What level do you guys/girls think that it's appropriate to start teaching your own classes with your own students. i.e. not under another instructor but your own, i guess you would call school or team? My instructor was a blue when he started teaching and is now an upper level purple which I think it's about time for him to advance and he has done great and has a lot of loyal students. Is blue fine to start teaching?
It's not just the BJJ level that matters...... it's how much understanding of the art of teaching that's important.
I think teaching is very important to keep the art alive.
BUT if a person really wants to be an effective teacher, both in the short term and long term, than they really need to pay attention to already established teachers (how they teach) and also study the art of teaching (Pedagogy) from day one.
I think there is a progression with teaching as there is with everything else. You start at one level and progress to higher levels. BUT you have to start somewhere and I would start from the moment I mastered and learned a few tecniques well for myself. Teaching others the things you know and have learn help you to know them better. As you progress in skill so will you teaching ability, provided you develop it along the way.
I also believe you have to develop a student base. When you begin to teach it isn't necessary to have alot of students, a few may be all you need. As you grow as a teacher then your student base will grow BUT when you begin just give yourself as a teacher to just a few willing students.
The belt that you wear more or less tells your students how much you know. If the teacher is humble enough and willing to share without the ego, then I don't see why that would be a problem. The students can then decide whether to train with you or not. There are a lot of places that do not have a full time black belts. The beginners need to learn from someone.
I was running my own club as a Blue but I think that it is relative to what else is available in your area.
Sometimes though, you have to break with tradition. Just because a Black Belt sets up shop in town doesn't mean that his place is the best for you. You might be much happier training with a Blue or Purple across town.
I remember starting to train with Luis Gutierrez after coming from a Black Belt school where I had been for several years. Luis was wearing a Purple Belt at the time as SBG had only recently begun using a specific BJJ curriculum and ranking system. While I could have had my choice of many schools in the area, I felt the most comfortable and welcome at ODMA and later SBG. This was not so much about rank, but the level of care and attention I received.
Best decision I ever made as far as training goes.
It's all relative. I was teaching when I was a purple and I think I did fine for beginners, but what I thought I understood about BJJ is vastly different from what I understand about it now. I think that some of it depends on the person, like a "purple" I know here in Cali who should probably be a black...he has a school and rightfully so. But I think that the average purple really shouldnt be teaching unless there isnt anything around for 30 miles or more. Its not set in stone, but I think that most of the time a person should be a black belt or really close to it before opening a school.
Again, there are exceptions, and I know several, but "average" purples and below probably should be focused on their own development for the time being, imo.
i think brown belt minimum to have your own school becuase you need a certain time to mature in the the art and gain valuable experience that only comes with time.
I see what Andre is saying but think what is missing is even a black belt should have some experience teaching and shouldn't neccesariy open up a school just because he can or because he is a black belt.
I think all to often we "assume" a black belt in Bjj has actually had teacher training and the fact of the matter is many black belt don't. In fact some black belt waited until there were black belt to start teaching which in my opinion is a BIG mistake. They maybe black belt as fighters etc BUT as instructors they are white belts who don't know how to create a curriculum, adjust that curriculum to the needs of each "different" student, PLAN a class, explain principles, abstract concepts along with techniques in DIFFERENT ways without changing the basic idea, etc. There are many black belts who don't even have a clue how to do these things. All they can do is "imitate" the type of instruction and training they themselves have received. That type of instuction/training may be good for some people but not for others and a good instructor should be able to teach all kinds of people not just one type. They are not really teachers but imitators.
Like my Bjj instructor/coach told me, it not whether the instructor is a black belt that matters; what matters more is if that instructor, regardless of the belt, has received some type teacher training, has applied some of that teacher training on actual students and ultimately has some experience as a teacher.
edit to correct spelling
Good point, m.g. I just dont want a fantastic teacher who is teaching me incorrect information as much as I dont want a fantastic bjjer who cant teach to train me...(although given the choice, Id take the latter).
Andre,
You said given a choice you would rather be trained by a fantastic Bjjer who can't teach than a fantastic teacher who is teachning you the incorrect information.
I see your point. But in that situation you, as an individual, kinda have to have the ability to learn and pickup on things just from watching and observing. Alot of people don't have that skill although so do. I guess in such a situation what a person gets from the fantasic Bjjer who can't teach really depends on the discernment skills of that person.
Like I said some people aren't that type of learner and need things to be "explained" verbally. They don't know how to pick up on various details just from watching or observation.
This opens the door to another problem...is it good to have a school where the only students who are likely to do well are the ones who happen to learn from watching and observation and not explanation? I mean if only a small percentage of students (or potential student) will learn that way then how is that school going to have a strong and diverse student base if it is "for" one type of student?
