Lineage, what is relevant and what's just fluff?

[noahh]

Osu!

I was reading an article recently in which a martial artist was listing all the people he had trained under as a means of bolstering his own status. While I appreciate good horses come from good stables, equally a rubbish horse can spend an overnight stint at a good stable and remain a rubbish horse.

When I think of the people who have trained beside me over the years, who arguably could claim to have trained under my own instructor, some of them weren't then and never became good karateka. Those that stayed under my instructor's tutelage long term invariably did become competent karateka. Anyone who completed a Dan grade with him I would consider to fall into the category of excellent.

However in the CV's and measures of providence martial artists provide these days, seldom is there any indication of the "time" people spent with various instructors. In some cases "trained under" refers to a week long seminar, or even a few hours.

I am not intending to bag anyone, just curious how you yourselves can/do sort through the bullshit. How do you measure up a new face when they offer lineage as an introduction.

For students, Who you trained under, only seems relevant to me if you graded under that person. A grading at least is a formal endorsement of calibre. But which grading? If you did your blue belt with them and your shodan at a Mcdojo, that doesn't wash.

If I am a student looking to chose an instructor, surely it's reverse lineage I want to look at. Not who they trained under, but "Who have they trained?" Again subject to criteria above, just because someone worked out at your dojo once doesn't give you claim to them.

I appreciate the best measure is always the Karate in front of you, and that fighting/tournament pedigree offers another tangible source. Just purely looking at the practice of name dropping in this thread.

Look forward to hearing others opinions.

Osu

Noahh

[senshido]

I don't think it's that important, I am more concerned with what you can do, not what you say you can do.

From a different perspective: we now have instructors/dojos asking to join our union, but that requires a visit, either from them to us, or from us to them. That way we can judge first hand what they are like. We have recently turned down some overseas applications as we have no way of verifying them. Anyone can say they trained with X, Y, Z but as you say Noah... was that a 2 hour session one Sunday morning??

[meguro]

I'm not such a big believer in the lineage thing, even though I feel lucky to have trained with the folks I trained with. I prefer to see first hand what a guy or gal can do, rather find assurance in a pedigree.

[GJEC]

I take people at face value and (after bad experiences) look at the way they interact at least as much as the way they move.

Skills can be taught, effort can be encouraged. But poor attitude? No thanks.

So lineage maybe means less to me than to some.

Gary

[noahh]

Osu!

Commenters so far seem to be on the same page or similar to myself. So let me venture a little further.

Has the relevance of lineage changed?

In the 60's and 70's training with big names, was evidence of extraordinary commitment. You had to move to Japan, be accepted as a student, sacrifice significantly, this undoubtedly weeded out any pretenders. You could reasonably say someone who had trained with Oyama for example (for a reasonable length of time) would have the goods.

The world is smaller now, and the instructors are vying for the dollar. Moreover there are a lot more names to chose from. Some of them are amazing instructors, if you subscribe to the idea of an ongoing evolution of martial arts you could reason some of these names are better than the forefathers.

So does training with an instructor tell us as much about the student as it did of those pioneers in the 60's and 70's?

Osu!

[monty]

And to prove the fluff-ness of lineage(in my opinion). I just played 6 degrees(of martial arts) sepration and can trace my lineage back to Ip Man, Jigoro Kano and Mas Oyama (and I didn't have to use more than 5 steps).

[meguro]

If a teacher is doing his or her job, the student should be able to surpass the teacher. Of course not every student does. Also the idea that all martial arts continuously evolve is misleading. Traditional martial arts, by definition, are opposed to evolution.

[GJEC]

The whole thing about ability though is that it's a transient thing. Merely 'doing' a style does not give an automatic will of iron and body of steel.

Likewise some are awesome in their youth, but if they take a break and walk into a dojo years later quoting lineage but unable to get their belt on, it gives a false impression.

So all that matters is the here and now. Having said that, I often drop things in to posts about training under Brian Fitkin, Mas Oyama, Joko Ninomiya etc, but hopefully more in the way of showing them respect than in bigging up my experience.

On the question of lineage, do some instructors feel under pressure if someone walks in saying they trained under someone famous? I know - before I grew up - if one of Steve Arneil's students came to visit I gave them one hell of a session so the message went back that we trained hard.

Silly really. That was a LACK of confidence. Since corrected.

Gary