Does this happen in your class?

[Peter H.]

I am a 1st Kyu, soon to test for my Shodan in Aikikai Aikido. As such, I mostly end up doing assistant instructing for my sensei.

At least once a month, we get a new student in the class who has experience in other martial arts and wants to prove Aikido doesn't work. Invariable, they end up with me in one way or another.

The most recent time, a Tae Kwon Do guy was working with a 5th Kyu on Kote Gaishi. After the throw, he was resisting being turned over and placed in a face down pin. The 5th Kyu comes and asks me for guidence.

I go to demonstrate, and as I grasp the Uke's wrist, he curls up and launches an unannounced kick towards my groin area.

I intercepted the kick, and used his leg to roll him face down, placed one knee in his kidney, placed pressure on his siatic and cranked on his ankle until he tapped.

He went and complained to sensei about my handling of him. Sensei responded by asking him why he needed to kick me. They guy has been much more cooperative in class since then and I think has come to the realization that Aikido does work.

Question is, does anyone else have situations like this occuring on a regular basis, and how do you handle it. Or am I just unlucky?

[Nicolas Caron]

Well, I am still relatively unexperienced (4th Kyu) so I can't say that this has happened to me directly (although I have witnessed such behavior). I would say that you handled the situation the best way possible. If a student wants to practice more "freestyle" even though he is a beginer in aikido he should be ready to get more than he asked for IMHO.

[AikidoShugyo]

Hello,

I am an beginner but if I could have done like you did I would have. That said I have to add the question whether this behaviour wouldn't intercept Aikido's spirit? I mean you are getting into the competitive part of the MA, don't you?
I just happened to read one of David Lynch's articles on aikidojournal.com called The Case of the Reluctant Uke (http://aikidojournal.com/articles/_article.asp?ArticleID=1041) where Lynch answers your question on how to react in several ways...
I think it is an interesting idea that if you try to prove that Aikido is working you are trying to prove the improvable :-)

[Peter H.]

I handle honest questions all the time. New students, especially those with experience in TKD or Karate regularly ask about kicks, we have Jujitsu guys who question about chokes, and if you just ask, we'll tell you or demonstrate in a controlled manner.

It's the ones that give me no warning that irk me. We had one guy about two or three months ago, come in to class dressed like Billy Jack, and he's talking to Sensei after class and he kept saying "What about this.." and he would strike at Sensei. Sensei took it about four times, the last time, Sensei was annoyed and wanted to go home, so he dropped the guy with Nikkyu, and then cranked him over with Ikkyu. While pinning the guy to the mat, he procedded to explain how annoying those kind of actions were.

Billy Jack didn't come back after that. None one feels it was any great loss.

[shinchaku]

I trained for several years with Kimeda Sensei of the Yoshinkan School. Once during a class Sensei was demostrating various techniques from a gaman zuki. On the last technique when he was attacked Sensei side stepped and planted a perfectly timed side kick into uke's chest. ( not hard enough to hurt uke mind you, but enough to know he'd been hit ) As Sensei turned to the rest of us that were sitting all wide eyed at this display he simply smiled and said " That is Aikido too" And left it at that.
I illustrate this to many people when that say that Aikido is all about being peaceful and passive and such. They seemingly forget that Aikido still is a martial art, and thusly just might have what you might consider slightly non peaceful and passive moments.

[Budoka 34]

J:
Outstanding!
I had the opposit occur. Some of my fellow students knew I had trained in other arts and so occasionally felt the need to show me how effective Akido could be. My former instructors had taught me to "empty my cup" before a new class and also how to be a good uke.

On one occasion a student who had been away for while, I believe he was a 5th kyu, returned to class. He had been informed that I studied Karate and Jiu-Jitsu and seemed to find this fact insulting, as we worked together he threw me very hard several times and during the pins would ask "what would/could you do here?". I explained that I was there to learn Aikido, not test my skills against Aikido. He laughed then procceded to give me several more tuff landings and pins. I had had enough. The next time he attacked, I think we where working Omote Shihonage, I just didn't let go during the throw. He landed hard and lost his breath. I procceded to explain that that was how I would do it in Jiu-Jitsu and asked if he wanted me to continue that way or the Aiki way. He didn't answer, but I think he got the message. I didn't have any problems after that.






:smilejapa :smilejapa :smilejapa :smilejapa

[BC]

Peter:

In my dojo, such a student would be lucky to have attepted such an antic on a "student" instead of the sensei. My late sensei (an 8th dan) was known to teach well remembered lessons to such folk. They rarely tried those tricks again. I came to aikido with over fifteen years in other martial arts, and I quickly learned why I should NOT try such alternate or surprise attacks in the aikido dojo unless I was prepared for the response.

[Robert Cheshire]

Several years ago when I was an assist. instructor we had a guy that tried to pull the "what if....?" game with us. I talked with our U.S. Tech. Director who said "sometimes for a tree to flower you have to trim a few branches." When asked if that was the same as the ol' Barney Fife version of "Nip it in the bud" he smiled and nodded.

This same guy asked my sensei, Dr. Phil Farmer, about a strike in one of our kata's and told him that it wouldn't work. Farmer sensei said something to the effect of well I think it will, but, let's see. The next thing that young man knew he was hoping around the mat and agreeing that it DID work.

We have a saying for those who want to "read ahead in the book" you can ask questions or even try surprise attacks, but, be prepared for the answer or the response. I've had one of our students that likes to "try to get one over on sensei" before or after class start to do something then ask him if he "really" wants to try that. *smile* he often says nevermind (funny he does that with Farmer sensei too).

Anyways, sounds like you did the right thing.

[David Russell]

When I'm asked the "what if" questions by a beginner I usually give him this answer.

1) You've got to trust what we are teaching you for a little while as a lot of your questions will be answered soon.
2) You are probably feeling real opportunities to counter the techniques. These opportunities are caused because I am taking care not to hurt you while you are just beginning.
3) You will not learn anything here if the people who are training you feel that you are trying to hurt them during the time they are in a teaching mode.
4) You can always test the techniques, but you should train long enough to learn how to take the fall before you try that.

