Training Anyone and Everyone?

[Tsuba5]

This should generate some really good, and possibly diverse opinions -

In the traditional school of thought (of which I tend to gravitate towards) training of the more dangerous techniques should not be given freely to just anyone wanting to learn them. For example, you can teach cervical locks to anyone - however, should you? The question is whether the person you are teaching is moral enough to be able to restrain themselves in a given situation. Of course this is a purely personal opinion of the Sensei but another reason why traditional karate reserves some of the more interesting techniques until after you make Shodan.

This is kind of hard to put into words, but I am under a moral obligation to teach only those whose character I can trust not to misuse the techniques. Of course, there is always the case where somebody snaps - and nobody can foresee that. But with the MMA community the way it is today it seems that there are people out there who can't control their temper and would just as soon rumble with you as look at you.

I feel that learning martial arts should give you control over yourself - and should only be used if you feel you have to protect your life and not to settle an argument.

So - with all of the different viewpoints here on this forum, this should be an interesting question. I've searched the forum for other threads like this but couldn't find anything specific.

The question is: Should the martial arts (including the MMA community) train anyone who wants to learn these techniques? and If so, what restrictions would you place on teaching?

Thanks -

[cyrijl]

If you want to know, this should be in YMAS.

[Tsuba5]

YMAS ?? - Sorry don't know what that is - remember, I'm a NOOB

[Tsuba5]

I found it - thanks for the re-direct to Your Martial Art Sucks - - - -

I guess we'll just close this thread then.....

[Ron Collins]

The question is: Should the martial arts (including the MMA community) train anyone who wants to learn these techniques? and If so, what restrictions would you place on teaching?

Thanks -

MMA doesn't have "advanced techniques" which often equates to a few "dirty tricks;" instead it just relies on improving applications of basic techniques and covering one absence in knowledge in one art with knowledge from another system. Which IMHO gives them a better view of the basics then most TMAs.

But, answering your question:
I think that if you are teaching for commerical reasons (to make money) then use the belt system and stick to the line about "Shodan is just a student of the advanced skills..."
If you are teaching for development of a "higher self" then teach philosophy, at a basic level to incourage the moral ethic development that you are speaking of.

[Tsuba5]

But, answering your question:
I think that if you are teaching for commerical reasons (to make money) then use the belt system and stick to the line about "Shodan is just a student of the advanced skills..."
If you are teaching for development of a "higher self" then teach philosophy, at a basic level to incourage the moral ethic development that you are speaking of.

I take it that you place no restrictions on training - train the thugs who will beat up and rape your sister as well as the guy who only wants to defend himself.

This is the basic question I'm asking. Noting about philosophy - although that has to be considered. Otherwise, you may as well be teaching violence with no consequences for the victims who might misuse their knowledge.

Actually, the belt system (not just to make money) does have some good points to it, and this is one of them. But from your answer, I think you probably disagree.

[cyrijl]

I think alot of honest answers to this question will come very close to trolling and that is a no-no in thie forum.

I should have posted more in the my first post so here is an explanation.

If you have a student who you think is unfit, then tell them to leave. It really is that simple. I personally don't believe in advanced techniques. So perhaps, this wouldn't apply to me. I have never had to kill a man, but with what I know now, I am pretty sure I could do it without 'advanced techniques'.

Moral instruction should not be a consideration for students of adult age. For child students I wouldn't teach them some things but more for fear of lack of control in terms o ftechnique moreso than danger of them misusing the technique.

[Tsuba5]

Thanks Cyrijl - but - what's trolling? I don't want to do it if it is a no-no.

[cyrijl]

I take it that you place no restrictions on training - train the thugs who will beat up and rape your sister as well as the guy who only wants to defend himself.

I don't think most thugs take okinawan karate to learn how to rape women. Conversely, you could sign up for an agency to do background checks on perspective students. If anything suspicious came up you could refuse to train them.

[cyrijl]

Oh, Trolling would be if someone responds to your question in an inappropriate manner....like with name-calling, off topic etc. I think alot of people here might think your question is a bit naive on many different levels and respond in a troll like manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll


That was funny. I edited this post...on postback I saw the background had changed. I figures it'd end up in ymas.

[Tsuba5]

I don't think most thugs take okinawan karate to learn how to rape women. Conversely, you could sign up for an agency to do background checks on perspective students. If anything suspicious came up you could refuse to train them.

