Do you agree with all aspects of your training?

There's a couple types of situations that resemble this. One is where I'm told to do a drill, but the objective of the drill isn't explained so I immediately see why it fails in a real life context. Second is where I'm told to do a drill and due to uncontrollable variables such as how my partner moves, the distance, and timing, I end up doing something not in the drill. Because in context wise, that was the correct move to do at that given distance and timing, but it was not the correct move to use in the drill because the drill mandates that a different distance and timing would be present. Since it wasn't... Thirdly, is when the instructor delegates authority to a mudansha student and then undercuts that student's demonstration or partner work with how the instructor thinks is the correct method. Then we get the choice of listening to the student the instructor said we should listen to, or whether we should listen to the instructor... I usually choose to listen to myself during those contradictions. When I'm going to use my own skills for something that needs to be done, the thought of "someone else telling me stuff" doesn't enter my head. Even if what they said to me before hand I agreed with, I don't pay such things any mind until I've tested it for myself. In a fashion, when the rubber hits the fan, the first question in my mind isn't "how did the instructor do this move". That's not the last question either. The question doesn't exist for me. If you're asking this as an instructor because some students have bad habits that you have issues resolving, that's mostly because students who are primarily copiers, meaning the sum total of their skill is copied from watching other people's moves and obeying their commands, don't tend to react well when you tell them to do something different that they had been doing another way for 5 or 10 years. It jigs their puzzle box, upsets the worldview, and so forth. If you're asking as a student, there are circumstances where drills in things like aikido are not well explained. For example, the whole idea of one handed nikkyo. Now personally I would use two hands. Especially on those brutes with large hands that outweigh me by more than 100lbs. I'd grab their hand in two of my hands, draw their wrist to my chest, stick it on, and use my body weight falling to lock the wrist. If I couldn't use two hands... then I wouldn't use that technique. But the beginner drill says use one hand in this or that movement, specifically. Got to have the X leg forward. Got to be mirrored, gyaku, or so forth. Now personally, I've never attacked someone with a wrist lock after looking at where their feet is in relation to mine... I'm just saying. It didn't really matter. Also looking down is a bad habit in Taiji Chuan. Gets you thrown off balance easier. So far this issue you have raised I've only ever seen in external martial arts. Martial arts that focus on principles or internal elements alone, don't tend to have this issue. For example, in Taiji Chuan a movement in a form only looks the same from one person to another if they have the same build, musculature, bone structure. If they are a little bit taller, their bones are thinner or heavier, their movements will look "different". How different? Often times, a lot different. But by using the same principles and movements, they do exert martial power in terms of Taiji Chuan. The idea that something has to "look" the same is for people who focus on learning by doing the "monkey see, monkey do" method. Which is not an internal type training method. EDIT: You have to keep in mind that the icepick grips for aikido tanto defense/attacks were originally designed with the sword in mind. It's actually the same movements for a broad category of weapons, they just couldn't use swords any more after 1870s so the training reduced itself to wooden props and what not. That's not really the point of the exercise if you ask me. The point of the exercise is to learn superior sen no sen timing so that you can gauge the opponent's predicted movements, and then using this intel, modify your own movements to intercept and steal their incoming momentum to use as a counter attack. The specific move a person uses once the attacker is down or off balanced, is variable and thus meaningless for any specific drill. If you don't want to mess around with grabbing the sword, staff, or knife, just pop the elbow out of joint with the knee. The options are always there, even if nobody says anything about em. The arm sticking far from the body in the knife stabs are the movements for a bo thrust or a katana thrust. The Japanese for one reason or another, weren't very good knife fighters. If you want knife fighters, find some ex con involved in a prison riot or some thug mob hitman or a bouncer even.

yes

Mmmm... Kyokushin - Dou Mawashigeri. The wheel or suicide kick. I practice it but refuse to use it because I constantly wind up on the ground, winded. If I could manage to do it without the winding I'd consider using it. Brazilian Jujitsu - The 95% of all fights wind up on the ground statistic. That is just twisted.

I don't have any problems with the aspects of my training. There are techniques that I probably will never use. It is not because they will not work. It is more of my comfort level. The biggest thing that I see that I have a problem with is some of the things taught from an attack standpoint. Knife disarm is an example. Many schools that I've seen will teach a knife disarm with the attack lunging with a straight arm or the arm high over the head like out of the Psycho movie. These are not the type of things that I'd expect to see in real life. I'll still teach it just in case. But I teach other things that I'd expect to see on the street by those that know how to use a knife and by those that don't know how to use a knife. We don't teach this but I've seen those that teach a rising block as a person hitting you with a bat overhead. You block the bat with your forearm. That is no a good thing if you ask me. YOu attack the arm not the weapon.

yeah there are a few things I don't agree with for sure. one thing I hate about my bjj class is how we don't execute moves from a throw like I learned in judo and when I do it to most people they don't know how to react because they are used to the hierarchy of positions & submissions in bjj which starts on the ground. like instead of just throwing someone down and working for position, the initial throw gives me position for a great sub already then if that fails I go into the hierarchy of positions & submissions normally used in bjj. I also don't like pulling guard on anything harder than a mat because if done on cement you better be sure to not land on your neck, head or tailbone because your enemy can spike you into the ground with his weight which will hurt bad and could damage you for life.

