If the instructor sucks, will the student suck as well? If the transmission of knoweldge is incomplete or incorrect, will the student suffer from this?
Yes.
If a student sucks, what does that say of his teacher?
i’d say that they shouldn’t use the same mirror to practice their forms in front of:D
vts
What if there are two instructors. They’ve both studied under a master teacher, they’ve both been exposed to the same knowledge, technique, etc. But one of those instructors comes to a different conclusion given the same set of data, than the other does. One thinks WCK needs to evolve, the other thinks it’s just fine the way it is. One supplements his training with extra grappling and weight training, the other spends extra time on his Chi Sao and studying Kuen Kuit.
Whose student is going to suck?
Being a good teacher is not only about what you know, but how you transfer your knowledge to your student
what is a bad instructor?
r5a writes:
> If the instructor sucks, will the student suck as well?
How do you determine whether or not an instructor sucks? Obviously, there are people who shouldn’t be teaching in the first place, who do not understand theory, don’t do the basics correct. But then, there are those who DO undertsand the theory, can explain it, but can’t get their body to do it. And the pople who can do it really well, but can’t explain it. There are incredibly detailed instructors who look so much into minutia that even a very intelligent student could not get anywhere with a year’s time; then you have people who forsake detail altogether, and have students who learn to fight, but not necessarily with “good” wing chun. So are there degrees to “suckiness”?
Where I am going with this is a student who is really smart and has good body awareness may very well get really good, if his teacher only shows him the bare essentials; just like there are students who never seem to get it, no matter how good their instructor is (but shouldn’t a good instructor get ANYONE to be good?)
> If the transmission of knoweldge is incomplete or incorrect, will
> the student suffer from this?
what do you mean by incomplete? If someone has learned three hand forms, the dummy form, and one weapon, and can apply all of these, is he still “incomplete” because he is missing one weapon?
Aelward, how could you explain a thing you cannot do? I could see a circumstance where you may have experienced some sort of trauma and can no longer do what you used to. I have a hard time seeing someone who cannot do it, understand it well enough to explain it. So far there are concepts that can be explained, and intellectually can be understood, but dont really click or make total sense until all of a sudden you find yourself doing it, right?
Incomplete in that his understanding of what it is he is teaching is incomplete, whether it be parts of the system, how the techniques are used, what have you. Why would you, or should you be teaching anything if you do not understand it all? I could possibly go with the idea of older students holding the hand of younger students as they progress through the system. But you should in my mind, have a very thorough understanding of what it is you are teaching. I will go ahead and say that th ewingchun journey is a constant one and blah blah blah, but I still believe you need to thoroughly understand anything to teach it. I fyou are teaching SLT, are you a teacher of wingchun or just SLT?
r5a writes:
> how could you explain a thing you cannot do?
I know several people who can explain things they cannot physically do. For example, someone with large pecs or breasts might not be able to bring their elbows in too easily, but they sure know, and can explain to people that this is the case. There are people who know you are supposed to relax, and can tell you why, maybe even show you how-- but they can’t do it themselves.
> Incomplete in that his understanding of what it is he is teaching
> is incomplete, whether it be parts of the system,
Without mentioning names, one of Yip Man’s top four students said in the New Martial Hero magazine that Yip Man did not teach him one of the weapons; and that another one of these top four was only taught one of the weapons. Perhaps they both learned it from other sources later, but when they started teaching, they did not have the whole system. But at the same time, they are (were) both recognized as some of the most knowleadgeable and talented Wing Chun instructors of the Yip Man lineage.
Originally posted by aelward
[B]r5a writes:
> how could you explain a thing you cannot do?
Without mentioning names, one of Yip Man’s top four students said in the New Martial Hero magazine that Yip Man did not teach him one of the weapons; and that another one of these top four was only taught one of the weapons. Perhaps they both learned it from other sources later, but when they started teaching, they did not have the whole system.
[/B]
Then OTTOMH I’d say they were not TOP students. If they did not complete the system under Yip and others have how could they be Yip’s TOP students? There are/were other students/masters that have the whole system and can do it - seek THEM out.
how could you explain a thing you cannot do?
Like the utility of the third form? Or like the physical requirements of grappling styles?
Aelward sez:Without mentioning names, one of Yip Man’s top four students said in the New Martial Hero magazine that Yip Man did not teach him one of the weapons; and that another one of these top four was only taught one of the weapons. Perhaps they both learned it from other sources later, but when they started teaching, they did not have the whole system.
I dont know who you are referring to- but defining the top four can be problematic.
Since this is from a mag. article and presumably public, why not
state the names as given in the article? Doesnt mean that what is published is automatically true but a mag article doesnt need
to treated as a secret.
