# Regulating Martial Arts Instruction



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 8, 2006)

This debate comes up from time to time...and recently, I was asked to bring it up again...so here it is.


Korea has government regulation of martial arts instruction.  You can't just go to Korea and hang a shingle.  You must be licensed.  Today, you even need to have earned a degree in Martial Arts Education to even get a job.

Great Britian requires those who would teach martial arts to meet certain criteria to open and run a program.

We in the U.S. have long fought the intrusion of government regulation into the martial arts industry.  But why?  Who will it harm?  Who will it benefit?

It seems to me, the only way many of the problems we all complain about within the Martial Arts community can only be resolved by outside intervention.  After some 60 years, it seems obvious we, the grand community of various schools, organizations, arts, etcetera ad infinitum, have proven ourselves completely incapable of policing ourselves.  Thus, it will have to come via some regulatory body.  Every other commerical and professional industry has already submitted to such regulation.  This one seems to have had a rather long run...perhaps...overdue....for regulation.  Already we have seen regulation enforced in certain communities, and some states have take up the gauntlet with mixed results.

Nonetheless....it will probably happen sooner or later.  Thus, it is incumbent upon us to think now about what criteria should be applied, how it should be applied, and who should apply it.   I would like posters in this thread to take up this discussion and list specifics they believe should be addressed.   Rather than just post the usual rhetoric railing against regulation....please accept the challenge of trying to come up with an actual solution instead of just complaining about it.  It is easy to sit back an criticize.  It takes greater application of cognitive skill and character to offer a viable plan.   Debating the pros and cons is quite acceptable, but please don't let it degridate into a pitched battle of words about how something won't work.  At least explain in detail why.

JH


----------



## Kreth (Oct 9, 2006)

The main argument is that any regulatory board would end up comprised of mostly mcdojo instructors, who would proceed to make it difficult for anyone outside of their circle to obtain licensing.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 9, 2006)

Kreth said:


> The main argument is that any regulatory board would end up comprised of mostly mcdojo instructors, who would proceed to make it difficult for anyone outside of their circle to obtain licensing.


 
That is probably what would happen Kreth!


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 9, 2006)

It's also contrary to the "founding concepts" of the United States.  It amazes me when people say only government can fix this mess.  Look how well the government does with many of it's programs.  Does it really need to worry about other things?  In the end, even it it went well, I think all it would do would be to raise the price of instruction as to pay for a bureaucracy.

Jeff


----------



## Brad Dunne (Oct 9, 2006)

I will echo what has been already said, but will add the following. Even though, using korea as an example, the government has some sort of mandate in place, it has not stopped corruption in any form it takes. So I ask this, just what has government intervention accomplished? IMO - nothing, but allowed a closed door license to cheat and steal............


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 9, 2006)

So far all I'm hearing is a lot of whinning. The very thing I asked you not to do. If you think 'McDojo" operator's will take over, explain WHY. Better yet......how about a solution to THAT problem. A criteria to keep the McDojo owner from overrunning the process.

The Emperor


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 9, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> So far all I'm hearing is a lot of whinning. The very thing I asked you not to do. If you think 'McDojo" operator's will take over, explain WHY. Better yet......how about a solution to THAT problem. A criteria to keep the McDojo owner from overrunning the process.
> 
> The Emperor


Excuse me?  Whining?  For someone who says they don't want this to turn into a "pitched battle of words", that is pretty inflammatory. 

Jeff


----------



## ArmorOfGod (Oct 9, 2006)

The US has narrowly avoided the passage of several laws over the past three or four years.  The most recent was in North Carolina (I believe).  If I can dig up the details, I will post them, but all of the proposed laws had to do with states approving who got to get teaching licences and were allowed to run schools in those states.

AoG


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 9, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> So far all I'm hearing is a lot of whinning. The very thing I asked you not to do. If you think 'McDojo" operator's will take over, explain WHY. Better yet......how about a solution to THAT problem. A criteria to keep the McDojo owner from overrunning the process.
> 
> The Emperor


Seeing as how there are scant few folk on this planet who get to tell me what to do any longer ... howzabout you putting forth your ideas as to exactly how martial arts instruction could be regulated in the U.S.A.?  In fact, I think I'll refrain from arguing the point with you until you provide a more definitive laundry list.  