So far everyone has had the good sense to listen.

David Russell

[kusanku]

This happens all the time in all the arts, especially with young, tough, strong men who think they can box the Universe and win.:D

My first Aikido class was with Hashimoto Shinji Sensei, who was fourth dan Nippon Kempo(Kickboxing), Third Dan Kodokan Judo and Nidan Aikido, it was called Combat Aikido, he was very small but he knew more technique variations than anyone I ever saw.

While we learned basic Aikido emphasizing Ikkyo thru Yonkyo controls, we also got exposed to comninations of techniques from the various arts he knew.

No one ever tried what if with him, and most of his students were assistant instructors from other Dayton area dojo.

Later I met the Yoshinkan people , and felt right at home.

Hashimoto Sensei's way was simply to execute the technique properly and in person onn each one of us after having us execute an appropriate attack.That got everyone's attention, and after that I knew I would never forget Nikkyo as long as I lived.

But you know, really, if you want to change the agressive behavior of those who seem to wish to be posterboys for Type A,:D, I think mokuso, meditation, for several minutes at beginning and end of class, might help.Is it my imagination or is that practice dissappearing?

Just an Aiki Rookie.

[Walker]

I’m sure it’s a personal failing, but I think you should be ready for class before it starts. If you need a meditation period before you begin to train then do it on your own time. I can’t help thinking that a meditation period is ostentatious and showy. “What? Isn’t sensei ready yet?”:mst:

[Jon S.]

Originally posted by Walker
I’m sure it’s a personal failing, but I think you should be ready for class before it starts. If you need a meditation period before you begin to train then do it on your own time. I can’t help thinking that a meditation period is ostentatious and showy. “What? Isn’t sensei ready yet?”:mst:

My thought is that meditation is like techniques in that the proper method needs to be taught, practiced, and developed. Since meditation is a personal exercise, it shouldn't be excessively practiced in class; but, too, I think at least a brief meditation period before and after class, even if just symbolic, is good to help one to empty their mind and relax. Once in a while a more extended meditation period helps to emphasize to the students the importance of meditation. I believe strongly that zen is a very integral part of martial arts, and thus should be given due attention.

I think if students view sensei as not being ready yet because he chooses to conduct meditation before class, first, they are missing the lesson being taught, and second, they perhaps have the wrong attitude in that they feel they are not getting their money's worth out of class. Since many teachers charge a rate that doesn't compare to the value of what's being taught, such an attitude is out of place. I guess that's the difference between those who teach for a living and those who don't. The former feel that they must appease students in such ways while the latter don't.

As for the topic, to look at the positive side, such students that might try to test us unexpectedly help to keep us on our toes and develop our own instinctive reactions. If looking at it that way, we should probably feel grateful to them for the valuable opportunities for practice that they provide us with.

[PRehse]

Worse thing to happen to me was to be teaching a class when a visitor jumps up and starts reinterpretting what I'm teaching. I literally was dumbfounded - had no idea what to do.

[Peter H.]

Had that one. Sensei let the person, an observer, ramble on, then asked him to demonstrate his point. When the guy was unable to, Sensei carried on as if he was never interupted. Everyone pretty much ignored the guy after that, and he left emberased, and never returned.

[Genghiskhan]

Well said David Russel,

There is no room in any dojo for such a loose canon! when you have no regards for other's safety, then you become a dangerous individual. Let me ask you guys this? Let's say this time you get away with injuries but if that next sucker punch or kick will leave a permanent wound on you? what will you do? The reason why we all need to be cooperative not just because Aikido doesn't work, but it is because we all want to go home with our limbs intact! So to eliminate such incident from ever happen again we have to be more alert!
When a beginer starts to be non-cooperative, our responsibility as a senior is to tell him or her that we are working on technique #1 and working slowly and cooperatively is the only way that you and i can learn the technique in this particlular situation! now...if you resist...then technique #2 would follow, but we are here to learn technique #1 tonight, ok? Sometimes communication is what needed to solve this kind of incident from happening. But if this individual continues to do this, then he needs to pack up and leave! the safety of our students come first! But this can also serves as a reminder for us experienced Aikidoka to sharpen up our techniques...if the uke is off-balanced and in never never land most of the time then he can't see any opportunity to attack...even in slow mo!

Johnathan Nguyen

[Chris Li]

Originally posted by Peter H.
Had that one. Sensei let the person, an observer, ramble on, then asked him to demonstrate his point. When the guy was unable to, Sensei carried on as if he was never interrupted. Everyone pretty much ignored the guy after that, and he left embarrassed, and never returned.

This kind of response seems to be quite common for this and a lot of other similar situations. Namely, some person does something mistaken, or stupid is given some version of the cold shoulder and ends up leaving.

I notice that in most of the cases that I come across the person does not seem to be acting maliciously (in which case I could understand encouraging them to leave), but rather out of ignorance and/or stupidity. Now, speaking as someone who has often been (and may still be) both ignorant and stupid in the past, is making the person in question leave the outcome to be desired? It may well be argued that such a person is more in need of help then the other people in the class and should therefore be the last person encouraged to leave...

Personally, if the above event happened to me and the person were humiliated and left I would feel that I had failed as an instructor.

This is an Aikido thread, and Morihei Ueshiba did feel strongly that one of the primary purposes of Aikido was to create the "world family". If your son or daughter spoke stupidly out of turn would you humiliate them and hope that they moved out of your house?

Best,

Chris

[TommyK]

Greetings,

In my study of Korean Karate (Chi Do Kwan, also known as 'Shotokan Lite')and Self-Defense (an eclectic mix of basic Judo throws and ground moves as well as Aiki techniques borrowed from Tomiki and Yoshikan Aikido)we have seen the opposite of what has been presented here.

We get people from other arts who are used to no rules free fighting and try to do that during drills, where that is inappropriate in our school. Yes, we spar, with no equipment and limited rules, but we are not a 'fight school'.

