I would be pretty suprised if anyone changes there mind on this. I say it does matter, there may be some exceptions but in my years I have found very very few younguns who I would spend my time learning from.

But, then I am old.

Well Ironfoot, I'm 25 and still quite immature, I don't think I want to study under someone (as a head instructor) who just came of drinking age in the US.

This old chestnut still going?
With regard to the matter of the 28 yr old studying for 13 years and the older guy of 50 who studied for 8 years. Surely you would appraise them on their ability to teach. Not just jump straight for the guy who's been training longer. Not all people learn at the same rate.
Also the 8 yrs might have been training one to one with Victor Smith, whereas the 13 yrs might have been training once a week with me.
This falls in line with what I've said all along. Take the blinkers off and keep an open mind. Don't dismiss people just because they are young/old, tall/short, fat/thin etc.

Yes Mcsensei, but one of the points that came up in this conversation is that the two instructor ideals being compared had equal caliber training for the time they put in. I'm not saying that someone who is so much older is necessarily better, just that under the age of 25 is still immature, no matter what the law says.

Didn't want to touch this thread again, maybe it should be locked up, but when ya say

Quote:

---

just that [someone] under the age of 25 is still immature, no matter what the law says.

---

You do a disservice to the 3 pages of this thread devoted to arguing that particular question about maturity. It seems odd to disregard them in one simply swoop of a sentance. But hey, thats just my 2c.

Bullfrog, that's just ignoring the point about being a head instructor. A 19yo can most certainly be an assistant instructor, I just want someone with a little maturity in charge of the entire dojo. There are legal reasons for this as well as quality reasons (eg, a 19 yo, still being a "kid" would get a lot of "pity points" with a jury if something happened and I needed to go to court to recoup losses. I'm not saying I'm a sue happy person, but I wouldn't hesitate in the case of gross negligence on the part of the instructor if I got hurt because of it). Now, I think you're right about both sides having their say in this matter, and it's going nowhere fast. The cases have been more than sufficiently made, so anyone can read this and make up their own minds.

Sometimes I wonder if I would have more credibility around here if I'd never mentioned my age. I know I lost some.

Frankly, it's shortsighted to regard us younguns as universally immature. However, maturity is only one face on the larger issue of teaching ability. My personal opinion is that younger people cannot teach as well as the older people can (for a few reasons, but it's not like this thread is long enough or anything ).

My only request is that you all take what I say at face value, and stereotypical averages be damned (literally, not just frivolent language).

Foolsgold, I am only 25, and disregarding my rank, I am by no means mature enough to run my own dojo and teach others. I need at least another three years of life to reach that point.

I agree completely, please don't misunderstand. I don't think younger people should teach for a number of reasons. That said, I don't think they should be disregarded in discussion either.