11 posts / 0 new
Last post
Nl Shotokan
Nl Shotokan's picture
Sensei: Questions they Won't Answer

Everyone,

I am new here but I have been using Sensei Abernethy's writings and teachings for years now. I'd like to add some of my own writings for your consideration. I feel that since i get so much from this site and its articles, I should give back.

Please enjoy my blog enty here entitled: Sensei, Questions thay Won't Answwer.

http://www.nlshotokankarate.com/2019/01/29/sensei-questions-they-wont-answer/

Nl Shotokan

Anf
Anf's picture

I love the closing paragraph, that sooner or later we have to play with a technique or principle until we feel it. But I don't think that needs to wait til black belt.

On the contrary, I think waiting til black belt before 'earning the right' to experiment, is detrimental to both the art and the artist. There used to be a time when black belt was widely accepted to represent the beginning of mastery. A black belt was assumed to not only know the core techniques but also how to apply them in a realistic scenario. Now it seems to represent just a basic understanding of the syllabus. Youtube is full of videos with titles along the lines of 'karate/taekwondo Black belt gets destroyed by...'. That's because too many black belts nowadays are merely good at copying what they've seen, without having practiced with any variation. Many have only practiced choreography. How often do you hear things like,' and if you put in the punch/grab.... No not like that, other hand, no aim here.... That's it... Now I just do this'

I really enjoyed your article. It makes a whole lot of sense. But I think the whole practice it til you feel it thing should start at white belt. Or even before. Maybe when the student is still in t shirt and jogging bottoms before having committed to buying the suit. Sure they'll get it wrong and misunderstand stuff at that level, but that's why they attend classes, so that someone with more experience can put them right

Marc
Marc's picture

That's a good and thought provoking article. I also like the comments from different sensei at the end. Thanks for sharing.

As instructors we can help our students to get to the point of feeling the principle of a technique faster than we have in our own learning curve. And different students may need different hints or different mental images to understand and experience the point in question.

In the dojos where I teach there are several instructors, and we all have slightly different approaches and might teach some details differently. I love it when students come to me and say: You say to do this this way, but sensei X said to do it that way - which is the correct way? My answer usually is this: Try both, and find out which one works better for yourself - and, most importantly, why?

Shu-ha-ri

If you can copy and perform the variations as taught by different instructores you are at an advanced "Shu" level. You are able to feel and control your body. And you get the nuances in the variations. This is not an easy task for many students.

If you find out which variation works better for you, you are at "Ha" level. It is now time to find out exactly why the one way works better (for you) than the other.

If you understand why one way works better for you, your might even find a way to improve on that way. You are at "Ri" level. You are to make it your own. You develop your individual way of karate (or indeed whatever it is you're learning).

Just remember to not completely reject all the variations you've seen on your path. One of them might be the right way for a future student of yours to guide them on their way.

All the best,

Marc

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Thanks for posting the link to the article. It’s a good piece. I like it.

Marc wrote:
Shu-ha-ri

That phrase jumped into my mind too :-)

For those not familiar with Shuhari (守破離) it is a principle of learning that should be central to martial arts (it is also found in traditional dance, board games, the tea ceremony, etc).

守 – Copy or “learn by copying”

破 – Diverge or “learn by experimenting”

離 – Transend or “learn by creating”

Martial arts are supposed to follow this process. It is a process that encourages strong basics, individual expression and progress. It is vital for strong and healthy martial arts.

Marc wrote:
If you can copy and perform the variations as taught by different instructors who are at an advanced "Shu" level. You are able to feel and control your body. And you get the nuances in the variations. This is not an easy task for many students.

I agree. I find we get two problems at the “shu” level:

1) Endless copying i.e. “shu, shu and even more shu”. The result is “cookie cutter karate”; denial of the strengths, weaknesses and experiences of the individual martial artist; martial stagnation; and ultimately a weakening of any given martial tradition. This is one extreme and it’s most commonly made in “3K karate”.