In the past, when such an incident happened the Founder of our school would just ask the people to leave (we are a true non-profit school, no instructor receives as much as gas money). The current head of our school, who has been associated with the school for over 29 years, and had been the Founders top student, has a different approach. He asks the person to do the move on him, gives it back to them and gives them another chance, if they do it again, they get the chance to experience the same as they gave out and then they are asked to leave the school.

Conversely, some of our brothers who have come from less then hard line Aikido systems, often don't get it when a move does not work. We cooperate to a point, but if you are not doing the technique right, we don't cooperate...the reason...no one cooperates with you on the street. Some of these people complain we are not doing true Aiki, maybe, but what we do is derived from O'Sensei as our Founder was ranked in Tomiki Aikido and studied Yoshikan also.

Just a view from the other side of the coin. Sometimes cooperation can be harmful.

Regards,
TommyK
Tom Militello

"You can't hide on the mat!" Terry Dobson, former marine, bar bouncer and Aikido Sensei

[Usagi]

I had few experiences like that (especially in the brief time i taught the militar).

From that time i learned to take any student as a potential oponent and always expect the worst.

The last two experiences of this kind i had was with a jiujitsu-judo-ninjutsu-kungfu-sushiman-pizzaiolo-thriathlete (as he later told me to be...)and an friend who would train from time to time.

The super-coocker kept all the class trying to stop the techniques.

Next day he made his inscription (is that how its said in english?) and came to train.

I just called him and said:

"I don't accept you as my studant."

The second case was worst.

Because of our friendship he kept questioning every move, instead of trying them.

When he decided that I was wrong i just finished the class and told him not to adress me anymore (inside or out of the mat).

IMHO, the best way to deal with students is to keep the guard up and be sincere.

If my student doesn't trust my judgment, why should i keep him with me?

[Usagi]

Originally posted by Chris Li
Personally, if the above event happened to me and the person were humiliated and left I would feel that I had failed as an instructor.

This is an Aikido thread, and Morihei Ueshiba did feel strongly that one of the primary purposes of Aikido was to create the "world family". If your son or daughter spoke stupidly out of turn would you humiliate them and hope that they moved out of your house?
Chris

Althrought i understand your point, i don't believe that that was the situation presented by mister Peter Haidinger.

If the studant resists or counters without malice ONCE, we should explain to him what AiKiDo is about.

But i don't believe that AiKiDo is teachable.

I believe AiKiDo is learnable (new word?) :)

Students that resist to move in ikkyo or sokumen nage are the same ones that allow us to aplly shiho nage and kote mawashi.

Now; you accept my joint locks, but refuse my guidance?

This would be funny if it wasn't stupidy...

This kind of attitude described in this thread is to be corrected by a psicanalist, not an AiKiDo teacher, who has the well being of other students (who may get in clash with this "billy jack") to look after.

[Chris Li]

Originally posted by Usagi


Althrought i understand your point, i don't believe that that was the situation presented by mister Peter Haidinger.

It wasn't. I was referring to another situation (the one quoted) on the same thread.



If the studant resists or counters without malice ONCE, we should explain to him what AiKiDo is about.

I really don't have a problem with people resisting or countering any number of times as long as:

1) It's not malicious.
2) The risk level is acceptable.
3) They keep it to a level that doesn't hijack the direction of the class too often (I know, "too often" is pretty much always going to be subjective).

In my experience virtually everybody can be reasoned with enough to keep within these guidelines - even the person in the original post :) .



This kind of attitude described in this thread is to be corrected by a psicanalist, not an AiKiDo teacher, who has the well being of other students (who may get in clash with this "billy jack") to look after.

As I said, some people are ignorant, some are stupid. I've been both, and I'm grateful to those people who helped me past that rather than humiliating me or kicking me out. "No bad students, only bad teachers" is probably a little extreme (as any absolute statement is), but the longer I go on the more that I feel it's true. I know a person who has trained for some 40 years, and one of his major regrets is for the people that he left by the wayside. Now, in many martial arts this wouldn't matter. But my personal feeling is that part of the Aikido ethic expounded by Morihei Ueshiba includes an injunction to try to the best of one's ability to help those who are having a difficult time because they are ignorant, stupid, or just inexperienced.

Best,

Chris

[Usagi]

Originally posted by Chris Li
But my personal feeling is that part of the Aikido ethic expounded by Morihei Ueshiba includes an injunction to try to the best of one's ability to help those who are having a difficult time because they are ignorant, stupid, or just inexperienced.


My greatest fear is "Hidden Dragon, Crouching Tiger".

EVERY BODY did their best to help the dragon-girl.

Li MuBai died for her.

The LiMuBai's grilfriend-to-be didn't kill the stupid girl in the duel.

Final result:

LiMuBai dies.

Jade Fox dies.

And how does the dragon kid repays all this deaths?

She kills herself.

I believe in the old saying "when the student is ready, the master appears".

If you lost a student, its because you never had him in first place.

Ignorance is a human condition (we are always ignorant to some degree).

The same goes for inexperience.

But stupidity is a lack of effort to think and respect for the others.

If the student is not ready to learn, to insist in giving him "pearls of wisdom" is hollow.

Empathy is everything...

[Chris Li]

Originally posted by Usagi
And how does the dragon kid repays all this deaths?

She kills herself.

Well of course, there are limits to everything. I'm not really suggesting that you kill yourself for your students (at least not in most cases), but that doesn't therefore mean that you put no effort into helping them at all.




If you lost a student, its because you never had him in first place.

OTOH, I know that I've lost students because of actions that, in retrospect, were mistaken. Are you really such a perfect instructor that a student leaving or becoming discouraged is never your fault? I'm not.



If the student is not ready to learn, to insist in giving him "pearls of wisdom" is hollow.

Empathy is everything...

And how do you, as an instructor, demonstrate that empathy? I know that I've seen teachers (not just in Aikido) have great success with students that other teachers had written off as impossible. Sometimes it was luck, sometimes it was skill, and sometimes it was effort. Ask any professional elemetary school educator - being a teacher (at least being a good teacher) is as much a skill as anything else.

