?

It seems many of those that teach have no problem teaching children. I'm not interested in extenuating factors such as financial hardship and the need for kids to keep a school afloat. It doesn't matter if it is an extremely watered down version and therefore "kid safe" The question is as stated, do any of the people teaching actually believe you are teaching responsibility AND understanding?

Let's suppose for a second that all of the major arts, with founders of some repute, are being taught as the founder would have wished them to be. Most teachers that claim to understand self defense will proclaim that the art they teach contains lethal techniques. Using them successfully will maim or kill.

As a teacher of the art, you have been promoted to that level because it was believed you had the responsibility, and understanding to pass along the art in its entirety, with integrity. If one understands responsibility, really understands it, as well as integrity, and understanding itself, they could not possibly teach children not of their own blood. There is too much evidence that children cannot grasp a complete understanding of responsibility, therefore they cannot understand that martial does not mean beat up, lethal does not mean hurt badly, they simply cannot understand the value of being alive, or taking a life.

In some cases, a 17 yo can enlist in the army, but generally in the USA, one must be 18. The reason being they are not mature enough to handle to responsibilities a soldier is faced with. Sometimes they are in charge of very expensive equipment, in Vietnam, a 19 or 20 yo might have found them self in charge due to the CO being dead. In war, a soldier is supposed to know when killing is justified, and when it is slaughter, such as mowing down a village in anger.

We don't let anyone under 18 vote, part of the reason I am sure goes to the days when it was easy to buy votes. Theoretically, an "adult" will vote as they believe, and has the maturity to do so.

We don't allow minors, despite being of "adult age", to drink, one must be 21. Why? The age was once 18, it changed, largely due to abuse, and that abuse leading to more deaths within the age group than believed would happen without booze. Whether the age is 18 or 21, most of us had parents that taught us not to drink, and implored us not to do so stupidly, yet very few can say they never broke down as a minor, broke the law, broke their parents rules, and at least tried it. The same holds true for "recreational" drugs. All through school the dangers of booze, drugs and smoking are emphasized, yet use in all three continues.

Back in the 80's there were constant promotions about babies having babies, teen girls getting pregnant from ages 14-17. Sex education was a part of all schools, abstinance taught as the responsible thing, birth control taught as an intelligent thing, all students affirming they "understood", yet nothing changes. In the late 90's there were groups of girls trying to get pregnant, it was an "in" thing to do.

Love, booze, drugs, smoking, these are things we teach as a society, and as parents that need to be understood and handled responsibly. Every kid says they get it, and will act accordingly. Yet hundreds of millions of parents, along with edcation, have failed to impart the true meaning of responsibility, due to children being too immature to understand.

How can anyone teaching 4 yo's to choke claim they understand these things when life has shown us children cannot understand them. Would you rather have to go to a police station to bail out a drunk teen, or a teen that has killed someone? Teaching ones own kids is one thing, but anyone that honestly believes they can teach a teen responsibility (someone elses kid) when their is evidence we can't teach our own, how can it be taught to a 4 yo? The martial arts are for surviving, not bully proofing someone that writes letters to Santa.

One of the often asked questions on this forum is, "What is a McDojo, or, is this a McDojo?" The answers are generally provided from the perspective of those in the "know". Granted, those with the most simplistic understanding can figure out McWhatever is a process of providing a product with speed, quantity being the objective and quality sacrificed for profitability.

Ask 10 teachers that are being honest, and they will say 80-90 percent of schools are McDojo's, maybe higher. (I'd say about 99 percent) Ask the same 10 if they are McTeachers, and the answer is no. So, there is a problem, logic and fact do not match up.

Forget the various titles of the main person in the many arts, lets call them teachers. What is a teacher? A mentor? An instructor. A guide? A manager? All four?

A mentor is going to take to heart the feelings and understanding expressed by their subject, influenced by that, more than their own beliefs or wishes on that which may be most beneficial to their charge, though these sentiments would be provided as options as food for thought to the student.