Originally posted by yuanfen
I dont know who you are referring to- but defining the top four can be problematic.
Absolutely. What’s that burning smell? The beginnings of a flame war :eek:
Who was fifth in line? sixth? Do the “top four” all agree on their relative positions?
If he’s talking about “top four” he must be the fourth. Otherwise we’d have “top three”, or “one of the two most senior”, wouldn’t we?
Does anyone question the ability of a boxing coach in regards to whether or not he can physically do what is needed. I would say no. The only test of his performance as a coach is if he can see the inadequecies of his student, correct those mistakes, and make adjustments accordingly. Success and faliure is more apparent in that sport than in Ving Tsun. No one questioned the ability of Angelo Dundee as a coach regardless of whether he could or could not display boxing techniques physically.
bglenn sez:
No one questioned the ability of Angelo Dundee as a coach regardless of whether he could or could not display boxing techniques physically.
((Yes. but Angelo Dundee luckily by passed the generalizations
of r5a. So did Hawkins who holds the Isaac Newton chair in Physics)))
red,
If it was the case if the teacher sucks, the students sucks, then that would explain alot within the wing chun family? I agree that you can judge a tree by its fruits. It takes a good teacher to produce good and excellent students, if a retard teacher teaches, what can we expect from his / her student?
It is rare that a poor teacher produces good students, can anyone here speak of any great martial artist who came from a poor teacher?
Bao
To mention names…
yuanfen writes:
> Since this is from a mag. article and presumably public, why not
> state the names as given in the article?
I had an e-mail discussion with Rene a few years back, and he told me he caught a lot of flak from people for quoting said magazine, even though it came directly from said “top student.” The magazine is definitely there, for those who can:
- dig it up
- read chinese
So if you really want to know, then go find it, get someone to translate it.
> I dont know who you are referring to- but defining the top four
> can be problematic.
As to what I mean top four, I am refering to: Leung Sheung, Lok Yiu, Wong Shun-Leong, and Tsui Sheng-ting. I have seen this listing time and time again, though usually as part of a “top 5” or “top 6” which mentions these four and then whomever the article is describing.
I would not be surprised if Joy will now go running down a list of merits of Ho Kam Min…
anerlich writes:
> If he’s talking about “top four” he must be the fourth.
No, my teacher is not in that list of “top four.”
Aelward sez:
As to what I mean top four, I am refering to: Leung Sheung, Lok Yiu, Wong Shun-Leong, and Tsui Sheng-ting. I have seen this listing time and time again, though usually as part of a “top 5” or “top 6” which mentions these four and then whomever the article is describing.
I would not be surprised if Joy will now go running down a list of merits of Ho Kam Min…
Surprise. No comment - verrry interesting!. There are lists and there are lists. Yip Man left no such list behind.
No, my teacher is not in that list of “top four.”
Don’t understand. Before you said:
one of Yip Man’s top four students said in the New Martial Hero magazine
and that’s who my comments were about.
I made no comments about your teacher.
My instructor’s not in that list either, and neither is his teacher, though that latter has stated on occasions too numerous to mention that only he learned real “Traditional Wing Chun” from Yip Man, and is therefore YM’s successor.
A line of argument about which I am highly sceptical, as indeed I am about any such lists. as Joy said, YM didn’t name a successor nor did he publish any lists.
To the subject at hand, I think it is possible to effectively teach physical skills without a high level of personal proficiency, but not without a high level of knowledge. bglenn is correct about Angelo Dundee. An ability to effectively transmit the knowedge one has and to apply it to a student’s situation is arguable more important for the teacher than sheer personal ability.
That said, ex-players usually make the best coaches.
It is rare in CMA to find such individuals, as, rightly or wrongly, CMA instructors are historically expected to have been expert practitioners themselves. I’ve yet to meet a good KF instructor who is not also a long term practitioner, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen. There are plenty of sportspeople whose parents have made excellent coaches without having been outstanding sportspeople themselves.
In order to have a good transmission of knowledge in kung fu, the three elements must be present:
- good teacher
- good student
- time
A good teacher must be able to impart the knowledge; and his student must be able to digest the knowledge that his teacher is imparting. The student must set aside time to practice; and practice deligently what he is learning.
A teacher is like a carpenter who makes fine furniture. He needs a suitable wood to make fine furniture. Even if he is such a good carpenter, he can’t make fine furniture out of firewood. Can he?
In the same manner, a very fine wood cannot be made into a fine furniture without the expert hands of a good carpenter. To be a good carpenter needs a lot of time of hard work and experience.