Hmmmm - don't think I was speaking of just Okinawan karate - nor do I remember ever seeing any classes on how to rape women. Just because they can pass a background check doesn't mean that they aren't thugs.

I thought my point was about teaching - but we're starting to go back to the "that's a stupid question" mode. If it's a stupid question, just don't bother to post. I'm seeking the opinions of others - and your comment about the background checks was valid, but not the one about how to rape women. Out of line...

[Aikicat]

When my folks lived in the communist motherland, the government didn't allow people to learn certain martial arts. Now pretty much anyone can learn whatever you want, so I don't really see what you're talking about.

[cyrijl]

I answered your question in several ways. If you think someone should not be taught, just say no. But most thugs are not going to bother learning an elaborate system over many years just to go and attack someone. That is not an efficient use of time. The Karate line was a bit tongue in cheek since if I wanted to learn how to fight so that I could go out and hurt someone, I would just take boxing. It would yield a very high return on time invested in a very short period of time.

In a similar fashion, Kano took out a lot of 'deadly advanced techniques' out of jujitsu so that his students could train full power. You can kill a guy by dropping him on his head, but you don't have to have reserved techniques. That is another way to avoid the problem.

A background check would remove people who might be more immediately threatening. Short of that you would nee complete psychological profiles made fo your students, even those are not effective.

I don't think the question of teaching anyone and everyone is a bad question. I think the idea of having advanced tecniques is a problem. You would hope that by the time a student go to these techniques all of the bad ones would be rooted out...this combined with the number of students you trained combined with the actual number of criminals would make the chances of creating a martiall adept thug very slim. I hope that doesn't seem off topic.

[BASE853]

I agree with Cryjill. The "advanced" techniques or dirty tricks are probably going to be less effective.

One of the things I am VERY SLOWLY learning in BJJ class is that if you throw a technique without setup or from a week position then it is a gimick. It might work aginst a noob but probably not. IN fact I have found that if I am trying to throw complicated moves in rooling without set up I will probably get reversed and put into a bad position. This is like the "advanced techniques" you are talking about, you are depending on the person not reconizing the attack.

To further illustrate this I can tell you that when I have had the privilage of rolling with my instructor, a BJJ BB, he used all simple stuff and moved so methodically that he did not rely on strength or speed...just positional dominance and solid fundementals. It is hard to describe but it was like when he would throw on thing my only escape was the set up for his next move.

How does this relate to your question? Well I think the "advanced/deadly" techniques are probably phoney so probably should not be taught to anyone. In terms of more dangerous techniques like certin knee locks or whatever...yeah learn those latter based on control, not charcter.

The dick heads will usually wash out or time anyways.

[Ron Collins]

I take it that you place no restrictions on training - train the thugs who will beat up and rape your sister as well as the guy who only wants to defend himself.

I don't have a sister... But, anyway like I said, if you are teaching to make money then use the belt system, best business concept ever invented! plus for those who just want to learn violence, will get bored in the 3 to 4 years it takes to get to shodan.


In case you didn't know Kano created the belt system from the different jackets in Euro prep schools and applied it to judo as the belt system. Those English prep schools, used different jackets to shool different grades. Kano's belt system has completely different uses then a method of tracking children on a large live in campus, but did help to make legitimate small term requirements for progression through time in grade, belt tests, and so one...

This is the basic question I'm asking. Noting about philosophy - although that has to be considered. Otherwise, you may as well be teaching violence with no consequences for the victims who might misuse their knowledge.

Misuse of knowledge for requires there to be a use for that knowledge. The knowledge of fighting (martialism) is to fight. There for the martial arts are fighting arts. If you want to insure an ethical requirement then teach philosophy, moral discusion and etc. Christian martial arts schools do it all the time. Shotokan Karate-Do and the martial-way (-do) movement that followed all arose from the incorperation of taoist philosophy and passifist religious views shared by Funakoshi. This in the origional format of Funakoshi's school taoist philosophy was apart of the schools training. And the root of Shotokans Dojo-kun.

Actually, the belt system (not just to make money) does have some good points to it, and this is one of them. But from your answer, I think you probably disagree.

The belt system is a way of slowing student progress and making more money of them, as you said "not just to make money." IN slowing progress you get to weed out the "un-favorables." But, how does that apply to other arts that doen't use belt ranks?