2) The other extreme is people failing to appreciate the importance of the “shu” level. Having good basics is vital. You can’t diverge or transcend before you have a deep appreciation of the fundamentals in place. In science, people do open a text book and then start trying to rewrite or overturn what is contained within. Modern physics has moved on from the physics of Newton, but those advancements were all made by physicists who fully appreciated Newtonian physics. A white belt is in no position to decide to deviate. They don’t have the ability, knowledge or experience to do so. They are therefore best served by accumulating the ability, knowledge or experience of the more able, more knowledgeable and more experienced by copying them and learning from them. That process will inevitably give them their own ability, knowledge and experience too, and from there they should integrate that. Trying to skip the “shu” stage is a worrying trait in some areas of the “practical karate community” who mistakenly see time spent refining basics as being a uniquely 3K pursuit. Basically, it is an overreaction to the problems of Point 1 (shu-shu-shu).

This article goes in to this in more depth:

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/styles-are-they-killing-karate

The video below would also seem to be relevant.

All the best,

Iain

Marc
Marc's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

A white belt is in no position to decide to deviate. They don’t have the ability, knowledge or experience to do so. They are therefore best served by accumulating the ability, knowledge or experience of the more able, more knowledgeable and more experienced by copying them and learning from them. That process will inevitably give them their own ability, knowledge and experience too, and from there they should integrate that.

True. And this is where we as instructors have an important role to play if we want to help our students develop their own karate. We should help them copy what we show them by correcting them and by explaining why some details are important. I know that it sounds trivial but I've seen instructors who don't actually "instruct" their students. They just tell them what to do, sometimes not even demonstrate what they want them to do.

If we don't correct our students they ingrain bad habits or take a long time to recognise how they could improve.

If we don't explain the principles, our students might perfectly copy the wrong aspects of what we show them. (As an example, without explanation beginners might think that a yoko-geri must be a kick to the head, because their instructor always demonstrates it at head height, and they will attempt to copy that aspect no matter how silly they move. Whereas with explanation they will understand that the important thing is a certain way of generating power while kicking to the side, and the kick may well be performed at knee height.)

Of course, that requires that the instructor actually knows the why of what they teach. But that's another topic.

Take care everybody,

Marc

Anf
Anf's picture

Having read Iain's description of 'shu', and the 'extreme' of shu, shu and more shu, there is I'm afraid an even more extreme scenario. That is where even the basics are not really taught.

Lets consider the basic front snap kick. Mae geri in Japanese lingo if I'm not mistaken. Putting together all of what I've learned from a small number of good teachers over the years, I have come to realise that contrary to the more obvious outward appearance, we don't simply lift one knee the flock out our foot. Yet in some clubs, that's exactly what you see, even at very senior level. I've trained at one such club. None of the finer details are ever shown. So what is the student to do in that situation? Of course a white belt is not experienced enough to change the art, but what grade do they have to be before they are qualified to wonder if they are actually being taught anything?

I think the culture that says a white belt should just copy and accept and not challenge, while perfectly valid in many clubs, will also contribute to the gradual decay of the art.

I'm afraid in this respect I've become the nightmare student. I'm polite and respectful, but I've vowed to always challenge, politely of course, if something seems wrong or illogical to me. I fully accept that it may be that I simply don't understand it, which is fine. I challenge it, the teacher has a chance to explain it. Usually they can. Sometimes their answer just doesn't wash. Either way I'll just bow, thank them for their answer, and leave it there. I have made it clear to at least one instructor that if their answer contains the phrase 'your average untrained thug' then I'll immediately discount their answer.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Anf wrote:
Having read Iain's description of 'shu', and the 'extreme' of shu, shu and more shu, there is I'm afraid an even more extreme scenario. That is where even the basics are not really taught…

… None of the finer details are ever shown. So what is the student to do in that situation?

Leave and find a better club. If a student finds that none of what they are hearing sounds right to them, rather than endlessly challenge in the hope things will improve, they should seek out instruction that does resonate with them. Find a teacher who does make sense, who can and does articulate the nuance of given methods, and who can provide a worthwhile learning experience. Find someone worth of copying; who has admirable attributes. That will ensure the Shuhari process works as it should.