And, since you've chosen to place this in the TKD section, I'd like to see your list specifically related to TKD, else request this thread be moved to a venue wherein this topic may be explored in a more broad sense.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 9, 2006)

I think the whole idea of having a government bureaucracy overseeing martial arts is bad.  The idea of some people, that will have to be paid somehow, who in all likelihood would be political appointees, governing martial instruction, I think would become disastrous.  There would be arbitrary rules put in place and no matter how well versed the person/people is/are versed in different arts, there would be gaps in their knowledge.

The best way to insure good quality martial arts instruction is too teach good martial arts and ignore the schools of poor quality.  If a person really wants quality instruction, it's pretty easy for them to do research into these days.  We do not need the government involved.

Jeff


----------



## matt.m (Oct 9, 2006)

I am going to chime in with Jeff, ignore the mcdojo, buy your black belt factory stuff and go on with your life.

I will use St. Louis community as I know it.  I am not an expert but I do have some knowledge so I will put what I have observed.

Heres the thing: in my organization it takes 5 months to go from white to yellow, 6 from yellow to orange, 8 from orange to green, 8-9 months from green to blue.  We go on a point system 1 pt. from class participation, 5 pt. for entering a tournament or doing a demo.  5 pt. for 1st, 3 for 2nd, and 2 for a 3rd place showing.  You can accumulate 20 pts. for a weekend seminar.  Choose one of three options, there is 3 a year.  You guys get the idea.  In Missouri the class fees are $40.00 a month, $105.00 for a three month payment.  I know in Colorado and Florida it is $20 a month more, but it was set for c.o.l.a.

Now, I know 3 tae kwon doist from one school it took them no longer than a year and a half to get their dan.  These guys were 4th dan in three years.  In Moo Sul Kwan, there has never been a student start as white to finish go to dan in under four years.

The students of the other school signed a bank draft agreement for a 100.00 eft.  They have paid for lessons only, up to 4 a week.  This doesn't include belt test fees.  They have tab or stripes for intermediates between main belts.  So the teacher guarantees a student base, he also guarantees a ton of money for belt test fees.

However, the buy your black belt club is hanging out at the well to do areas of town doing Saturday demos and the soccer moms are doing what they think is right.  These schools are the ones with the gold, they are the main tae kwon do community to the general public.  It is crazy.

With some kind of regulation policies being put in place there will be a grandfather clause so whatever school is in current operation will still be after the regulation process takes effect.

Oh by the way, all the dans at the particular school have kukkiwon certifications so they have their blessing.

I have always said all along that the best instructors are the ones you never hear about unless it is word of mouth for the most part.  Not the mall.

So, what happens to the smaller student based school that is in it for good instruction?  They pay a lot of money for regulation certs.  etc. etc.  It can put a school in a bind.  I say it is not good.


----------



## exile (Oct 9, 2006)

Folks---I don't think the idea of regulation necessarily requires _government_ regulation. EofK's idea is that there should be some kind of quality control in the MAs, but we don't necessarily need goverment oversight. My take on EofK's suggestion is something like what happens in ski instruction. There is a national body, the Professional Ski Instructors Association, which issues certifications, and qualification is very demanding. There are several levels: a kind of associate membership, corresponding in effect to high colored belt rank, full membership, correspoding to the first couple of dan ranks, and then examiner certification, meaning that you are qualified (and required) to evaluate candidates for certification. PSIA has a very detailed syllabus, which changes over time to reflects improvements in ski technique made available by new ski technologies. Instructors are required to participate in a certain number workshops ever few years in order to keep themselves up to standard on what new technical and instructional methods have been discovered; there are liason groups with racing associations (since so much improvement is due to incorporating techniques pioneered by racers), with freestyle groups (same thing---mogul skiing has had a big impact on ski instruction) and so on. Ski hills are under a lot of pressure to maintain highly credentialed staff---instruction, particularly at the entry level, is one of their biggest sources of income---and they typically require their instructors to either have at least associate membership or to go up for testing for that when  they've served an `apprenticeship' of a couple of seasons. Once you're an associate member, your hill will usually require you to go up for full as soon as you've put in the necessary years at the associate level. The testing, on both the technical and teaching end, is _very_ demanding. The result is that ski instruction is very highly respected among the American skiing public, and the PSIA is very proactive in testing and refining both technical aspects and teaching methodology. There are no McDojs. in ski instruction, at least that I had heard of when I was involved in ski racing and teaching. 