An instructor can pass along valid material and information pertinent to the goal of the student, by and large, restricted to the subject material at hand. This is how to throw a cross, this is how the great Ali did it. The body is propelled, the arm launched, the fist lands. An instructor is little more than a verbal definition, possibly a visual example, but the "job" can be accomplished with command of a piece of the picture rather than the full spectrum. There is far more to a cross than I have identified, but for visual identification and demonstration purposes, it can suffice. Tape a child doing it, and while the many critics will have advice on how it can be better, if the question is asked, "What are they executing?", a cross will be the answer.

A guide can show one around a school. These are the lil dragons, these are the big dragons, that is the locker room. They don't need experience, just memorize a few things. A guide takes a person a place and says, this is it.

A manager, a good one, is essential to the business side of a school, but doesn't mean they are a good teacher. Yip Man is reported to have been an awful manager, loaning people money, doing favors that went unappreciated etc.

A teacher must be a mentor, and a guide of sorts, a "pointer to truth" as Lee said, and they must be able to instruct, though, technical information that requires physical movement to attain skill, when devoid of the true wisdom found in been there, done that, is reasonably useless. One can develop the ability to know things, without understanding them. If kids really understood fire is bad, they wouldn't be burning stuff down accidentally. Is a roll in the hay as good as it gets (and that is pretty darn good) or is that magic that occurs turning the woman to your personal angel during the same roll, as good as it gets?

Does length of time involved in a profession have anything to do with experience? If it does, how can a 40 year MA teacher be a McTeacher, and there has to be plenty if 90 percent of schools are. When Apple kicked Jobs out, they brought in an experienced CEO, dude turned Pepsi around and gained a large portion of the Coca Cola stake in the market, but almost ran Apple into the ground. There are teachers in the education system going through the motions for an entire career, very few people look back and cite having many great teachers, many say one taught them beyond the books.

Pro athletics have stat sheets on players, years of experience is calculated as a pro. All the pee wee, pop warner, high school, college experience means crap in the pros, because most don't make it. They develop technical skills and basic information, and can't transistion. An NFL player with 15 years is a lifetime, and the good one say they find out they knew nothing the first few years in the pros.. So we have these elite level guys, with 12 years or so of solid experience, that attain legendary status, and are embarrassed to cite their skill and ability as elite when a rookie, though those traits are why they were drafted.

Are you experienced, or are you a McTeacher?

I always read from the forum regulars that claim 20+ years experience, as well as being teachers, that JKD is a philosophy. This is the same old tired diatribe from people that claim to understand wisdom, , citing it stems from discovering deeper meaning held within something they initially viewed as simple and self explanatory, straight to the point if you will. It is always the use of Lee's quote, "Absorb what is useful, discard that which is useless.", and their "learned" ability to see the wisdom within.

For one thing, that is an incomplete quote, and any teacher worth their salt should recognize when you alter words of instruction or guidance, you get a different meaning. So, list whatever it is you use to determine JKD is a philosophy. I know one likes to say Lee said it...and people like me aren't satisfied with their definition of what he said. I don't deny he said it, I quote it more often than most of you. He wrote many other things as well, many of them in support of each other, presented in a logical sequence which creates information which could then be regarded as a fact. If one wants to dispute the validity of the supporting observations and dictum's, disproving them, that is one thing. But to say Lee said it, define it out of context and pretend other things he said don't exist, is not the mark of a learned warrior.

"If you know yourself and you know your enemy", Sun Tzu said that, and if you are a learned martial artist, you know the rest of the quote. It could be stated that was and is the philosophy behind the genius found within the Art of War. Does it mean if I know my troops are armed with automatic weapons, and we are engaging an equal number of troops armed with bows, holed up in a fort located nicely on high ground, that by virtue of superior weapons I can just charge blindly ahead? Maybe it means by knowing I control the roads, the fort is SOL when it comes to provisions and water, which I happened to plan for and can eat and drink with my troops for 3 months. Knowing oneself goes far beyond knowing what floats ones boat, it means knowing the human psyche and by extension knowing much about an "enemy" one has never laid eyes on.

Socrates was famous for the "know thyself", self investigation into understanding what is true about oneself and universal truths of human kind. It seems he realized he did understand much of what makes humans tick, and was able to advise important people of his time, guiding them to understand their own actions, perceived and real benefits or detriments to the self. Only an idiot would think he went around telling people, "if it makes you happy, it works, so do it." That's not wisdom, it wasn't then, and it isn't now. Nor is it philosophy

Those that believe this JKD "philosophy" is absorb and add anything, the only criteria that it works for you, are incorrect. Anyone that has seriously explored JKD, if only by book like most of you, you had to have come across the principles of economy of motion, the shortest distance between two points, longest weapon to the closest target, strong side forward are all part of the foundation you say doesn't exist.

