Moderator: Megan Lieff
Shana Moore wrote:Should all teachers strive for perfect balance/symmetry, or simply teach to their strengths?
Should students strive for the same?
What are your thoughts on teaching old school/traditional vs Uechi as an evolving art (or any martial art, for that matter)?
I realize this last question can be a hot topic, so please remember we are not discussing what other arts AREN'T, but what your art IS or COULD BE.
Thank you.
Shana Moore wrote:
Should all teachers strive for perfect balance/symmetry, or simply teach to their strengths?
Shana Moore wrote:
Should students strive for the same?
Shana Moore wrote:
What are your thoughts on teaching old school/traditional vs Uechi as an evolving art (or any martial art, for that matter)?
- Matsuo BashoDo not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought.
"maxwell ainley wrote:Here's a very old wise statement etc, " The beginning is the end ,the end is the beginning ".
Its at the end of the statement when real new things emerge that push both the practioner and the system onwards .
Bill Glasheen wrote:You are looking at a snapshot in time of three different individuals, Shana. Do you think each of these teachers were the same way from the first day they started teaching to present day?
Bill Glasheen wrote:Here's something else to consider. If any of these schools evolved to be larger entities, would the assistant instructors be clones of the head instructor, or would the head instructor tolerate (or perhaps even encourage) individual expression, emphasis, and approaches? (FWIW, I've seen both.)
Bill Glasheen wrote:We wouldn't have Meyers-Briggs personality testing if everyone was "balanced" on all their personality tendencies.
Bill Glasheen wrote:- Matsuo BashoDo not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought.
jorvik wrote:So what I find myself seeking for now is what I believe is called a Paradigm shift..................which is I have find a new way of looking at things, a new way of "Feeling"....so that is what I am seeking....to be soft
I think that if you are going to teach an established ryu, it should be kept as traditional as reasonably possible while also adapting to fit the era that it is being taught in.
Traditionalist: The art was designed around a specific paradigm. Until one has stuck with the art long enough, they may not see how everything fits together, and as certain principles build on others, the traditional method is well honed to teach them in a logical progression.
Technician: If the student does not understand what they are doing or learning, they will get frustrated and quit or they will stick around but never be the practitioner that they could be.
Builder: Principles of the art should be made applicable in a modern era. New training techniques that will enhance one's practice of the art should be looked at. We understand the human body far better today than we did even thirty years ago. Modern training methods can maximize a person's physical potential to a much greater degree. Also, we face threats of a different nature; it is unlikely that I will be attacked by a bo staff wielding opponent or a swordsman. And catching arrows will not help me against firearms. A teacher who can apply the art to the environment in which the student lives can benefit the student greatly.
I think that all three aspects can and should be incorporated into any teaching style.
Return to Women and the Martial Arts
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests