Instructors and Certification

Is it just me or does there seem to be to much emphisis on the certification of jkd instructors. I have been a practitioner of jkd for a few years now and I also practice Tae Kwon do and Shotokan as well as studying various other arts. I am only young and I hope to teach martial arts in the future. However I am haunted with so many people talking about jkd certification. I have never participated in a jkd class but have gained an insight into jkd through Bruce's own writing, - which by the way contained tips on instruction - many people would call me a fraud instructor, however isn't learning from Bruce's own word better than training with A 'certified' instructor. Has JKD lost its meaning? isn't certification promoting formalisation?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tan Sao:
Is it just me or does there seem to be to much emphisis on the certification of jkd instructors. [/QUOTE]

I agree, Actually, many tend to emphasize certification above performance. This is true regardless of "original" JKD or JKD "concepts".

Basically, there are many "certified" JKD ihnstructors who could not fight their way out of a wet paper bag.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tan Sao:

I have been a practitioner of jkd for a few years now and I also practice Tae Kwon do and Shotokan as well as studying various other arts. I am only young and I hope to teach martial arts in the future. However I am haunted with so many people talking about jkd certification. I have never participated in a jkd class but have gained an insight into jkd through Bruce's own writing, - which by the way contained tips on instruction - many people would call me a fraud instructor, however isn't learning from Bruce's own word better than training with A 'certified' instructor.
[/QUOTE]

That depends. Can you pass along what you know? Do you actually KNOW anything to pass along? Can you actually apply your technique against a resisting opponent and partner?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tan Sao:

Has JKD lost its meaning? isn't certification promoting formalisation? [/QUOTE]

Most "JKD' already IS "formalized". It's already become corrupted and taken away from the underlying spirit that resides within its core philosophy (to discover the truth in combat).

Personally, I don't care what others do. JKD is just another name, another word - and the word is not the thing.


-John

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JKogas:
Most "JKD' already IS "formalized". It's already become corrupted and taken away from the underlying spirit that resides within its core philosophy (to discover the truth in combat).

Personally, I don't care what others do. JKD is just another name, another word - and the word is not the thing.


-John[/QUOTE]
And the description is never the described.

I want to be certified to teach it under many instructors, so I can learn from all their different strengths and I could show my future students that I know my stuff.

From a student's perspective though. If you go to someone and they say they know what they're talking about, but have no certification or anything to back it up would you believe them? Even if they could beat you in a fight that could mean they've had a little training or just gotten into a lot of fights. It's really just about proof. It is sad though how a lot of it is becoming stylized. Hope that never happens with me.

The "proof" you speak of, is a valid point - for most people. In reality though, a certificate doesn't prove anything. It's a piece paper that hangs on a wall. The instructors skills don't reside within that paper. That paper isn't going to jump down and begin teaching anyone.

REAL "proof" comes from someone's ability to perform. That should become fairly obvious after watching him train and coach. You should be able to see this proof from your own EYES!

But I know what you're saying. The misguided and uninformed public won't realize the difference between a hanging piece of paper and the instructors inability to actually fight and/or coach.

They could walk into a school and see the instructor moving around, training with his students. They could watch him throwing jabs/crosses. They could see him in the clinch, moving his opponent. They could see him on the ground, rolling with his students and hitting armlocks.

Or alternately (which is usually the case with JKD schools), they could watch him walking around "teaching" and never actually performing against his own students. Meanwhile, that "certificate" is hanging up for all to see. He's the "guru" or "sifu" and his TITLE is often what he hides behind to justify his inability to actually perform. Because (at least in the old days), getting a cert and being able to fight weren't necessarily connected.

Bottom line is, one's ability should be GLARINGLY obvious to those who walk in. In many cases it isn't. In a lot of those cases, it's because the instructors ability to perform isn't there! That's because, there is a HUGE difference between knowing some techniques and actually being able to FIGHT!

From a business end, it's like a business license. However, that wouldn't hold MY attention for 2 minutes after walking into a guys school. I would want to see him coach and see him perform. THAT would be the deciding factor for me.


-John

I agree John. I always love it when they ask if you were taught by Btuce or some other asinine question.

i like that everyone is so worried about who they are certified by but never stop to think that all the people we consider to be great were never certified by anyone. bruce lee, general choi, mas oyama, etc.

very touchy subject. It's only a matter of the person who gets the certification; more importantly look at their students. If their students can do the material and of good character, then the certification strengthens the merit. However, there are those that are certified (in more ways than one), and yet their students can't punch their way out of a wet paper bag.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by martialway:
i like that everyone is so worried about who they are certified by but never stop to think that all the people we consider to be great were never certified by anyone. bruce lee, general choi, mas oyama, etc.[/QUOTE]


And that is an EXCELLENT point and one that should be echoed around this and every other forum.

The first guys who learned to fight weren't born with black belts. That just represents what Lee was trying to originally accomplish - the return to nature.

The problems arise when MAN gets caught up in trying to "organize" and arrange a "fighing style". Then the emphasis becomes one of learning the STYLE rather than learning and training to FIGHT!

There IS a difference between the two approaches!


-John