Why investigate something like strong side forward, declaring it advantageous, supported by straight line theory, which in turn enables longest weapon to the closest target to be used efficiently, economically and direct, which Lee stated were criteria for absorbing? Those of you that have years of experience, ask yourself, if JKD does in fact teach that the student stand strong side forward whenever opportunity presents itself, how can adding techniques that defy this be considered absorbing? You might also ask, if their are ever increasing complex layers to knowing thyself, how can something as simplistic as "whatever you like and works" be considered anything more than a rudimentary understanding. That is taking something at face value, any of you that have studied in Japan or China, know "face" value means very little, and it is the underlying meaning they are generally expressing. "feed a man a fish..." There's a lot more to that than giving dinner, or even showing them how to get their own dinner. It reveals methodology to take into account. It determines discipline will be needed to carry it out. It reveals planning ahead and having contingency plans. The "wisdom" is not found in the "face" value, all that is, is showing someone how to get fish out of the water, not how to "fish", which entails knowing the enemy as well. There is a lot more to "absorb" as well, but teachers are demonstrating a face value understanding, I'd say that reflects more on you, than Lee.

I am thinking of taking BJJ because I keep hearing about how evolved it is compared to classic arts like Kajukenbo. That's a little confusing being as BJJ is 30 years or so older, but...anyway. I really like the fact that the foundation of BJJ is built and learned with a resisting opponent. I'm not sure why it is classified as such, wrestling arts focus on bodies in contact with each other, and it is safe since there is no striking, seems like it would be an odd thing to get good at with the partner just laying there.

Anyway, forms and kata seem to be regarded as the "classical mess". Since the forum BJJ expert says there is no such mess within BJJ, I would like a distinction and clarification on the practice of shrimping.

1. Does solo shrimping help when the time comes to applying it with the partner? Please explain the benefit of solo practice and with a partner?

2. If there is a benefit to practicing it solo, (I hear practice makes perfect) so if there is a benefit, how does that differ from a form? If I do my kicks against the air, that is considered dancing by BJJ'ers, yet if I wiggle across the floor as though in an epileptic fit, I am properly training my muscles to remember how to wiggle. Please explain how one is form and dance training while the other is practical tool sharpening? I tried shrimping on my driveway cause I spar out there some, and kind of tore up my back, is there a safer way to do it? In street clothes certainly isn't the best attire for it.

Also, I hear it takes 10 years to get a blackbelt, what level is allowed to be teaching the BJJ system, blue, purple? And what do you think of a school that has blue belts teaching? Is that a McDojo, or because BJJ has no forms, beginners start teaching early?

Those of you that say you teach are here for a reason. Is there a difference between an instructor, and a teacher? I see several of the teachers here remark on 20+ years of experience, so the question is, have you been instructing for 20+ years, or did you learn to teach along the way? What is the essence of being a teacher? It has to be, providing an understanding. Understanding is not a vague notion of how information fits together resulting in an unclear conclusion. 1+1=2 There is a difference between and M and an N, if a student is sloppy and their letter can almost be a W, do we teach," way to go, almost, I like it!"? We say, no, not like that, that is incorrect. Teaching is not telling a student that, it is making them understand that. We do this by repeating, demonstrating, showing them "how to" properly...we find a way to help them comprehend, digesting information and turning it into self knowledge. Failing to do so is not teaching, it might be considered instructing, but if the student is confused, the teacher is at fault. If there is some learning disability, that has to be determined, but "WHY" did the student not understand is the responsibility of the teacher.

Much of martial arts is fact, the information can be dated, it can be verified to be a quotation or legitimate beliefs of a founder, techniques, terminology. for the most part in a given system are constant. If someone says "Judo, Tai Chi and Silat are all martial arts founded by Yip Man.", most of you teachers, and some of the kids here, will all pipe up and say, "Wow, you have no clue what you are talking about" or something to that effect. As teachers, most should notice that the majority of questions are by children, and half the answers on this specific forum. Are they offering their opinion, and an uninformed, but well intentioned newbie, or are they stating their answer as fact. Do they post often, or was that a blue moon sighting?