Best,

Chris

[Yamantaka]

Originally posted by Chris Li
I know that I've seen teachers (not just in Aikido) have great success with students that other teachers had written off as impossible. Sometimes it was luck, sometimes it was skill, and sometimes it was effort.
Best,
Chris

YAMANTAKA : And sometimes it was just the "other" teacher, another moment in the life of both and perhaps the student has changed...
I see an interesting thing : you may be both agreeing on the majority of points. Let's see :

"CHRIS LI : If your son or daughter spoke stupidly out of turn would you humiliate them and hope that they moved out of your house?

USAGI : If the studant resists or counters without malice ONCE, we should explain to him what AiKiDo is about."

So, both you and Usagi are talking about people who act WITHOUT malice and not about EXTREME

[Yamantaka]

Originally posted by Chris Li
I know that I've seen teachers (not just in Aikido) have great success with students that other teachers had written off as impossible. Sometimes it was luck, sometimes it was skill, and sometimes it was effort.
Best,
Chris

YAMANTAKA : And sometimes it was just the "other" teacher, another moment in the life of both and perhaps the student has changed...
I see an interesting thing : you may be both agreeing on the majority of points. Let's see :

"CHRIS LI : If your son or daughter spoke stupidly out of turn would you humiliate them and hope that they moved out of your house?

USAGI : If the studant resists or counters without malice ONCE, we should explain to him what AiKiDo is about."

So, both you and Usagi are talking about people who act WITHOUT malice and not about EXTREME cases.
Your real difference starts only when you said :
"CHRIS LI : I really don't have a problem with people resisting or countering any number of times as long as:
1) It's not malicious.
2) The risk level is acceptable.
3) They keep it to a level that doesn't hijack the direction of the class too often (I know, "too often" is pretty much always going to be subjective)"
and Usagi said :
"USAGI : If the student is not ready to learn, to insist in giving him "pearls of wisdom" is hollow."
I believe we have here just a problem in semantics. Usagi proposes that, to insist in having patience with people who create problems (even if by lack of attention, immatury or Malice) is a disservice to your other students : you'll lose too much time with the problematic one. You propose a "limitless patience", which might be a dangerous thing, disruptive of your class. When you said later that :
"CHRIS LI : Well of course, there are limits to everything. I'm not really suggesting that you kill yourself for your students (at least not in most cases), but that doesn't therefore mean that you put no effort into helping them at all"
you were a bit unjust, since no one suggested that (to put no effort to help others).
Finally, when you said :
"CHRIS LI : But my personal feeling is that part of the Aikido ethic expounded by Morihei Ueshiba includes an injunction to try to the best of one's ability to help those who are having a difficult time because they are ignorant, stupid, or just inexperienced."
I believe Ueshiba Morihei Okina had many religious ideas and experiences that have no application to us. But I don't believe anyone was proposing to avoid helping others. The problem is :
Should we give up easily or insist on trying, even at the risk of creating problems to our other students?
Just trying to give another point of view
Best

[Chris Li]

Originally posted by Yamantaka
I believe Ueshiba Morihei Okina had many religious ideas and experiences that have no application to us. But I don't believe anyone was proposing to avoid helping others. The problem is :
Should we give up easily or insist on trying, even at the risk of creating problems to our other students?

Yes, it's a conundrum - and one for which there is no easy answer, or we wouldn't be having this thread :) .

Anyway, I've found that many people seem to in favor of a strict standard - I probably was too at one time, but the more time goes on the more I feel the failure of the student to be my failure rather more than theirs. Moreover, the more time goes on the more I feel that there is an ethical responsibility to help those "problem cases". Morihei Ueshiba did seem to have some odd ideas, but the more I read him in the original, the more I feel that, if you can get past the very difficult language and symbolism he uses, that the base message is actually quite rational and fairly straight-forward.

Sometimes in Buddhism they talk about the different kinds of horses - the first kind moves when the see the shadow of the lash, the second kind moves when the feel the touch of the lash on their skin, but the third kind doesn't move until they feel the lash in their bones. I think that many teachers want students that are like the first kind of horse, but to be honest, those types of students would probably be OK anywhere. It's the third group that really needs help the most...

I've seen teachers (not in Aikido) try to remove problem students from their classes. The best teachers that I've seen find ways to deal with those students instead. Many of the posts on these types of subjects seem to place responsibility for the outcome with the student. Of course, in reality each student must be responsible, but I believe that the instructor ought to feel responsible as well. The difference between "I warned them, but they didn't shape up, so they're out" and "I tried everything that I could thing of but I couldn't reach them, so they're out". The outcome may well be the same, but the attitude and outlook of the instructor is different, IMO.

Best,

Chris

[Ron Tisdale]

Nice post Mr. Li. All have good points, but I think I like your approach the best.

Ron Tisdale

[Budoka 34]

Chris:
I have worked with youth and youth at risk for over a decade now. I can tell you, Chris, you are correct. I used to blame the students when they had difficulties in class or with programming, and while they have a great deal of responsiblity for their outcomes, I have learned that a subtle change in my approach may help that child over come their issues.
This is a common truth missed by some martial arts teachers. In the same regard, there are some students that, no matter what you do, will not learn/change until they see the need!
Keep up the great work! I love where this thread has gone.

:smilejapa

[Yamantaka]

Originally posted by Chris Li
Yes, it's a conundrum - and one for which there is no easy answer, or we wouldn't be having this thread :) .

YAMANTAKA : Agreed!


Originally posted by Chris Li
Anyway, I've found that many people seem to in favor of a strict standard - I probably was too at one time, but the more time goes on the more I feel the failure of the student to be my failure rather more than theirs.

YAMANTAKA : I don't believe so. At least not if we got sense. We should try our best but NOT TOO MUCH. I guess that's the point. As the old man called Moritaka said :
"Instructors can impart only a fraction of the teaching. It's through your own (the student) devoted practice that the mysteries of the Art of Peace are brought to life".
In other words, as Usagi said before, you don't teach, the student learns. Or not...
As Budoka34 said : "In the same regard, there are some students that, no matter what you do, will not learn/change until they see the need!"
So, there's no need for the teacher to feel guilty for any lack on the part of the student. You try your best but you are not God. You can't do miracles!