BUT on another side note: this thought just came to mind: how much instruction does one really need in bjj? I mean at some point instruction becomes more like coaching as the so-called student progresses.
Do you agree there is a difference between instruction and coaching?
andre,
This is an interesting discussion, but we should define "correct information".
In BJJ, all things can be relative. Some things are "true for almost everybody", while some things are true only for a few individuals. Individual bodies come into play when discussing the relevance or effectiveness of a certain technique, variation, or strategy.
How can we evaluate information if BJJ is always done BY someone ON someone else?
Chris,
Competition and rolling with high level people answers the question about "correct information."
Here is the thing: People can teach whatever they want in terms of technique, but if a person is claiming to teach Brazilian jiu-jitsu then the information cant be as relative as you are making it out to be. There is a reason BJJ was on top before everyone started crosstraining in it--it has efficient techniques that were proven in competition, not in theory.
andre,
I think BJJ comes out on top because its training methods dictate the technique for each individual.
In other words, each student internalizes the principles (using the body to generate leverage/power, BJJ's paradigm of control, etc) by practicing the basic techniques. From there, each student uses the training methods (drilling, rolling) to adapt the principles to his or her individual body.
The Eddie Bravo's of the world can do rubber guard. The inflexible folks like my cannot.
Even more subtly, each of us makes tiny changes relative to our own body. I wear a size 8.5 shoe, so I can hook my foot under just about anything. One of my students wears a big size 13 or something, so he uses his foot differently. But it's OK, we both do BJJ.
In the end, it's not about the techniques themselves. It's about using the techniques as a foundation and the training methods as a platform to develop skills that are customized to that individual (sometimes very slightly, and other times, like with the Rubber Guard, more obviously).
It's about the training progression. The technique is only a starting point.
~Chris
"In other words, each student internalizes the principles (using the body to generate leverage/power, BJJ's paradigm of control, etc) by practicing the basic techniques. From there, each student uses the training methods (drilling, rolling) to adapt the principles to his or her individual body."
Sorry, this is incorrect. If that were the case then why didnt boxingcome out on top?
Which part is incorrect? You've quoted the other part of my post, but you've addressed my conclusion. And when did boxing come into this?
Given your question, I can only assume that (1) you're addressing my conclusion, and (2) that we are discussing the early UFC's. If you are asking how I think grappling came to dominate the early events, then my opinion is this:
The grapplers in the early UFCs included training methods to familiarize themselves with the striking they would face. The strikers did not familiarize themselves with the grappling they would face. Because of this, the grapplers were better prepared to take the strikers out of their element than the other way around.
Notice that it wasn't just BJJ: UFC3 was won by armbar (Steve Jennum, Ninjutsu). UFC 5 was won by Dan Severn, and UFC 6 was won by Oleg Taktarov. I think this is all in keeping with what I wrote in the above paragraph.
If you are asking something else, I have no idea what it is.
PS - I'm on East Coast time, so I'm going to bed. Please post replies and I will hit them up tomorrow.
Chris, my point is that when you said this:
"I think BJJ comes out on top because its training methods dictate the technique for each individual. "
and then elaborated on it in the subsequent paragraphs, you made a point that could be applied to boxing, as well. But boxing was never as successful as BJJ...neither was kickboxing or any of the arts you mentioned. They all lost to BJJ.
Severn lost to the much smaller Royce. Oleg lost to Renzo (I was in his corner so believe me it pains me to argue this point).
I believe teaching is a progression. Once you reach Blue or Purple you should be helping with beginners and/or kids. Then after a few years teaching under a blackbelt, you can then move towards your own school if that is what you want to do.
I agree with Louco, although, as Ive said, there are a couple of purples and browns that I know that run great schools.
Andre,
I am not understanding disagreement with Chris concerning this point:
Chris said: "...each student internalizes the principles (using the body to generate leverage/power, BJJ's paradigm of control, etc) by practicing the basic techniques. From there, each student uses the training methods (drilling, rolling) to adapt the principles to his or her individual body."
The Machado brother, who have been some of the most successful Bjj instructors both in Brazil and, of course the U.S, made essentially the SAME point.
They have said this in their books as well as in their videos.
Rigan Machado, in his Triangle DVD, stated quite clearly:
"NEVER adapt yourself to Bjj ALWAYS adapt Bjj to yourself".
I even have an old article written by Rorion where he claims his father, Helio, never advocated "copying" but rather encouraged his children to make Bjj something of their own.
Heck, even Rickson made a similar point in the book GRACIE WAY on page 109, second half of the second paragraph.