The PSIA model might be a starting place for a model of MA instruction along the same lines. While as I say I think EofK's ideas about quality control in the profession could be accomodated by something along these lines, w/o government regulation, in some countries, the government _is_ the regulatory authority---I believe that's the case in France and Italy, though that might be a misimpression---in other places it isn't, but both models seem to work pretty well as long as the instructors demand the highest standards of themselves both in teaching and in technical knowledge. The important thing is that you can do it w/o making it a governmental function...

Just a thought...


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 9, 2006)

exile said:


> Folks---I don't think the idea of regulation necessarily requires _government_ regulation. EofK's idea is that there should be some kind of quality control in the MAs, but we don't necessarily need goverment oversight. My take on EofK's suggestion is something like what happens in ski instruction. There is a national body, the Professional Ski Instructors Association, which issues certifications, and qualification is very demanding. There are several levels: a kind of associate membership, corresponding in effect to high colored belt rank, full membership, correspoding to the first couple of dan ranks, and then examiner certification, meaning that you are qualified (and required) to evaluate candidates for certification. PSIA has a very detailed syllabus, which changes over time to reflects improvements in ski technique made available by new ski technologies. Instructors are required to participate in a certain number workshops ever few years in order to keep themselves up to standard on what new technical and instructional methods have been discovered; there are liason groups with racing associations (since so much improvement is due to incorporating techniques pioneered by racers), with freestyle groups (same thing---mogul skiing has had a big impact on ski instruction) and so on. Ski hills are under a lot of pressure to maintain highly credentialed staff---instruction, particularly at the entry level, is one of their biggest sources of income---and they typically require their instructors to either have at least associate membership or to go up for testing for that when  they've served an `apprenticeship' of a couple of seasons. Once you're an associate member, your hill will usually require you to go up for full as soon as you've put in the necessary years at the associate level. The testing, on both the technical and teaching end, is _very_ demanding. The result is that ski instruction is very highly respected among the American skiing public, and the PSIA is very proactive in testing and refining both technical aspects and teaching methodology. There are no McDojs. in ski instruction, at least that I had heard of when I was involved in ski racing and teaching.
> 
> The PSIA model might be a starting place for a model of MA instruction along the same lines. While as I say I think EofK's ideas about quality control in the profession could be accomodated by something along these lines, w/o government regulation, in some countries, the government _is_ the regulatory authority---I believe that's the case in France and Italy, though that might be a misimpression---in other places it isn't, but both models seem to work pretty well as long as the instructors demand the highest standards of themselves both in teaching and in technical knowledge. The important thing is that you can do it w/o making it a governmental function...
> 
> Just a thought...


Not a bad idea, pretty good one actually, but I don't see it happening.  It'd be like herding cats with all the different organizations out there.  Legit and otherwise.

Jeff


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 9, 2006)

This has already been tried with Napma and its related off shoots.  Not a bad idea at all but the people at the top were and are more interested in making their money than in really regulating quality.  That is at least my opinion based on first hand experience.  They do and did however give out good information that is currently being used in many a McDojo!  However quality was never really an issue with organizations like this.


----------



## exile (Oct 9, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> Not a bad idea, pretty good one actually, but I don't see it happening.  It'd be like herding cats with all the different organizations out there.  Legit and otherwise.
> 
> Jeff



I know, it would probably be a harder sell in the MAs than in skiing, for historical reasons. But there are some interesting parallels. The first hot-shot ski instructors that the American public saw were Austrians, who left Europe, where they were regarded as one-step above agricultural laborers by the toney Eurogentry who took lessons at ritzy ski-hills, and came to the US where their standard of living shot way up and they were treated with deference and courted by major ski resorts (mostly in the east in those days).  
They came in with serious attitude---in Austria we do it this way, and that's the only way to do it; then later, well, in France we do avalement and we've beaten you flat in competition for the last three years, so our way is better, blah blah blah. But of course, the racers do what works best, so a kind of international racing technique evolved and become the basis for everyone's story about the best way for you to turn those skis...

