My opinion became one that he was competent but ignorant.
Now, ignorant does not mean stupid. Here's a definition.
ig·no·rance /ig ner uh ns/ –noun
the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc. Random House Unabridged Dictionary
the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc. Random House Unabridged Dictionary
This instructor is far from that, but he was and maybe still is, ignorant.
Making a statement such as his pre-supposes that in all the years of human history and research in martial arts, that nobody ever, ever thought about the particular concept he was illustrating. That alone can be considered egotistical, daring, ignorant, stupid, or a host of other descriptive words.
He made reference to the fact that Ed Parker used the personal of height, width and depth to proportion our stances and that "We are the only ones that" do such a thing in the arts. I was shocked, and a bit insulted. I'm sure that practitioners of other arts would have been insulted, too.
The best example I can use if that of the "body ruler" principle in Yang tai chi. They use your body dimensions to construct the stance in proportion. It's the same idea as in kenpo. They use dimension to set up their two-person push-hands drill, just as we have the four ways to face off (rt to rt, lt to lt, etc). And tai chi has been around many more years than American Kenpo.
The human race has been mightily involved in the quest for proportion for thousands of years. I give you painting, sculpture, and architecture as examples. How can one possibly say that we are the only ones who figured this out after two thousand years of human combat? It's ignorant.
The big problem with this is that this person teaches seminars to hundreds every year and his word has weight. Ignorance will never go away, but the teacher is obligated to be informed better than that.
Making a statement such as his pre-supposes that in all the years of human history and research in martial arts, that nobody ever, ever thought about the particular concept he was illustrating. That alone can be considered egotistical, daring, ignorant, stupid, or a host of other descriptive words.
He made reference to the fact that Ed Parker used the personal of height, width and depth to proportion our stances and that "We are the only ones that" do such a thing in the arts. I was shocked, and a bit insulted. I'm sure that practitioners of other arts would have been insulted, too.
The best example I can use if that of the "body ruler" principle in Yang tai chi. They use your body dimensions to construct the stance in proportion. It's the same idea as in kenpo. They use dimension to set up their two-person push-hands drill, just as we have the four ways to face off (rt to rt, lt to lt, etc). And tai chi has been around many more years than American Kenpo.
The human race has been mightily involved in the quest for proportion for thousands of years. I give you painting, sculpture, and architecture as examples. How can one possibly say that we are the only ones who figured this out after two thousand years of human combat? It's ignorant.
The big problem with this is that this person teaches seminars to hundreds every year and his word has weight. Ignorance will never go away, but the teacher is obligated to be informed better than that.
No comments:
Post a Comment