Thanks for your article

I believe that the term "Master", in the sense that it is percieved in
the MAs i.e. "all knowing" and sometimes omnipotent, conveys a self-
serving and arrogant image unbefitting of someone who professes to
adhere to the philisophical precepts believed to be inherent in the
martial arts.

I do buy into the concept of "Master Teacher" as opposed to an Tacher/
Instructor for the reasons outlined below.

It is my belief that, on a physical level, all karate traditions,
whichever name they go by, are the same. By their very nature all
karate traditions focus on effective but simple methods of hindering
the bodily function of another human being through a comprehensive
repertoire of defensive methods aimed to address common unprovoked
attacks.

This repertoire is composed of manipulation and proper positioning of
joints to cause pain or control the attacker; applying pressure to the
different muscle groups in order to help maneuver the attacker;
twisting, striking and squeezing muscles to create pain and control
the attacker; restricting or cutting off air entering or leaving the
lungs; restraining the blood flow from an artery or vein to render the
attacker unconscious; striking or pressing vulnerable points of the
body to stun, create pain and control the attacker; and throwing a
person to the ground.

This repertoire of defensive applications should be imparted to the
learner by the teacher based on the learners’ level of understanding
and their physical prowess. The proper mechanism to impart and learn
the lessons is through two-person forms or drills better known as
futarigeiko and kumite. This is supplemented with exercises (seri
undo) to build strength and endurance.

Kata, in my opinion, is an accumulation of these lessons and by this
definition does not teach karate techniques but accumulates the
lessons already taught. The value of kata, in my opinion, is to
document the best learning templates and use them to pass down to
future generations of learners. In addition practicing the templates
alone, using visualization, helps the learner remember the lessons
while also practicing and fine tuning methods of punching, kicking,
posturing, moving, etc.

Given this, I believe that an effective teacher is one who possesses a
working knowledge of; 1) defensive applications and how to link them
to commons attacks; 2) anatomy, physiology and body mechanics. This,
of course, coupled with knowledge of sound teaching methods.

In addition to the physical practice of karate, karate also embodies
an ethical (moral philosophy and spiritual) foundation which is meant
to enhance physical growth. In this context, the teacher should
possess a depth of life experiences and a profound understanding of
humanity so that he/she is able to see what needs to be nurtured in
the student. This is what I believe separates an instructor/teacher
from a “master teacher”

I believe that in modern times, shogo i.e. titles (Renshi, Kyoshi, and
Hanshi) are given based on 1) the performance of technique (NOT the
understanding of technique) and 2) contributions in moving an
organizational agenda forward. Shorin ryu and other karate traditions
would be better served if these two criteria were replaced with 1)
ones understanding of technique and 2) ones ability to impart that
understanding.

Regards

Tony DiFilippo