Originally posted by Chris Li
Moreover, the more time goes on the more I feel that there is an ethical responsibility to help those "problem cases".

YAMANTAKA : I don't believe so. If you feel the need to teach, then do so, by all means and always try your best, helping the student the best you can. But you are not responsible for other people's lives.
I'm almost 60 years old and one thing I learned in life : you can't stop a suicide if he really intends to take his life. You may do your best but the decision will always be with him. If he wants, he'll kill himself. We can't convince, change, help or give strength to anyone's spirit. We may help some but not all.


Originally posted by Chris Li
Sometimes in Buddhism they talk about the different kinds of horses - the first kind moves when the see the shadow of the lash, the second kind moves when the feel the touch of the lash on their skin, but the third kind doesn't move until they feel the lash in their bones. I think that many teachers want students that are like the first kind of horse, but to be honest, those types of students would probably be OK anywhere. It's the third group that really needs help the most...

YAMANTAKA : This problem is serious where you teach as a profession. If you teach for pleasure, you are right in surrounding yourself with students who WANT to study. Then you have progress and you delight in your students. The students which are lazy, insecure, malicious or lack concentration, probably you won't be able to help, no matter how much you romantically wish to. You shall spend all your effort with them and they, sooner or later, will go away. You will just make a big effort and you'll get tired. I guess, in a certain way, that was the problem with Koryu and Gendai. In Koryu you look for the best in a small group of students, in order to perfect and transmit your art.
In Gendai, you teach many students with the dream of helping all and improve all. In short, you may try to do your best and help any you can, but knowing that you aren't responsible for the world and all that are in it.


Originally posted by Chris Li
I've seen teachers (not in Aikido) try to remove problem students from their classes. The best teachers that I've seen find ways to deal with those students instead. Many of the posts on these types of subjects seem to place responsibility for the outcome with the student. Of course, in reality each student must be responsible, but I believe that the instructor ought to feel responsible as well. The difference between "I warned them, but they didn't shape up, so they're out" and "I tried everything that I could thing of but I couldn't reach them, so they're out". The outcome may well be the same, but the attitude and outlook of the instructor is different, IMO.

YAMANTAKA : Exactly my point, Chris San! After you do the best you can, there's no other way but out. I think that's right and it's what Usagi and myself have stated.


Originally posted by Chris Li
Best,
Chris

An excellent thread. Thanks, Chris!
A good keiko

[Peter H.]

Man, I should check threads I post on more often.

Chris, to clarify something, and it will sound like I am defending myself and my Sensei, but so be it.

In the near 7 years I have been with Sensei, I have never seen him try to humiliate someone, and I have seen instructors who do this, so I am fairly familiar with it. He simply lets them do it to themselves if that is their goal.

The situation I sited above, man I wish I could recall the date on it, is the only time I have let him seen him do that to someone besides me (he'll let me ramble on, and then correct me). This person was being incredible obnoxious and disruptive.

As for problem cases, we handle many of those. Because some of our blackbelts and senior students are law enforcement, where other schools in town do not have quite as many, parents with troubled kids bring them to the classes we run at the YMCA. We turn nobody away, but at the sametime, a person has to want to help themself. Otherwise, you can try all you want, and it is no help.
In his book The Art of Happiness, the Dalai Lama puts forth the position that all people are capable of achiving Happiness, but they have to train themselves to be happy. And the first thing that most take place is the desire to be truly happy.

I apply the same thing to Aikido. I can show you Aikido, I can tell you about Aikido, but until you decide you want to learn Aikido, you will not learn.

[Chris Li]

Originally posted by Peter H.
Chris, to clarify something, and it will sound like I am defending myself and my Sensei, but so be it.

In the near 7 years I have been with Sensei, I have never seen him try to humiliate someone, and I have seen instructors who do this, so I am fairly familiar with it. He simply lets them do it to themselves if that is their goal.

I wasn't there, and I have no way of saying one way or the other, so don't take it as a specific condemnation of your instructor. OTHO, "letting them do it to themselves" seems to me to be a pretty passive-agressive response that doesn't, IMO, excuse anybody from responsibility (although it's an approach often favored by Aikido folks).

My comment was really aimed at similar situations (of which I've seen may) in which such tactics are used.

Best,

Chris

[Peter H.]

Didn't take it as such,, Chris.
I have really enjoyed this discussion.

Besides, it does seem passive aggression is the essence of Aikido most of the time.

[Chris Li]

Originally posted by Peter H.
Didn't take it as such,, Chris.
I have really enjoyed this discussion.

Besides, it does seem passive aggression is the essence of Aikido most of the time.

It does seem that way, and I don't think that's a good thing. Avoidance, use of an attacker's agression and momentum and so forth are good tactical approaches, but I think that they can often lead into a kind of passive-agressive mind set, and one that denigrates personal responsibility if you're not careful.

Best,

Chris

[Yamantaka]

Dear all,

I asked the following question of Dr. MONICA FRANK, PhD in Psychology and a researcher in teaching methods :

"two teachers discussed problem students in class. One of them expressed a severe posture : he would try to help the student but, if he found it extremely problematic, he would send him to look for specialized help and kept his attention directed to his other students. The other one said that when faced with a problem student, he felt his personal responsibility was to help him, as many times as needed. He considered that, losing that student would be HIS fault, not the student's.
I would ask what Dr. Monica would have to say about that. Which teacher is closest to the truth and to good sense?"

Dr. Monica answered :

"You might think this is the coward's way out of dealing with your question, however, I think both instructors are right. The reason I say this is that I believe that a teacher needs to teach in the way in which he is most capable. To force those instructors to take the other's position would make them less effective because it is contrary to their nature. The more that each of us can recognize our own strengths and limitations, the more effective we can be in all areas of life. I hope this answers your question.
Sincerely,
Monica Frank"

What do you think about that?
Best

[Chris Li]

Originally posted by Yamantaka
Dear all,

I asked the following question of Dr. MONICA FRANK, PhD in Psychology and a researcher in teaching methods :

"two teachers discussed problem students in class. One of them expressed a severe posture : he would try to help the student but, if he found it extremely problematic, he would send him to look for specialized help and kept his attention directed to his other students. The other one said that when faced with a problem student, he felt his personal responsibility was to help him, as many times as needed. He considered that, losing that student would be HIS fault, not the student's.
I would ask what Dr. Monica would have to say about that. Which teacher is closest to the truth and to good sense?"