All the best,

Iain

Anf
Anf's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
Leave and find a better club....

Absolutely. But there's a catch 22 here. You might have to train for quite some time before you realise such detail is missing. If a white belt doesn't get pulled up for terrible hip position when doing a basic front snap kick for example, is that because the instructor is happy enough, for now, to see the knee come up before the extension, or is it because they're never going to pick it up?

There is a culture in traditional martial arts whereby the student is expected to just trust the instructor. Personally I place great value on that concept. Martial art is inherently dangerous. It is after all, combat first and foremost. Therefore trust is essential. We're also supposed to keep an open mind and suppress ego. For someone that has practiced several styles, each with sometimes contradictory nuances, all this might add up to a situation where the student continuously practices what they've been ask, secure in the knowledge that the next piece of knowledge will be shared at the right time, for quite some time.

All of this is why, while still being open minded and respectful, and trusting that the instructor has the best intentions, and keeping an open mind about the nuances of the style, I respect the instructor enough to let it be known, politely of course, that I'm there to learn their style. My new policy is simple, as you suggest, if I find I'm rarely getting satisfactory explanations, I'll walk away.

I actually think this can benefit the club. I am lucky. I've yet to meet a genuinely terrible teacher. They've all been excellent martial artists. Like any good martial artist, they can apply the core principles effectively, even if not exactly by the book. I've found that by challenging, politely and respectfully, along the lines of 'but what happens if I just drop my elbow instead of pulling away like you expect' or 'but from here I can surely just do this', it's almost like waking them rather than sleepwalking through the syllabus.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Anf wrote:
Absolutely. But there's a catch 22 here. You might have to train for quite some time before you realise such detail is missing.

Catch 22 is a superb book. The main character (Yossarian) is involved in risky military flights. He goes to the Air Force doctor (Doc Daneeka) to explain he fears for his life and does not want to fly anymore on mental health grounds. The doctor replies to Yossarian that he is obviously sane because he is aware of the great risk, and it is logical that he does not want to fly, and hence he is fit for service. Yossarian explains that means that any one who does want to fly is therefore, by definition, insane and not fit for service. Doc Daneeka replies that there is a catch because such people don’t come to him to be asked to be relived of duties, so they can fly too. Yossarian explains that that’s some catch, and the doctor agrees … it’s Catch 22.

I’m not sure that’s what is in effect here, because there is no contradictory set of claims that lead to the same outcome:

A) The beginner has no prior knowledge or experience, but they are taught solid basics and the shuhari model works as it should.

B) The beginner is not educated enough to see that the teaching is flawed and hence copies bad technique. The Shuhari model breaks down in practise. The model itself remains robust; it is the application of the model that is at fault. If a person deliberately breaks a law, it does not mean the law is wrong. It is simply the law is not being followed. (If the student eventually realises this is the case, they should leave and find a better club. The very fact they realise there is an issue is also part of the shuhari model – Scenario C).

C) The “beginner” is educated enough to realise that what they are being taught is substandard. They are therefore best advised to leave the group and find better instruction. Shuhari will then do as it is supposed to (revert to Scenario A)

D)  The “beginner” is educated enough to know they are receiving good instruction. The shuhari model works as it should by continuing to increase knowledge, understanding and experience.

In scenarios C & D they must have some education or experience to know that something is not right (hence the quotations on “beginner”). They therefore must already have some quality “shu” level training or experiences in place. They must have assimilated something “right” in order to recognise “not right”. That is shuhari in action.

All four scenarios are different, and none invalidate shuhari. There is also no Catch 22 style contradiction present. Like many things, shuhari can be deviated from, but that does not invalidate it.

We can deviate from shuhari in a number of ways. We can get stuck in the “shu phase” such that deviation and transcendence never happen. We can try to skip the “shu phase” by seeking to deviate when we are still unsure what we are deviating from. We can also, as you point out, have the “shu phase” deviated from by nothing worthwhile being copied and assimilated without the student being aware that is the case. Either way, the failure to follow shuhari will lead to a failure to develop meaningful skill.

