Passing the torch

Lee Richardson wrote:

To what extent is what you do and teach concerned with keeping traditions alive to pass on to future generations?

Not one little bit. I do however hope I can pass useful methods onto future generations.

Lee Richardson wrote:

Are you practicing (and teaching) anything that you know in your heart of hearts you'd never use for real, simply because you feel a responsibility to pass on your chosen style to others?

There’s a difference here between personal use and teaching that I think the question fails to capture. I do teach things that I would not use (or don’t use yet) but that may be useful to others. I don’t need a hundred different throws; I just need a few that suit me. However, what does not suit me – as a 15 stone 5’ 8” guy – may suit my students so I feel I have a big responsibility to be teaching things they could find useful; even if I don’t. If I feel a given methodology is unlikely to be of use to anyone, then obviously I’m happy to drop that. I don’t feel an obligation to “style”.

Lee Richardson wrote:

Let's say I teach a small number of techniques and a student asked for instruction on something else in addition. If there was no-one reasonably near who trained that particular element I'm sure there would be a DVD, book or YouTube clip that covered it. I know that isn't the same as one on one instruction, but if the alternatives were that you either showed them something that you haven't mastered yourself, or simply don't 'feel', then is it such a bad thing?

I’m assuming this is related to the other topic linked below and am answering it from that perspective:

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/personal-bunkai

There can be a huge difference between what I find useful and what others may find useful. If I just said “Tough, search you-tube or find another instructor” that does not make me a good instructor. I have an obligation to pass on all potentially useful methods, even if they are not directly useful to me, so others can decide if they are useful to them.

If they need something we can’t give, then of course we should point them in the direction of others who can help. But if I could have helped, but I abandoned everything other than things which suited me personally, then I feel there is a failure there in my obligation as an instructor. What I want to do is to continue to learn and expand my knowledge base for the betterment of my students. If I feel something could be useful to others then, as an instructor as opposed to a practitioner, I feel I have an obligation to share that information and not ignore it or jettison it.

I don’t need to preserve everything; only the things I feel can be useful to me and those who I teach.

On a personal note, my own development is not concluded. There are things I’m working no at the moment that don’t work that well for me now, but may work very well with further practise and refinement. I’ve been through that process with all the things I feel I do well, so I’m happy to keep working on the “developing stuff” along side the “core”. There could be a danger in settling on a final skill set too soon and boxing off all future development as a result. Vital we keep a hierarchy for stuff that is “flight ready” and that which is not of course. However, I feel we can maintain that hierarchy but still keep working on things that are not ready to go live just yet and that may be useful to others.

All the best,

Iain

PS Interesting questions these Lee :-)

Lee Richardson wrote:

To what extent is what you do and teach concerned with keeping traditions alive to pass on to future generations? Are you practicing (and teaching) anything that you know in your heart of hearts you'd never use for real, simply because you feel a responsibility to pass on your chosen style to others?

as an assistant instructor (whether you agree with that or not is a seperate issue) i will take my cue from my instructor when i am teaching. if we have gradings or tournaments coming up then all the training and teaching i do will be geared for that requirement and guided by what my instructor wants me to cover. However when the forthcomiing schedule is free of such events then my instructor gives me free reign to teach as i see fit mostly kata bunkai that i have learnt elsewhere, self defence drills / scenarios etc.

I think Iain hits the nail on the head here.  

From a combatives perspective we know that we only need to know a few simple  things extremely well.  We often have to learn more than we need in order to make the discovery as to what suits us best, but once we know this - this, and only this,  is what we should train the vast majority of the time.

As instructors we are forced generally to spend time teaching a spread of techniques so we can offer students the different options in which to train.  Unless we devote a significant counter amount of time focusing training on our needs, we reduce our overall effectiveness as fighters by making logjam more likely.

Like Iain I always have things that I am developing alongside the core of what I am teaching.  Sometimes I will introduce these into lessons after several months of personal evaluation to see how 'student practical' they are.  On other occasions solutions that I have devised specifically to address a particular student's problem prove so effective that they supplant training methods for all.

Different styles of martial arts highlight the divisions mentioned in the OP.  Over time I would say that a number of styles have been 'added to' in order to make up for the more shallow modern teaching approach, but also to prevent students seeking additional information and leaving the 'corporate brand' of the style.  The addition of numerous Kata to Shotokan is a good example of this.