The Importance of Lineage

If I may, I would like to respond to the topic in general.

In the Chinese martial arts, of which I am a student and teacher, lineage is always set forward as the end all of the qualifications of any instructor.

But I  must submit the possibility that lineage is important, but to a much lesser degre than is presented by so many. In the CMA, in my own style, Hung Gar, if someone claims a lineage direct from Wong, Fei Hung,he is granted more legitimacy than someone who does not. There are schools in Hng Gar who claim in their lineage a man named Hung Man Ting, who is not a historical person, but rather a character from a Shaw brothers film.

In spite of this being a known fact in the Hung Gar circles, people continue to claim Hung Man Ting as part of their lineage.

To me, the reason for this is simple; people prize lineage over skill.

If we were to rightly prize skill, we would see that lineage provides a ligitimacy that eliminates video warriors, but does not weed out those who claim a  skill that they have never earned through their own effort and work.

This is a great topic, and I do hope that others chiime in! But for my own opinion, I think that lneage plays a much smaller role than it is portrayed to have.

I gave up on lineage years ago, its about money in the right pot.

I've moved around to various Schools, not all Japanese, and when I left my Sensei, I stuck with the Syllabus, until Nidan, then I changed it to include everything I had done before. So Lineage, I suppose, begins with me! 

Back in the day it was the norm for teachers to send their students to train elsewhere. "Go and train with so and so in the next village for a year. He's got a good Bo kata"... that sort of thing.

All that matters is what I'm doing now. I train on my terms, but it is good to have an idea of our history. Of course history isn't lineage! Acknowledging the  past is good, but we should focus on the present.

Now, learning kata from youtube... there's a can of worms!

Simple answers:

- The most important aspect is honesty

- No, in the end lineage is not that important

- Yes, it can legitimise, depending on the art, the lineage, the people etc

- Lineage can be fascinating. I'm proud of my lineage in Aikido.

- As intimated, relying on lineage can blinker you to genuinely excellent styles and individuals

- In my experience, claims of lineage and Martial Arts politics often go hand in hand. When they do it's never a good thing

with regard to lineage, i thin some time it can be used in a good way, with so many strange schools popping up all over the place so legit and some less so having a lineage could be seen as important. however i have seena certain bagua school with all the nice looking lineage papers and certificates that is as legit as a $12 note.

I think that sometiems it is more the feeling of the school is more important. if  it  give you what you are looking for then it is ok.

as for the OP. in the past it was very common to go and train with a teacher to learn a particular form or skill, but this was before MA became a major money making endeavour, certianly i have seen teachers over here that have taken on a person that was very good in one art and taught them a very advanced form, more advanced infact than many of his own students.. if a skilled ptractioner comes to you to ask how to do something then it is ridiculous to ask him to spend time doing basic line work all over agian. sometimes ego gets in the way, :he can't just walk in and learn an advanced form, he has to speand time bowing to me first" etc.

another senario could be after the student has self studied the form for a while and demonstrated it, maybe even taught it to some people. He is asked where he learnt it. after explaining that he learnt it from youtube I am fairly sure at least some people would cast doubt on him.

but what about something smaller than a kata, how about just a technique? for example, I studied Aikdio for just over 3 years then had to stop when my teacher moved away. During that time my study was anything between 2 to 5 times a week, and attended week long seminars with visiting high level teachers, but due to the short time that i had with my teacher i didn't manage to gain my  black belt. now when i look at my TKD forms i can see movemtents that could be fitted into Aikido techniques, irimi naga, kokyoho and kotegashi to name a few. do I as a none black belt in Aikido have the 'right' to teach these teachniques to my TKD students or would it be seen as half baked knowledge

Some thoughts on the general idea of lineage: Firstly, everyone has one. All of us learnt what we know from somewhere. Assuming that there has been direct instruction in a student / teacher format then there will be links to the previous generations. The question becomes at what point that link is “legitimate”?

In the back of our dojo handbook / grading syllabus, it has a “family tree” reaching back from me to as far as we can go back in history. I’ve had many instructors in many different disciplines and all had had an influence on what I do and teach. However, the only ones I include in that tree are the ones that I gained “teacher status” with i.e. they officially said I was capable of teaching their methods (and all those teachers have also graded me to 5th dan or higher). While the contributions of others have made positive contributions to me as a martial artist and teacher, they are probably most accurately classed as “influences” as opposed to “teachers”.

One thing of note here is that I don’t teach in exactly the same way as any of my teachers, but I still feel I have a strong linage and that that lineage is passed onto my students. I don’t see linage as being about “purity”, but quality of instruction from all the streams upon which an individual draws.

There are techniques and training methods that I have acquired from people who are not my teachers (i.e. on seminars etc) and as useful as that material is to me, I don’t claim it as part of my lineage.

As I said, these days what I do is uniquely mine, but it draws on what I was taught and I have proved my understanding / ability in the eyes of my teachers; as they did their teachers. I therefore think I have a strong lineage which I think has value and I personally draw satisfaction from.