Anf wrote:
There is a culture in traditional martial arts whereby the student is expected to just trust the instructor.

There is, and we need to get away from that. Trust (like respect and loyalty) need to be earnt. It requires work from both sides and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the relationship proves to be mutually beneficial then there is a reason to trust. If the relationship does not deliver – for either party – then it should end. If a teacher makes a student demonstrably better, then the student has reason to trust that the teacher knows that they are doing. In the beginning, there should be neither trust nor distrust. There is no evidence to take either position. The teacher should have confidence that they can deliver. They should not demand trust from the onset. Both teacher and student need to prove themselves to each other.

There’s an old podcast I did that covers this:

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/martial-virtues-and-warrior-ethics

Anf wrote:
I've found that by challenging, politely and respectfully, along the lines of 'but what happens if I just drop my elbow instead of pulling away like you expect' or 'but from here I can surely just do this', it's almost like waking them rather than sleepwalking through the syllabus.

Valid questions should always be part of the learning process. “What if …” is a vital part of developing understanding and the quality of instruction … providing it does not become an alternative to training.

GOOD WHAT IF

Teacher: “ … and that’s how to throw a reverse punch so could you please give it a go on the pads.”

Student (having practised what was requested): “What if the enemy covers up when I throw the punch?”

Teacher: “That would open up other options. We will cover that later, but here are some examples of what you can do  … [shows examples] … they key thing for now is to work on the core technique, but I hope that helps put it in context for you?”

Student: “Thanks. I get that.” (back to practising).

BAD WHAT IF

Teacher: “ … and that’s how to throw a reverse punch so could you please give it a go on the pads.”

Student (immediately): “What if the enemy covers up when I throw the punch?”

Teacher: “That would open up other options. I’ll cover that soon, but I need you to work the core method first.”

Student: “What if he has a crash helmet on? It won’t work!”

Teacher: “Sure, but this is assuming he doesn’t. Can you please practise the punch?”

Student: “What if he takes me to the floor before I can throw the punch?”

Teacher: “Takedown defence is a topic for another day. Can you please practise the punch so I can see how you do it and help you improve?”

Student: “What if the guy was on the other side of the room with a gun, how would I get close enough to throw the punch?”

Teacher: “Please practise the punch!”

Student: “What if he’s a TKD Olympian and he kicks me before I can hit him?”

Teacher: “You’d never be able to hit anyone with anything if you don’t actually practise!”

Student: “This method has loads of holes in it! It won’t work if he covers, if he’s wearing a crash helmet, if he tackles me … and you’d not shown me how to stop tackles …, if he has a gun, and if he knows how to kick really well and can keep me away. Can’t we practise something that will actually work?”

Teacher: “I don’t think this is the right club for you.”

I joke at seminars that most clubs have a “what-ifer” i.e. someone who will ask “what if” endlessly as an “alternative” to training. Questions are vital and should be encouraged at all points in training … BUT they need to be meaningful and productive. There is also a time to shut up and do.

Teachers can learn from students’ questions too. I know I have. It can guide us to better ways to explain and to consider things from new angles. However, if it gets to the point where the student is educating the teacher more than the teacher is educating the student, as you allude to, the student may want to ask what they are doing at the club? They go there to learn and be corrected. Not to educate the “teacher”. The “teacher” may also want to reconsider if they are ready for that role.

It could be the student has more experience in another area, i.e. it’s Thai-Boxing club, and the new student is a judo dan grade, in which case they can help bring in a new angle to things. However, the club exists to study the art / aspects the teacher is teaching, so we should not have role reversal where the student tries to make our hypothetical Thai-Boxing club into a Thai-Boxing/Judo hybrid.

In summary, there does need to be an initial “shu stage” to provide experience and understanding. That “shu stage” can encourage students to try different things so they know what both right and wrong feels like, but the key aim remains providing a solid set of core skills, and the experience and understanding that goes along with the acquisition of those skills.

