacher. And also one who not only has the talent, but is willing to share.

5. Understands that martial arts are not a vehicle for competitive sport (unless one is looking for sport oriented martial arts), and does not confuse tournament activities (sparring, push hands) or compliant application drills with actual fighting.

IMHO, this is something you can really rely on, i.e. the over all attitude towards competition, practice and fighting. It says much about a teacher and what you are going to learn. But also - how much sparring, application and two man work does he teach. Where is the focus? Forms only? Combat practice for competition only? But then again, the most important for a student to ask himself is - Why do I want to learn TMA?

7. Has no "cult of personality" - students are not encouraged to see the teacher as anything more than a teacher deserving of respect.

Extremely, extremely, important. A good teacher also wants to learn more and wants their students to help him to improve. If this eagerness to learn and develop is not there and he is satisfied with being worshipped, then run out of the class and find someone else.