But yeah, there never were so many separate federations and associations and organization in the ski world as in the MA world. What the ski people in the US discovered---and the structure in Canada is similar, there is a private organization of professions, and the leadership in both outfits are some of the most dazzling skiers you can imagine---was that quality instuction was in everyone's interest. When people realized that PSIA or Canadian Ski Instructors Alliance certification was a take-to-the-bank guarantee that the person teaching you was not only a terrific skier but had been trained in the most effective methods of teaching skiing, the number of people who started getting into skiing via organized group or private lessons skyrocketted. If for no other reason than long-term self-interest, MA instructors and entrepreneurs could probably consider something similar. But as you say, probably won't happen. Too many egos, for one thing... herding cat, for sure.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 9, 2006)

The Scuba Diving industry is also self regulated.  There are recognized certification agencies, all private, who give instruction.  If you can't show that you have successfully passed instruction in one of these agencies, no reputable dive shop will fill your tanks, or take you out on a diving excursion in their boats.

There are problems in this approach, however.  PADI (Professional Association of Diving Instructors) is the largest US based agency and does probably 80% or more of all diver certification in the US.  There are a dozen or so other agencies that pick of the remaining 20%, including SSI, NAUI, YMCA, and some others that I have only vaguely heard of.  So what happens is that the biggest agencies get the most recognition.  If you have a PADI cert. card, you can show it anywhere in the world where you might want to dive, and it will be recognized and honored.  If you show one of the smaller agencies, there are some places in the world that might not recognize and honor your cert. card.  So if you spent a ton of money on a trip to some exotic location with the intention of doing a bunch of diving, then show up and flash your "XYZ" diver certification card, you just might get left on the docks when the boat leaves, and all the PADI people get to dive instead.

Now picture this same scenario in the Martial Arts.  Every system would need to have its own Certifying Agency.  Take a look at all the factions in Kenpo alone.  Who thinks they could get a consensus on who gets to call the shots, and who gets to give out rank and tell everyone how things need to be done?  How many splinter groups and spinoff groups exist?  Do they suddenly become "illegitimate" if they don't come back into the fold of one of the bigger systems?

The difference in the Scuba Industry is that you can actually be prevented from diving, if you don't have the training.  Like I said, no shop will fill your tanks or take you out.  Buying your own air compressor and boat is expensive, so it's unlikely that someone would do this to simply do an end-run around the system, just so they can dive without being trained.

In the Martial Arts, nobody can stop you from practicing, or teaching.  It just can't be done.  I could teach someone in my living room, and nobody can tell me that I can't.  I can practice all I want, and nobody can tell me I can't.  The only thing that Regulating Bodies could do is perhaps prevent me from attending tournaments or seminars, or other events.  If I am not interested in these things anyway, then it has no affect on what I do.  I train, my teacher teaches me, I teach my students, it is all low-key, not in a commercial school, and nobody knows any better, and nobody can stop us.  In short, if you don't submit to the will of the regulating body, there is nothing they can do to pull you into line.  And personally, I think this is a good thing.

The government definitely needs to stay out of martial arts regulation altogether.  And I just don't see private regulatory agencies being able to do this instead.  Like someone else said, it would be like herding cats.  It just won't happen.  I think we are better off without it.  Sure, there are a lot of abuses that happen, but within regulatory agencies we would be bitching about all the corruption instead.  Trading one evil for another.  At least in the private, unregulated sector, I can walk away from anything that I am not happy with.  I am not stuck doing what somebody else tells me I have to do.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 9, 2006)

whoops.. double post.  See below.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 9, 2006)

To go back to the original question - although some very good points have already been brought up.


EmperorOfKentukki said:


> Korea has government regulation of martial arts instruction.  You can't just go to Korea and hang a shingle.  You must be licensed.  Today, you even need to have earned a degree in Martial Arts Education to even get a job.



To those who assumed EoK meant _government_ control... well, based on this statement, I assume that's what is meant also.  Is it?  Because that makes a difference in the rest of the debate.



EmperorOfKentukki said:


> Great Britian requires those who would teach martial arts to meet certain criteria to open and run a program.



Examples, please?  I have a student from Great Britain, who came from an unaffiliated class (formerly ITF, but hadn't been for at least 10 years when he joined me 2 years ago, with 18 years experience) - he has never mentioned anything like this, although, in all fairness, I've never asked.  I'll see what he says about it.



EmperorOfKentukki said:


> We in the U.S. have long fought the intrusion of government regulation into the martial arts industry.  But why?  Who will it harm?  Who will it benefit?