The regs here know KW is prone to immature crap such as asking himself a question then agreeing with himself on what a good answer he gave. A few of us point out his lies, others try and take the "high road" by saying something like, "I'm not threatened". No kidding! Disinformation can't be a direct threat to any teacher that actually knows the facts. False information, can be killer to the student. Imagine being allergic to peanuts and not reading ingredients. If a child can't read, the parent of teacher better be ensuring the facts are known.

Is this forum life and death? No, we all choose to be here, and if we are honest as teachers, most likely have better things we could do with the time, like exercise, there is always something more we can do, those that fail to admit that, aren't very good teachers.

KW lies about the following constantly:

- He calls MMA, Karate and Kung Fu, "styles".

- He constantly says TMA's are McDojo ridden

- He lies about the Gracie founder being small

- He lies about forms.

- He lies about systems, not teachers being at fault

- MMA, Karate and Kung Fu are not styles. Information does not getting any more basic than that, yet he constantly posts "Don't take Kung Fu, Wing Chun...," MMA is not a style. What is the first thing a beginner takes in? The basics, and when they basics are wrong, the student is misled.

- McDojo's. This is probably my favorite. What is the worst thing a McDojo can do? Have a bad teacher. All students are important, but who does the future rest with? Kids. Who does he teach? Kids. By his own admission, he is a lousy teacher, so he works with kids to learn to teach. Does that sound fair to the kids?

- Neither Helio nor Royce are small, this is a lie to make it sound good.

- Forms don't build "muscle memory", it requires a resisting partner according to him, yet he advises a person shrimp alone at home for practice. One learns technique form alone, and technique application with a partner, both are necessary in many cases.

- Anyone that doesn't know schools operate differently, doesn't deserve an opinion. Evidence is in every walk of life, better athletes than others in pro sports, within the "system", bosses, construction workers and so on, it is impossible to not know it is the person, not the style. All through school there is a grade point grading, and teaching system, and all students come out differently, we are surrounded by this fact yet he missed it and insists only the schools he says practice realistically.

It's not about being threatened, it isn't an opinion since he continues to ignore facts, he lies intentionally and that is no good for the student of any art. Is it not the teachers responsibility to say, this is a lie, or do you just take the high road because they aren't your students?

Can any of you verify this lineage, Helio Gracie, Francisco Masor, Marcelo Ferreira, Bruce Shepherd, Dax Razzano?

So, MMA guys think they are the ones that just happened upon the notion of realistic training. They are big on using the words muscle and memory to indicate training methods need to be realistic. One guy said something like...no, wait, I remember, he said, "The people who thumb me down are the politically correct traditionalists who believe that it's the fighter not the style, but the fact is, styles train a certain way. It's either the correct way or the incorrect way." Since KW is a modern day stylist, a Gracie dude, seems it would stand to reason the art is modern, and not yet corrupted by unrealistic training methods and guys teaching it that don't have a clue.

Check out this realistic training on a nice soft, cushiony, mat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQXlg7DksvY

Traditional guys that only punch instead of doing the eye jabs, and throat shots won't be able to do them on the street as we respond how we train. It's muscle memory they say. Ok! oK! Let me up I've had enough!! In order to get proper memory muscle, one must get all slappy and girl like, not that the guys slapping in the vid didn't do it in a masculine manner.

I guess this is a bonus question kind of thing, but if that is reality training, instead of walking down the street in a Gi, might it not be more practical for a MMA dude to wear a skirt? That way they look as realistic as reality allows when they do that vicious slapping technique.

We'll use Lee at age 32. Had you been around, and in the prime of your training, do you think you could have beaten Lee in a street fight? I ask because bbqpit has informed me that he could have done it easily, and suggested that pretty much anyone with moderate skills that are MMA guys could do it as well. Even guys like Joe Lewis that suggest he wasn't a fighter and was a world champion himself, had the opportunity to test this, but never did. I'm not talking about a guy like Silva, I mean you. Could you have done it given the opportunity?