Full cup or empty?

[Ginzu Girl]

Hi Everyone,
I recently learned while chatting with an acquaintance who's studying MA that some MA teachers/schools will not accept a student with previous MA teachings.

I was so surprised that I asked if this meant carrying over your rank or status from another school/style. The answer was "no", it's about having ANY experience in MA. I asked if this was just their school or style and the answer was "no" it's a common policy of various schools and styles throughout the area.

Is this really a common practice? And why would a teacher/school do this? Is there some sort of traditional loyalty involved? Honestly, I'm not trying to bait anyone--which is why I'm avoiding naming specific schools/styles/regions.

Obviously if someone is being disruptive or disrespectful by repeatedly referring to their old school or teacher, I say, "Hit the road, Jack (or Jill)." But wouldn't you at least let them try before giving them the boot? Or is it really a teaching/dojo problem getting students to empty their cups?

Thanks!

[red_fists]

Hi Anita.

I don't think it is that common. Most schools that I have come across asked you to simply start right at the beginning and do the full course.
Which I think is fair and good as different styles enphasize different basics.

Granted people with previous experience tend to progress faster.

Could also be that some Instructors decided they were tired of People coming and wanting a higher starting rank due to their previous experience.

[BrianV]

Hello Anita,
I personally have never heard of this type of exclusions. Experience has taught me that it is always better to welcome someone with different knowledge as then we all benefit from the experience.

It would be the height of arrogance to believe that no other style is as good as one's own, or that the previous training of an individual would "taint" further training in another style or system or art.

I have heard of Instructors who will not allow a person who is CURRENTLY studying under another method to Cross-Train with them. I hold the opinion that this is entirely pursuant to the individual . Some can carry it off, some cannot.

Hope this helps,
Brian.

[Arman]

M(r)s. Tsuchiya,

This is a rather bizarre requirement. My experience has actually been the opposite. Most of the schools I have encountered or studied with are encouraged by students who have had previous MA experience (and none has ever objected). The more expereince, the easier it is, generally speaking, to teach the person (they just seem to "get it" faster and more efficiently than others, and often times come equipped with knowledge of the basics, e.g., knowing how to breakfall, knowing how roll, knowing that your supposed to tap when it hurts etc.)

On the other hand, there are those that cannot "empty their cup," so to speak, and filter what the teacher shows them through their preconceived assumptions about the proper way to do a particular kata, or technique. In this case, a beginner with no MA experience is easier to deal with. It has been my experience, however, that those who bring their own assumptions to an art and cannot put them aside as instructed by the teacher do not last very long. They usually stop attending class after awhile.

Finally, I know of one koryu teacher who was wary of accepting any student with no MA experience. He much preferred the experienced student, wherever that experience may have come from.

I think I would be a little suspicious of any school that wouldn't accept experienced martial artists. These are combat forms, after all, not cults (well, at least mostly )

Cheers,
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Maryland

[Ginzu Girl]

Hi everyone,
Thanks for the feedback. I thought it was an odd rule myself but I figured it would be good to run it by those of you with actual teaching experience.

For example, I couldn't imagine turning a kid away from a western sport just because he'd done something else. "I'm sorry but as an ex-soccer player you're just too conditioned to go for a slider with your foot or head. It's really for your own safety."

Like I'd said, I'm glad I'm not the only who thinks this sounds weird!

P.S.--Everyone please feel free to use my first name. Bye for now. . .

[kenshorin]

I have heard of a lot of this in my area. Basically, it is the schools who don't believe in what they teach (the McDojos) who institute such rules. They don't want someone killing their credibility from within.

[Kimpatsu]

I've been reading this thread with interest.
Anita-san, are you sure you haven't misunderstood? People who are currently practicing something else cannot join Shorinji Kempo, but previous experience of another art is not in and of itself a barrier to joining. The problem is that someone with prior experience of another art needs to be "deprogrammed" in order to be taught the SK forms, punching being an obvious example. But that wouldn't, and shouldn't, stop someone from joining. They just need to work harder to break their previous programming. If, however, they are currently practicing something else, then that's a different matter. They can't serve two masters, and so would be turned away for that reason. Refusing them on the grounds of prior experience itself sounds just plain weird to me, which is why I asked you to clarify the point.
Best,

[red_fists]

Hi All.

Not sure could it be that maybe the Instructors want to discourage the "style hoppers".

You know the ones that study a system for a year or so and get fed up and than join another style for ayear and so on.

I meet lots of MA Guys that have studied
many systems and when asked why their answer is because the systems are not complete and they need to supplement by studying other systems.

Or Guys that only take a bit of each system and ignore the "non-working bits".

Just some dry throat pondering., I can see those beer jugs in the distance coming closer as evening nears.

[Steven Malanosk]

I agree with Tony, however..........................................

There are those " me included, but I still usually accept them on a trial basis" that feel, that a student who leaves their Sensei, style etc., is not loyal. I remember, back in NYC circa 60's and 70's, you did not join another school, without written permission of your teacher. I require this of students from affiliate and friendly dojo / Org. etc.

Those preserving a KoRyu, would definatly do well, to be carefull not to allow the style to be effected by outside input.

My synthesis is proof of this, being that because of my long time cross training, I cannot justify teaching my students just GoJu or just JuJutsu or just KoBuDo.

To me this is good, but to some others.................. see my point?

There is nothing like a clean slate to work with though.

[Kimpatsu]

I think Steven has an excellent point. In the case of kobudo, the objective is not only to teach effective technique, but also to preserve the style as an art form for posterity. Consequently, any cross-training that leads to a student ultimately teaching a watered-down or adulterated form of the art, means that the art itself is no longer being taught. If all the students add their own interpretations based on their cross-training, the art has now effectively ceased to exist. For this reason alone, I could see a student being refused admission, quite apart from the ethical considerations of trying to serve two masters.
For those coming to the Tokyo boozeup tonight, the hour draweth nigh...

