What makes a good aikido teacher?
Beyond the black belt: Why technical skill does not guarantee the ability to teach and how Aikido lacks pedagogical development.
Lately, the question “What makes a good teacher?” has been circling my mind. When I stumbled upon a compelling debate sparked by Rob Liberti on Facebook, it struck deeper than I expected—enough to inspire this post.
“Great teacher - what does that mean?” That deceptively simple question, posed by Rob Liberti, sparked a nuanced and at times uncomfortably honest reflection on the often-blurred line between technical mastery and the true art of teaching in Aikido.
Rob begins by challenging the near-sacred status of "O-Sensei," noting that while Morihei Ueshiba was undeniably a remarkable practitioner, calling him a great teacher remains unexamined dogma. We would never call Mike Tyson a great coach just because he was a legendary boxer, Rob points out. So why do we assume that martial brilliance naturally implies pedagogical mastery?
This sparked a thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion, spanning everything from Japanese honorifics to the way teacher training is approached in organizations like Birankai. Many voices echoed a shared concern: in Aikido, there is little to no structured development of teaching skills. Rank is often awarded based on time served and loyalty, not on demonstrable teaching ability. In some cases, the conferral of rank seems more symbolic than skill-based — what one contributor mockingly calls a "participation trophy."
At the core of this thread lies a sharp critique of uncritical hierarchy. Several voices, including Ravi Kumar and Josh Lovic, echo the distinction between being good at something and being good at teaching it — a principle widely accepted in other fields, but still largely absent in Aikido. Teaching is a separate skill. One that can and should be taught.
Rob also shares his own teaching experiment: starting class by announcing a clear goal, engaging each student through direct contact, and summarizing the key learning points — never more than three — to promote retention. He credits this approach not to Aikido tradition, but to outside methodologies like kaizen—a Japanese philosophy of continuous, incremental improvement—and structured teaching frameworks used in formal education.
The discussion shifts at points to linguistic nuance, questioning the translation and cultural baggage of terms like Sensei, Ō-Sensei, and Daishihan. While some defend the use of titles as part of a broader cultural context, others see them as barriers to honest evaluation.
Overall sentiment:
The dominant tone of the thread is one of disillusioned clarity — a collective urge to separate reverence from real pedagogy. There’s a longing for accountability, transparency, and results-based teaching evaluation. Emotional loyalty and lineage, the thread suggests, cannot substitute for effective skill transmission.
To borrow Rob’s bluntest moment: “If he’s such a great teacher and you’ve been learning from him for over 30 years, why do you suck so much?”
The thread doesn’t attack tradition — it asks it to grow up.
Key takeaway for teachers:
If you want to be called a great teacher, show us your students. Not your resume, not your rank. Show us who you've lifted.
I don’t have all the answers. But I’ve been on the mat long enough to know that asking the right questions matters. If you’re on a similar path, welcome aboard.
I really like this post. And agree with you in relation to a number of points:
1) the technical grading syllabi (that I've seen), do not assess for the skills of teaching.
2) the promotion of those that teach in many dojo is often centered around their attainment of a certain ranking on the technical syllabi, as opposed to assessment of teaching skills
3) very little structure (and sometimes transparency) is given for any other consideration for the selection of teachers
4) martial arts dojos with excellent teaching often grow more effectively
I also know from my work in organisational change, leadership development, and... well, life, that systems tend to support the status-quo because it works for the current power structure, and if improvement to this is to occur, it is good to address the valid reasons to keep it the way it is... so as to demonstrate that a change could actually help.
One of the valid reasons many dojo I've attended use the technical syllabus to select teachers, is that those that have attained a certain grading level, understand the nuance of the technique they are going to teach, and thus are able to retain the Lineage, or the tradition of that Lineage. I think that is actually something I can appreciate. This then means that if this was something that is important to the dojo, then we would need to show how the addition of a way to help teachers assess and grow their skills wouldn't affect the retention of their Lineage's techniques, but would actually help their students to learn it.
Another reason why many dojos use the technical syllabus to select teachers is that they don't have enough teachers for the class times that they want to run, and need to have those leading class to have at least some technical understanding of the art they are teaching. I can understand this, and thus it means that we need to show that having a tool to help develop more teachers, teachers that understand the craft of teaching, could actually help them to grow their dojo.
It seems to me that this approach would be more one of awase - blending with the way it is, in order to see things from that perspective, and then to shift this to the way it could be... and for the benefit of the art in general. I hope this adds to the discussion!