There are some things that I have disagreed with but have went along with and accepted as part of the training. Others I have not or have instead done things beyond what the training and promotion criteria called for and did that for the greater benefit of my students. An example of the first thing is the spear hand thrust which is not a very practical technique for most but yet it appears in a number of kata. The fact that technique has little value in the way of practical application today like it did two hundred years ago along with it being so prominent in some kata is why I still accepted it and would teach my students about it still. If you are going to study martial arts then including things from the past I think still holds some importance even though there may be less practical need or use for some of those things today. Teaching and addressing those things really does not take a lot of time or away from students learning and developing their other skills so much. I did lower or drop some of the kata requirements for promotion for my students though and instead of them being required to learn 22 kata for black-belt they only had to learn 18. This would free up more time for them to be used in other ways and I instead would focus more on them learning those 18 kata and doing them at a higher level and knowing the bunkai and practical application in just those 18 kata. I felt that was more important than burdening them with more kata and at one time that requirement was 26 kata and the group that I was associated with lowered it to 22 for the same reason. I also felt that it was important to add to my student's training and development in ways beyond what Shito-ryu offered and so I taught and included in their testing requirements the Judo method of falling as well as how to do a jab and hook from boxing and some ground fighting aspects of jujitsu. This along with chokes and defenses against chokes and blocking and/or countering the most common types of Judo throws and wrestling take-downs really gave them more to rely on and use for self-defense. Your question touches on some very traditional aspects and practices in martial arts which at times have caused martial artists to question or even disagree with something at times and to then break away. I struggled with this a lot myself in the beginning and if that was right for me and my students. I decided though that if I was going to do that then I owed it to myself and my students to leave no stone unturned, spare no effort or expense to study and learn everything I could and do everything I could to produce the best student possible while also furthering my own knowledge and skills. Many years later my efforts and intentions were somewhat forgiven and the quality of my students and myself and our skills acknowledged as being quite good by those that I had broken away from. Those masters saw and realized I was still able to produce a student that was at least the equal of theirs and often times maybe even a little more well rounded and more capable in some ways and so I hold a unique relationship with them today because of this.

Um...I try to keep things as simple as possible. I'm open to variation though. The chambering for high block, for example, is different between the two dojangs I've ever been to. But I guess that's just the preference of the instructors. The issue I have with Taekwondo schools nowadays is that they're not as tough as they apparently were in the 70s and 60s IN GENERAL. I feel that I've missed out a lot on the real training so although it's not Taekwondo that I have a current issue with, it's the methods of training nowadays that I do. You know what I mean, sir?

How can you? The different teachers often do not agree with the way things work so of course you as a student will run across a few things you will not agree with as well. I was 119# and had a 250# teacher who was strong as an ox at one time. Needless to say things worked quite differently for him than they did for me. I had trouble making things work. What was easy for him and what felt for him like he was barely using any strength was a struggle for me. He wasn't a bad martial artist and things worked for him just fine but he definitely had trouble relating to someone who did not have the weight or the strength. As a yellow belt I always thought I was just too stupid to get the hang of it. Thank goodness I was too stubborn to quit and the hope that someday I will get it kept me going. When that teacher finally gave up on me and handed me over to one of his seniors to teach me that's when things took off for me. That guy had an incedible understanding of how to analyze techniques, had an unreal arsenal of little details that made the techniques work so much better for me and he taught me. So reconciling differences in techniques for me is not that much of a problem once I understand why something is done one way by somebody and another way by somebody else as long as they can actually get it to work. In martial arts the bottom line is always 'does it work'. I am not that arrogant to think that 'my way or no way' and if someone can make a throw work a certain way why would I insist on him doing it my way which may not work for that person? As long as that person does not change the technique or compromises himself and it pretty much looks the same on the outside I am fine with that. Techniques differ from one teacher to the next and I try to see why they do and a lot of times I find the reason. While a basic technique (like a throw) may look the same on the outside some of the little details (to compromise your opponents balance) vary and what may not work for me real well I often find that for some of my students it works better than the things that work for me. Those are differences in the arts and that is why we have so many different martial arts and many ways to teach it. That's why I also believe that once a good solid foundation in an art is established a good student should seek out other teachers and learn. The worst and most disagreeable part in a school are politics and trashing other martial arts and I will never agree with that in any school because it is not part of training. There are those who judge other martial arts without ever knowing anything about them. I consistently run into people who will say "Karate does this or that". Which Karate are they talking about? They don't know; it's all the same, that's why it's called Karate. Never mind there are huge differences between Okinawan and Japanese Karate alone never mind the many substyles. The same goes for Kung Fu. To me this is arrogance and ego and has no place in a serious school. Trashing other martial arts disrespects one's own school and style. I am a firm believer in the "shut up and train" motto. Unfortunately, I train in a couple of schools where I like the training but do not agree with the politics and the teacher's personal opinion about other martial arts. In those cases I just 'shut up and train' and let the arrogant and those full of their own egos make fools of themselves.

I have a real problem anytime a technique is taught to a student but they aren't given the real world application for it. If you teach a technique but don't show the student when and where to use this technique, what are you teaching, really? I see this a lot in different schools and when I became an Asst. Instructor, this issue became one of my focus points. You have no idea how many students don't know the real world application for a kawe makki. Why teach it if you're not going to teach when to use it?