Dr. Monica answered :

"You might think this is the coward's way out of dealing with your question, however, I think both instructors are right. The reason I say this is that I believe that a teacher needs to teach in the way in which he is most capable. To force those instructors to take the other's position would make them less effective because it is contrary to their nature. The more that each of us can recognize our own strengths and limitations, the more effective we can be in all areas of life. I hope this answers your question.
Sincerely,
Monica Frank"

What do you think about that?
Best

I think that she's correct - but notice that the first teacher sent the problem student for specialized help, he didn't just kick them out the door. In the case provided above both teachers made efforts to aid the student, just in different ways.

Best,

Chris

[Peter H.]

HooRah! I get to apply soemthing I learned in college.

Just finished a course this past semester in teaching the mentally handicapped.

The position of the writters in the text book and the laws of the United States are that the student be taught in the least restrictive environment that was still safe and beneficial to all students and the teacher. (Really quick synopsis there)

As part of the course, I interned at a 7th grade resource reading class. I witnessed many things there that I didn't agree with and a few I did.

One of the things I liked, was the fact that as much as possible, the students were kept in a regular classroom environment. But, if a student is extremely disruptive, or a danger to themselves or others, there are special classrooms and educational facilities provided for those students, normally refered to as Behavioral Units.

Unfortunetaly, most martial arts schools do not have the resources, nor do the teachers have the training to handle "extremely problematic students". For the benefit of other students, as well as everybody's safety, sometimes you have to tell people they can not train or practice with you.

I'm not talking minorly problematic students, we see plenty with ADD/ADHD, guys who are classified as mildly mentally retarded (IQ between 70-90),Air Force Officers (just joking), and people with some physical disability. But individuals with severe emotional disturbance, mental handicaps, or other problems that make them dangerous to themselves or others.

[Yamantaka]

Originally posted by Peter H.
I'm not talking minorly problematic students, we see plenty with ADD/ADHD, guys who are classified as mildly mentally retarded (IQ between 70-90),Air Force Officers (just joking), and people with some physical disability. But individuals with severe emotional disturbance, mental handicaps, or other problems that make them dangerous to themselves or others.

YAMANTAKA : I believe that's exactly what Usagi and I were talking about. Not sending a common student or a mild case to get psychiatric help but only the EXTREMELY problematic cases.
Thanks for your point of view.
Best

[Chris Li]

Originally posted by Yamantaka


YAMANTAKA : I believe that's exactly what Usagi and I were talking about. Not sending a common student or a mild case to get psychiatric help but only the EXTREMELY problematic cases.
Thanks for your point of view.
Best

Of course that's true, there are certainly genuinely disturbed people walking around out there. OTOH, I re-read all of the examples on the thread and none of them seem to fit in that category. The person in the first example cleaned up their act once things were explained to them, and the others were pretty much people who spoke out of turn and got shut down (or out) fairly quickly, so I'm not sure how relevant that is to the discussion at hand.

Years ago, when I first came to Japan I was (like most Americans) an English conversation teacher. There was a student at the school that teachers called "the rock" because he was (supposedly) so thick-headed. Most teachers were of the opinion that he couldn't and wouldn't ever learn a word of English. Some of the teachers opined that he had some kind of learning disablity.

I spoke to him in Japanese. He was from the generation that was going to school when it was illegal to study English (as it was illegal to study Japanese and German at some places and times in the US), so he didn't have the mandatory 6 years of English that most Japanese have to work from (and that the teachers were used to working off of). He was older, and so had a hard time learning new things. He also owned a consulting business that he built up from nothing after the war (with no formal education to speak with) and wrote a regular column for a well-known financial magazine. He did indeed learn, if you took the time to work things through with him. After that I tried never to under-estimate a student again.

Best,

Chris

[Yamantaka]

Originally posted by Chris Li
Of course that's true, there are certainly genuinely disturbed people walking around out there. OTOH, I re-read all of the examples on the thread and none of them seem to fit in that category...so I'm not sure how relevant that is to the discussion at hand.


YAMANTAKA : As I said before, I'm glad we do agree in some things, Chris. And the thread moved from simple to extreme cases. Of course, we all should try to do our best but the dividing line between a simple case (youth, insecureness, a small agressivity) and an extreme case (a paranoid case, for instance) is, sometimes, difficult to pinpoint. That's the point I tried to make.


Originally posted by Chris Li
After that I tried never to under-estimate a student again.
Best,
Chris

YAMANTAKA : And in that you are absolutely right. I don't think anyone should ever do that!
Best

[Peter H.]

We just had my organizations quarterly Yudansha meeting. One of the instructors from a different school in our organization brought up a situation with a problem student he has.

After a brief discussion, Sensei made the statement, quoting Shihan Granville, "I would rather lose one student the change the essence or our Aikido."

Now, in the situation of the student being discussed, I agree it would be better to lose the student than to change the curriculumn to suit him. But in light of the discussion here, I'm worried about how far this extends to all students with some problems.

[Chris Li]

Originally posted by Peter H.
We just had my organizations quarterly Yudansha meeting. One of the instructors from a different school in our organization brought up a situation with a problem student he has.

After a brief discussion, Sensei made the statement, quoting Shihan Granville, "I would rather lose one student the change the essence or our Aikido."

Now, in the situation of the student being discussed, I agree it would be better to lose the student than to change the curriculumn to suit him. But in light of the discussion here, I'm worried about how far this extends to all students with some problems.

To me, there appears to be two basically seperate issues here, although I agree that they may appear (on the surface) as the same issue. One issue is that of instructional methods, and one issue is that of content. You can vary instructional methods to help individuals without altering content.

For example, how do you handle someone who speaks out of turn (that being one of the most common problems cited on this thread)? A number of approaches were discussed, but none of them really alter the content of the curriculum.