Again, this seems to indicate EoK is looking for _government_ regulation.  Please clarify.

To answer the question, however, it will hurt the smaller classes - often the less-expensive ones, run in recreation centers, schools, and YMCAs, and available to those with little or no money - which will be least able to afford even a nominal fee for registration, requiring an increase in rates, and thus making it harder for those with little money to attend at all.  In addition, there are quite a few regulated industries in which the oversight is so minimal and infrequent that it is worse than none at all; the licensure gives people a false sense of security, while the time between inspections (often years) leaves people on their own to follow rules or not, as they choose.  The day care industry comes immediately to mind, as does the meat-packing industry.

It will benefit classes who draw their members from those who place value on such licensure... a group that is, in my opinion, shrinking daily as we hear about more and more issues that are (or should be) closely regulated that nonetheless escape government oversight - Congressional pages and congresspersons, for example.



EmperorOfKentukki said:


> It seems to me, the only way many of the problems we all complain about within the Martial Arts community can only be resolved by outside intervention.  After some 60 years, it seems obvious we, the grand community of various schools, organizations, arts, etcetera ad infinitum, have proven ourselves completely incapable of policing ourselves.  Thus, it will have to come via some regulatory body.  Every other commerical and professional industry has already submitted to such regulation.  This one seems to have had a rather long run...perhaps...overdue....for regulation.  Already we have seen regulation enforced in certain communities, and some states have take up the gauntlet with mixed results.



Regulation should occur within the organizations, certainly; my organizations require instructors to work out with senior instructors on a regular basis, and to have other instructors test their students, to help maintain standards, and to ensure that instructors continue to work out and improve their skills - both personal and instructional.  However, even within TKD there is an incredible variance in requirements, technique, technical details, forms, and so on; trying to establish an overarching standard that applies to all will either be so broad as to be meaningless, or narrow enough to preclude instructors in some of the smaller organizations from being able to qualify unless they certify through a different set of requirements than those they were taught, train under, and teach - which is, I think, a key part of the problem.  If you leave overseeing to organizations, then [SIZE=-1]who will guard the guardians?  If you leave it outside organizations, then who will set the standards, and how?    Will they be different for each organization?  If so, set by whom?  Overseen by whom?  If not - how will you choose what to oversee, and what to leave out?  Who decides?  And how?  By numbers, we come back to the problem with smaller organizations being overwhelmed by the requirements of larger ones; by organizations, we come back to only the organization being able to police itself - which is where we are now.[/SIZE]



EmperorOfKentukki said:


> Nonetheless....it will probably happen sooner or later.



Why?  I mean this in all seriousness - you have made this statement unsupported, and I would like to know your reasons.



EmperorOfKentukki said:


> Thus, it is incumbent upon us to think now about what criteria should be applied, how it should be applied, and who should apply it.



This is only true if one accepts your previous statement as true.



EmperorOfKentukki said:


> I would like posters in this thread to take up this discussion and list specifics they believe should be addressed.   Rather than just post the usual rhetoric railing against regulation....please accept the challenge of trying to come up with an actual solution instead of just complaining about it.  It is easy to sit back an criticize.  It takes greater application of cognitive skill and character to offer a viable plan.   Debating the pros and cons is quite acceptable, but please don't let it degridate into a pitched battle of words about how something won't work.  At least explain in detail why.
> 
> JH



It is easy to state a problem, give a position, and sit back without stating your reasons, and then not accept the statements of others who do the same - which is, in my opinion, what you've just done.  Please hold yourself to the same standard you are asking of the rest of us; otherwise, you lose your option to complain when we don't.


----------



## exile (Oct 9, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> The Scuba Diving industry is also self regulated.  There are recognized certification agencies, all private, who give instruction.  If you can't show that you have successfully passed instruction in one of these agencies, no reputable dive shop will fill your tanks, or take you out on a diving excursion in their boats.
> 
> There are problems in this approach, however.  PADI (Professional Association of Diving Instructors) is the largest US based agency and does probably 80% or more of all diver certification in the US.  There are a dozen or so other agencies that pick of the remaining 20%, including SSI, NAUI, YMCA, and some others that I have only vaguely heard of.  So what happens is that the biggest agencies get the most recognition.  If you have a PADI cert. card, you can show it anywhere in the world where you might want to dive, and it will be recognized and honored.  If you show one of the smaller agencies, there are some places in the world that might not recognize and honor your cert. card.  So if you spent a ton of money on a trip to some exotic location with the intention of doing a bunch of diving, then show up and flash your "XYZ" diver certification card, you just might get left on the docks when the boat leaves, and all the PADI people get to dive instead.