The “shu stage” can be provided by the group in question, or a student’s prior training elsewhere, but it needs to be there. It’s also vital that the “shu stage” is of sufficient quality and is always seen as part of the process and not the entirety of the process.

All the best,

Iain

Marc
Marc's picture

In my experience the Shu-Ha-Ri learning curve can/should also be applied at higher levels of experience.

For example: I go to karate seminars to learn from instructors who I believe have an interesting approach to teaching, or deep knowledge of a subject I know less about, or new/different ideas of a kata's bunkai, or similar.

Most of the time, I quickly pick up fresh ideas and am able to incorporate them into my personal karate, maybe modify them to fit, and I'm happy to use them next time I teach in my own dojo. That's Shu-Ha-Ri on a time scale of only hours or even minutes.

However, sometimes I have difficulties practicing a certain application or method that is being taught.

In those situation I go back to basic Shu-level. I watch the instructor extra carefully. I try to mimic what they do. I ask them to correct me. I ask them to explain some details. I try my best to do as they tell me. If it doesn't work, it is very possible that it's just me not doing it the way I'm supposed to. So I practice. Maybe it will grow on me. At the very least I want to understand how and why it works.

If by the end of the seminar I'm still not able to do it right there are two options.

A) I'm intrigued and decide to work on it further on my own time. If I understand the principle I might be able to acquire the skill through more practice. I will also try to train with that instructor more often. That's Shu-Ha-Ri on a larger time scale of maybe weeks or months.

B) I find that what was taught just isn't for me. It might be that the prescribed moves just don't feel right. It might be that I don't feel I will ever get it to work the way it's taught. It might be that it didn't make sense to me in the end. I will try and honestly identify why it wasn't for me. Then I can happily dismiss it.

In any case it was time well spent. Because I went to train with an interesting instructor whom I chose because they know something that I don't. Usually there's always something to pick up and take away.

And if I decide to dismiss one thing they taught, it doesn't in any way devaluate the teacher or their teachings. On the contrary: I have seen it work for them, so I have learned two things: 1) There are people for whom this works. If I feel a student of mine could benefit from it I would send them to train with that instructor. 2) I am unable to pull it off for whatever (identified) reason. It is always valuable to know yourself, and what you can and cannot do.

This is Shu-Ha-Ri taking a different route. Copy, understand, maybe deviate, and if it still doesn't work: dismiss.

Take care,

Marc

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Great post Marc!

Marc wrote:
That's Shu-Ha-Ri on a time scale of only hours or even minutes.

Absolutely. I have heard things like, “spend 20 years on each” but that makes no sense. Prior training is cumulative and new things can be copied, deviated from and even transcended very quickly if a person has the prior experience to make that happen. Show an advanced judoka a throw they’ve not seen before, and then can be slamming people with their own version of it in minutes (something I’ve seen and felt first-hand). Show the same throw to an inexperienced thrower and it can take years before they have a working version of it down.

Marc wrote:
This is Shu-Ha-Ri taking a different route. Copy, understand, maybe deviate, and if it still doesn't work: dismiss.

Absolutely. To quote Bruce Lee, “Absorb what is useful, reject what is useless, add what is essentially your own.”

The caveat here would be that some advanced people are too quick to dismiss things. They forget that everything didn’t work for them and felt “off” as a beginner. They forget this, and assume the new method is at fault (can’t possibly be them!) and hence reject it. I’ve done that.

My judo coach told me that ippon-seoi-nage would be “my throw”. I told him it did not feel as natural as others, but he was having none of it. He made me practise it in preference to all other throws – which initially felt like a mistake to me – and he was right! It works well for me now, but I would have rejected it based on prior experience had I not been forced to do otherwise. I felt there were simpler throws that were more suited to me, he disagreed … and he was right.

As with all things, there is a balance. We need to give new things a chance, and if they don’t work out, then we can dismiss in good conscious. I also think there is value in gaining an understanding of things that may not work well for us, but could work well for our students. I have students who can use certain techniques better than I can; even though it was me who taught it to them. I provided the “shu”, and then they ran with it from there in a way that was not suited to me.

All the best,

Iain