What was the nature of the problem that the student had?

Best,

Chris

[Peter H.]

I don't think this individual student's problem is relevent to the point (don't want to sound like a jerk about it, but it was simply an intro to the statement).

But the actual statment attributed to Shihan Granville about not changing the style, especially in light of some of the changes that have been made since Shihan retired (there is a post on elitism in the Aikido forum somewhere where I talked about it), relevent to this thread.

Where do you draw the line between a minor change to accomidate a student and a change in the essence of the style?

For example: If a student in a wheelchair would like to study. There are significant portions of our cirriculum, and orginization wide testing criteria that would be impossible for that person to accomplish. But, the Americans with Disablities Act would make it illegal to turn that person away in most cases, as the recent Supreme Court ruling against the PGA established.

I would consider the changes made would be changes in the essence of our style of Aikido, but I would not turn the person away if they truely wanted to study.

[Chris Li]

Originally posted by Peter H.
I don't think this individual student's problem is relevent to the point (don't want to sound like a jerk about it, but it was simply an intro to the statement).

That's fine, mostly I was trying to determine what kind of changes that student would have required.



Where do you draw the line between a minor change to accomidate a student and a change in the essence of the style?

For example: If a student in a wheelchair would like to study. There are significant portions of our cirriculum, and orginization wide testing criteria that would be impossible for that person to accomplish. But, the Americans with Disablities Act would make it illegal to turn that person away in most cases, as the recent Supreme Court ruling against the PGA established.

I would consider the changes made would be changes in the essence of our style of Aikido, but I would not turn the person away if they truely wanted to study.

As I said, I really feel that there are two different issues here - how to deal with a loud mouth and how to adapt the curriculum for a wheelchair are, IMO, different subjects.

FWIW, I've taught people in wheelchairs and it didn't seem to hurt the purity of the art any :) .

Best,

Chris

[Andreas Kuntze]

While most of us enjoy stories of teaching the 'mouth' a lesson, I have a number of concerns with this solution.

Particularly in the US, in my opinion, such actions leave you open to liability. Especially Aiki techniques like Kotegaishi or Ni-kyo can have severe consequences. Even if someone has signed that ever present waiver form, when the instructor puts a little too much 'sauce' on the inexperienced brute, disaster results.

Unfortunately, because Aiki is considered 'soft' or 'artificial' by inexperienced or ignorant Martial Arts practicioners, this art in particular gets more than its fair share of these situations. There is nothing wrong with expelling someone verbally.

I must confess that I've done the same thing, not in the Aiki dojo but rather in the Karate dojo (wherein I have much more experience). The difference is that Karate 'lessons' of this sort have a much greater safety factor. A swift kick or punch in the stomach, or even the face, is much safer than applying that Ni-kyo on the inexperienced.

[Peter H.]

With experience, there is little risk or injury with Aikido. I can set a person down a gently as I lay my baby daughter in her bed at night, or I can drop him so hard he's laying there KO'd. It is completely my choice.

I've suffered a lot worse injuries in Karate/TKD, which I count 6 years of combined practice between the two than in the nearly 6 years of Aikido.

The experince does not need to lie in the victim with Aikido, it needs to lie in the applier. With Nikkyu, there is a gap between the point of immobilization and pain and the point of snapped wrist. Only experince can tell you were that is. Same with Sankyu and Ude-Osae. With Kote-gaishi, it tends to be a matter of focus, same as with a punch. Do I punch to the surface of the board? or two inches behind the board? Do I throw you to the mat? or a mile into the earth?

[Andreas Kuntze]

Yes, I understand that. However, problems do arise when you apply the pressure in anger, which does occur unfortunately. This, coupled with the fact that an inexperienced uke will go the wrong way in response to a technique such as Nikyo or Kotegaishi -- and you have the POTENTIAL for serious injury.

Of course, with greater experience you have greater control -- but no matter how experienced, the movement and experience of uke always plays some part in injury prevention. I've seen people do some pretty stupid things, regardless of the experience of the person applying the technique.

In contrast to Karate (in which I have many more years' experience >20), Aikido has the potential to have crippling accidents. I'm not talking bruises, such as you find in Karate accidents. Of course freak accidents occur in any martial art or sport. I'm just advising that there is a greater POTENTIAL for injury in this situation where grappling and holding are key elements.

[Anne Marie]

Yes, there is a higher risk of injury in grappling or holds, but that also comes with the territory. If someone joins a class, they are assuming the risk of not just being touched, but also the potential injuries that might result from those kinds of techniques. So if someone walks in from another martial art knowing about aikido and he decides to "challenge" the instructor, he shouldn't be surprised that their wrist or elbow might get torqued.

Additionally, a new student from a different martial art, should have the respect to learn the rules of their new dojo. This is part of being in most martial arts, and assuming a new school does things like in the old one is not a very good idea.

I think what Peter H. did was appropriate for his situation. He didn't go overboard. If he did go farther and caused an injury that isn't expected, then he would be more subject to liability.

Anne Marie Giri

[Andreas Kuntze]

Thanks Anne Marie.

I hope everyone realizes that I cast no aspersion on what he did. In fact, I sympathize. I probably would have done the same in that situation.

For that reason, I just wanted to share my thoughts on the issue of liability. You never know what a judge will say about 'reasonable expectations' and 'standard of care' until you are in court.

Basically, my advice was simply meant as a warning that you never know the limit until someone calls you on it (and the judge, who knows nothing of Aiki, makes a determination).

[Anne Marie]

Yeah, I know how sticky legal problems can be. I just graduated from law school after all. (I'm studying for the bar right now.) And, I did my writing requirement on the tort liability and martial arts. It's always good to warn people about potential problems, but there are some very good defenses available to us martial artists (as far as U.S. law is concerned). I just wanted to point that out because the last thing that I would hate to see is martial artists feeling "chilled" from their practice because of fear of lawsuits.

Anyone can sue us (martial artists) for any harm that results as a consequences of our actions whether in self-defense or in practice. The real question is how successful they maybe. There are a couple of good articles in the most two recent issues of the Journal of Asian Martial Arts that you can take a look at. Although, it addresses American law (seeing that your from Canada).