[MarkF]

It may not be common, but it is such that my BS meter hits red immediately.

Teachers with this type of requirement have usually made something up, and don't want to the real thing walking through the doors. I also agree that these types are the only ones who benefit from a policy which discriminates, certain koryu excluded.

If, however, they are currently practicing something else, then that's a different matter. They can't serve two masters, and so would be turned away for that reason. Refusing them on the grounds of prior experience itself sounds just plain weird to me, which is why I asked you to clarify the point.

Yes, you're right, you can't serve two masters, and sometimes even one is too much. If you believe this, then probably the "master" of the type of school to which you refer are just the type who wish to be called "master." This is another level on the ol' BS meter.

To call someone a teacher they must be an instructor first. If not, then how does anyone deserve to be called master and have unquestioning students who will do his/her every bidding?

(BTW: The bold type in the quote is mine, not the poster's)

There are lots of terms for teachers who do not "allow (as if they can be stopped)" students from having any experience at all to study with them. Here are a few examples: Master, Grandmaster, Supreme Grandmaster, Soke, soke-dai dai soke, shihan, hanshi, shidoshi, and sometimes, even sensei are just too much (this is a decision made by the student if they really are studying with "someone who came before"). Others which should have the meter nearly tearing away the fabric are those who "tell you" or imply that they are dojocho, kancho, kaicho, especially if they have too many black belts in the class, and way too many for themselves to be based in reality, and use the dan-i grading system.

Legitimate koryu again excluded.

If you are doing a mainly striking style, then you do need some experience in a judo club, even if only for the ukemi. If you do judo, you do need some work on striking. There is no magic here, and no masters, just good, strong, ethical people who are willing to take you on. Then again, if you do get stuck with a two-year contract on what turns out to be some super soke-dokey, well, don't say no one warned you.

So, Word up, and have a great New Year!

Mark

[MarkF]

No legitimate koryu instructor uses the dan-i grading system, at least none that I know of. If you come into something which does and they claim to dole out technique in Tenjin-shin'yo ryu, kitoryu, TSKSR, TSR Shin-TSR, or any other, be very careful. You just may get what you are asking for.

Mark

[Jeff Cook]

Mark,

My BS meter gets pegged out also when I see and hear the same things. However, I can honestly say in all of my travels and training in various styles I personally have not experienced that. In fact, just the opposite - training in other systems was encouraged. The only criticism I experienced was when I was training in judo and aikido at the same time - criticism, but not discouragement.

I do take exception to your one indictment: "No legitimate koryu instructor uses the dan-i grading system, at least none that I know of." Perhaps you should investigate some of the oldest koryu still being practiced today, such as Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu: http://members.cts.com/king/e/erikt/iai/miura.htm
Here you will find that the current headmaster (grandmaster) holds the rank of 9th dan. This paragraph may be of interest to you as well: " Among the rankings currently held by Miura Hanshi are 8th dan in Koryu Kakushu Bujutsu from the Zen Nippon Kobudo Sogo Renmei (awarded in May, 1975), and 9th dan Hanshi in iaido conferred in April, 1992 by the Dai-Nippon Butoku-Kai. Miura Hanshi is held in such high esteem that in 1977 he was named 8th dan in Toyama- Ryu Batto-jutsu, the modern military form of swordsmanship, without having requested such ranking or even joining the organization."

I also had a Japanese sensei give us some classes at my dojo on the koryu art Shindo Muso Ryu Jodo - he holds a 6th dan rank in Japan.

Where did you get the idea that no "legitimate" koryu uses the dan-i system of grade?

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[Ginzu Girl]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I've been reading this thread with interest.
Anita-san, are you sure you haven't misunderstood? People who are currently practicing something else cannot join Shorinji Kempo, but previous experience of another art is not in and of itself a barrier to joining. . . .[text omitted]. . .Refusing them on the grounds of prior experience itself sounds just plain weird to me, which is why I asked you to clarify the point.
Best,

Hi Tony,
I don't believe this is a case of misguided "more is better" thinking. Sadly, this student looking into what options she might have if she left the school. We chatted at length about some of her concerns during which I asked specifically about this "no previous MA" policy--whether it was limited to a school, style, or rank, or if she was looking for concurrent training. (No, no, no, & no.)

IMO, she's a thoughtful, respectful and honest person. She is obviously struggling between loyalty to her school and some troubling changes she's observed over time. I also believe that she considers this a personal choice, not a flag-waving agenda. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I accept her reasons for wanting to change as legitimate ones. It is from that basis that I ask my question. (We have to start somewhere, after all!)

Also, I'm not trying to solve her problem (she's a big girl who can think for herself). As I mentioned in my original post, I was just so surprised. Then I got curious. As several of you mention, it's the kind of statement that triggers alarms on the B.S. meter. Your input indicates that while there appear to be several reasons for this kind of policy, none them seem to be good enough to apply as a screening barrier to admission.

A dear friend in Seattle studies Chinese MA. His SiFu has the following verse displayed in his office: "It's not truth that makes men great, but men who make truth great." Works for me.

[Kimpatsu]

Dear Anita,
I agree that prior experience should be no barrier to admission. Refusal on those grounds sets my antennae tingling. Something seems rotten in the state of Denmark to me...
One other point I made earlier seems to require clarification. When I said a student can't serve two masters, I didn't mean individual people, but the tenets of the art. I could always rephrase, however, and say, "You can't serve two sensei".
HTH,