Someone may have watched one of my teachers’ DVDs or read their books and took information from it. However, I trained with them directly for a very long period of time and they were personally satisfied that I understood their teaching to a high level. I therefore feel I have a legitimate “linage link” with that person in the way that the DVD watcher does not.

If we stick to idea that a “lineage link” is legitimate when “my teacher said I was a teacher” then having a linage is a reasonable indication of a chain of quality instruction and that has to have value. It’s far from being the only consideration though and it’s certainly not the most important.

People should do not mistake “linage” for “ability”. We see that a lot where people claim that just because they have trained with a given person that legitimises what they do. The only real measure is “effect”. If you want to know if a person can punch well, then get them to punch. Asking them about their “family tree” to ascertain their ability is flawed in many ways. This is particularly true if the lineage they have is political or familial and not based on ability.

Another problem with lineage is when it is used to stifle progress. If potentially positive developments are shunned in a desire to keep a “pure lineage” then that will ultimately lead to stagnation (as we can see in much of modern martial arts). I cover this problem in some depth in this article:

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/styles-are-they-killing-karate

“Lineage” as a by-product of quality instruction has to be positive. “Lineage” as political control, nepotism, or as means to discourage progress is obviously negative.

All the best,

Iain

Sometimes, lineage also shows without having to ask for it. Some instructors sometimes recognize some technique or some way of moving as being some other instructor's signature. Without asking you, they'll know you trained, at least a little, under that other instructor.

It's not just about where you com from. It shows in how you do things. And it can be important to recognize this. As an example, in my studio, we have a habit of sliding forward when doing line drill, taking extra long steps. That's because our studio founder trained as a kid with adults. He got that habit to keep up with the adults' longer strides. And he kept it, and everyone he taught gained it, and transmitted it to their students in turn. It's good to know where that extra slide comes from, to be able to do it on command, and not just "because my instructor does it that way".

To answar the topic starters question: "Yes" He can teach it - i do not personally care where people learn there stuff from, so long they don't lie or make false claims about it. If the training makes sense and the ideas and applications seems workable - perfect for me!

______________

I have been thinking about this also - and would like to emphasize on the influential people.

If somebody where to look at me lineagewise, they would see me primarely as an ordinary Shotokan guy.

But i am so far away from Shotokan almost as anything can be - that is why i add people who in someway or another have influenced me - some of your principles, Iain, have. Aswell as McCarthy and other Seminar teachers that i have only met a few times or even just read books from. These thoughts and ideas i sometimes consider essential for my developement and further thoughts and are not to be neglected - but in no way i would reffer to any of them (you) as my teacher, that would be absurd

Also some might understand ones background when listing styles instead of teachers, unless that teacher had specifik ideas. My tree would normally included the styles in which i have a higher degree of proficiency, then my primary teacher from Kyusho, then alive infuental persons and then dead influental people. Also you can be familiar with styles that which you have not trained - due to the amount of availability on the internet, books etc. etc.

-Nikolaj

Seems like there are two connected issues issues with this theoretical situation, lineage, and purity of style.

To me lineage only matters in that it's a great thing to learn from excellent people, you do not have to neccessarily care about purity of style for that, nor do they. Secondly on the issue of purity of a style syllabus..it's about like the debate between the letter and spirt of the law, Is something 'proper' because it contains the right kata, or because it seeks the right principles?

Even within styles with the same syllabus of kata, there is no guarantee whatsoever that you will be learning the same thing, these are living arts afterall, and whatever you are being taught comes through the filter of a whole other human being, almost impossible to 'preserve' something that way, it inevitably changes..I guess the only question is whether it changes for the better.

Another issue with the theoretical situation is what kind of dojo it is, there are some dojo where the teacher is always 'above' the student to a degree that things will never go the other way, the teacher will never accept something new from the student on principle. Then there are other people who teach more from a 'senior peer' point of view..this will affect the propriety of a decision about kata syllabus etc.

Lineage does matter in that having good teachers that you spend some time with really matters, good teachers are like gold! Beyond that I don't think it's anything to worry about personally though. Karate is also different from something like Koryu Jujutsu where there is a definite attempt to pass down an exacting, 'correct' syllabus of techniques, it is more principle led than that, and seems to be more tailored to individual development, in that context it's hard to say "I teach and such such's Karate", rather than just saying "I train with such and such".

Technique or ability don't neccesarily come with lineage. (but sometiems it does of course).

But responsability for the Ryu, historical and cultural issues and interests do.

I found a very good lineage, and I am very proud of it, but it has no merit over a non lineage/traditional method from a martial arts application perspective - thats all about individuals and training methods etc.

Otherwise the Ninja's would simply be the hardest of us all LOL.

Personally there was always something inside me that sought legitimacy via lineage in martial arts, I found that with our Ryu - I am pretty sure I could have found it in other Ryu as well of course, to many this simply does not matter and power to them for it.

Keep it honest and train hard is where it starts, and as I grow older where it's looking at finishing!