Anne Marie Giri

[Andreas Kuntze]

Well, it seems we're on the same wave-length for a reason. I too am a recent law grad.

I also have a copy of that Journal. It was very interesting, but as I recall did not really mention any case-law. Are there any that you know or that are on point?

I'm not sure how things are in your jurisdiction, but US case-law can be used as a mild precedent in Canada.

[Peter H.]

Until the late eighties, any martial training was looked upon as "dangerous" if used, even in self defense situations. I can't remember the case, but it was in Texas, Dallas if memory serves me. A guy with a yellow belt in TKD was accused of using excessive force in defending himself against a mugger, despite being unarmed. His yellow belt in TKD was accepted as training on the level of a police officer, and used against him in a civil case the would be mugger brought against him. Things changed about the ninties, at least in Texas, I think partially due to the proliferation of martial arts schools in the state in the late eighties, early ninties. I haven't paid much attention since I changed from a CJ major with a minor in law to a CS major. I don't quote me on the exactness of the case, since it was eight years ago I heard about it and discussed the topic in class.

An assistant district attorney did come and train with us about two years ago. He said at the time he saw no reason why someone utilizing Aikido in self defense would ever be charged with assualt, since it requires overt physical agression.

I don't know how those situations would apply to a dojo/training situation. I do know that in 1999, the local YMCA banned any kind of martial arts practice from their facilities, with the exception of our Aikido class, then required Sensei to carry seperate insurance, and there could be no practice unless Sensei was present. All on the liability grounds. They then removed the specially made mats for martial arts and wrestling from the building, and we had to use Aerobics mats (they have since bought us real mats).
I found this ludicrious since they allow unsupervised football and basketball games on their property, using their equipment, as well as skateboarding and rollerblading (without pads) and all have a much higher instance of injury than martial arts practice. They lost a number of memberships over this, including mine, my brothers, and six of our friends, since we could no longer practice at times convenient to us.

[Anne Marie]

Outside of what is cited in that article, there isn't very much more civil case law out there specifically addressing the use of martial arts. So finding a detailed analysis of case law is hard to do. Although the article does a good job in providing the basic issue areas for the non-lawyer martial artists. I found a few cases addressing assumption of risk arising in contact sports, and one case from a Florida District Court of Appeals addressing allocation of fault between two defendants (comparative negligence) from an injury resulting from training. (I'll send you the cites in a PM.).

In regards to the Texas case, I didn't come across it in my research. I only looked for civil cases (preferrably in Florida) so if it was a criminal case, then would have set it aside. It would have been interesting to see a court's analysis on this issue because one of the issues I addressed is whether martial artists should be held to a higher standard when using martial arts in defending themselves. From what I found, at least in civil law, there is no higher stardard for martial artists. I only found a couple of footnotes of a court, in about 1968, refraining from addressing the issue. My answer was that we should treat martial artists with an ordinary standard of care unless the facts show that they have exceptional skills that would raise the standard. But, that is a BIG UNLESS. But a higher general standard for all martial arts is a big NO -- In my opinion.

Excessive force is something we, as martial artists, have to consider when using our chosen art to defend ourselves. We are only allowed to meet force with force. If you are not faced with deadly force, you can't use deadly force in kind. So responding to someone pushing you as if they were going to seriously injure you can be considered excessive. Also, in some states if you have the opportunity to leave safely then responding with force is inappropriate and you, too, will be liable. Yet, just because someone has a right to defend themselves doesn't mean they can use any means necessary.

Insurance liability also is a big issue, as such I avoided it in my article. That's interesting that the YMCA's thought that martial arts are more prone to injury. Maybe they really thought it was more violent and used the insurance issue as an excuse.

Anne Marie Giri

P.S. Andreas, no, I didn't know that U.S. law can be precedential for Canadian law. Thanks, for the tidbit.

[Peter H.]

I can't find the case either, in my notes or on a search. But I talked to a few people and looked around: Negligence Issues Civil Rights act: Title 42 (1983) is aimed at excessive force liability for police officers, and I was told it can be applied to martial artist, but has yet to be.
Since I am not a lawyer, and no longer want to be one, I'll remove myself from the legal discussion now.
Enjoy, and thank you for your input.

[PRehse]

I'm not sure how things are in your jurisdiction, but US case-law can be used as a mild precedent in Canada.

Are you sure about that. There are huge differences in both civil and criminal law between the two countries even though the origins are the same. How mild is mild - love to hear an example.

[Andreas Kuntze]

Ok this is getting off the topic of discipline on the mats.

Basically, precedent within your jurisdiction can be interpreted as law. Cases cited from outside your jurisdiction are not law, but instead can be used to convince the court that a similar approach is appropriate. There are a number of factors to take into consideration: Charter (like a bill of rights, sort of), statutory similarity, policy, etc.

Increasingly courts are becoming aware of jurisprudence internationally, such that even the Supreme Court of Canada (as well as the Supreme Court of the US, if I'm not mistaken) will take case-law from other jurisdictions into account where deemed appropriate.

Thankfully we have not adopted some of the crazy and litigious practises of the the US, but that can always change.

If anyone has any further questions on this sort of thing, maybe you could email me directly instead.

Back on topic: it is good to know that there are few cases on point in Florida or Texas. I did some limited research and found next to nothing in Canada either. It seems that people assume there is risk involved; perhaps they just quit rather than suing for money. That is encouraging, don't you think?

By the way, our students do sign waiver forms, which Anne-Marie mentioned. Unfortunately, at common law they carry little or no weight unless you specifically point out the details of the waiver form to each individual. Also, I've seen no waiver form that mentions or contemplates every eventuality in the dojo.

As to the standard of care: I believe an instructor should be held to the same standard of care as a teacher. In Canada, that tends to be equated with the a 'reasonable parent'. They are not held to a higher or fiduciary standard, such as are lawyers or doctors. I'm not sure that is appropriate, but it certainly gives the teachers a great deal of discretion and leeway.