Ah, that's a real difference with the skiiers (at least when we're talking country-internal). It's just one big tent. That wasn't always the case. Way back when, Stein Erickson had a national network of ski schools, and they had their own training and certification programs. But when the PSIA came in, Erickson's network kind of faded away after a while. SE-certified instructors realized that to be mobile---and mobility is a big fact of life in the semi-nomadic world of ski-instruction---they needed the full PSIA cert. So then they would go apprentice at a PSIA hill, and get absorbed into that setup. 



Flying Crane said:


> Now picture this same scenario in the Martial Arts.  Every system would need to have its own Certifying Agency.  Take a look at all the factions in Kenpo alone.  Who thinks they could get a consensus on who gets to call the shots, and who gets to give out rank and tell everyone how things need to be done?  How many splinter groups and spinoff groups exist?  Do they suddenly become "illegitimate" if they don't come back into the fold of one of the bigger systems?



I know, the mind recoils in horror at all the bloodletting that would be going on. I can imagine something similar in TKD, with the WTF, ITF and ATA all going at it.  In a sense, you could say, well, what that shows is that the instructional federation should be syle-neutral---but yeah, how likely is that? It _could_ happen, but  only if there were some kind of crisis that forced the various approaches to unite for the sake of survival. My impression is that something like this did happen, roughly, in the ski industry in the USA, and that's what provided the impetus for the formation of the PSIA. 



Flying Crane said:


> The difference in the Scuba Industry is that you can actually be prevented from diving, if you don't have the training.  Like I said, no shop will fill your tanks or take you out.  Buying your own air compressor and boat is expensive, so it's unlikely that someone would do this to simply do an end-run around the system, just so they can dive without being trained.
> 
> In the Martial Arts, nobody can stop you from practicing, or teaching.  It just can't be done.  I could teach someone in my living room, and nobody can tell me that I can't.  I can practice all I want, and nobody can tell me I can't.  The only thing that Regulating Bodies could do is perhaps prevent me from attending tournaments or seminars, or other events.  If I am not interested in these things anyway, then it has no affect on what I do.  I train, my teacher teaches me, I teach my students, it is all low-key, not in a commercial school, and nobody knows any better, and nobody can stop us.  In short, if you don't submit to the will of the regulating body, there is nothing they can do to pull you into line.  And personally, I think this is a good thing.
> 
> The government definitely needs to stay out of martial arts regulation altogether.  And I just don't see private regulatory agencies being able to do this instead.  Like someone else said, it would be like herding cats.  It just won't happen.  I think we are better off without it.  Sure, there are a lot of abuses that happen, but within regulatory agencies we would be bitching about all the corruption instead.  Trading one evil for another.  At least in the private, unregulated sector, I can walk away from anything that I am not happy with.  I am not stuck doing what somebody else tells me I have to do.



I think the fragmentation in the MAs is so great that just the practical problems alone are probably too great to overcome, even with a private, non-sectarian MA analogue to the PSIA or, to a somewhat lesser extent, to the PADA. Not that it hasn't happened on a small scale in the past---the WTF in effects represents a local version of that, with the separate Kwans giving up their autonomy and becoming components of a larger certifying structure. And it's funny, at least some of us spend a fair amount of time moaning about how we wish the old fragmented Kwan system was back in place... look how many TKDists want you to know that they're this Kwan or that Kwan, even though those Kwans really don't have any kind of separate institutional identity for the most part anymore,  within TKD, at least... yeah, maybe we want to keep the diversity of the current setup and take  the bad with the good... ??


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 9, 2006)

OK, I've got a few more thoughts on this...

Getting back to the Scuba Diving example.  Part of the reason the government has not jumped in to regulate scuba diving is because of the success that the industry has in self-regulation.  Education programs in scuba are quite good regardless of the certifying agency, and the sport has a track record with a low rate of injury.  So the government has been content to stay on the sidelines.

I don't know that the martial arts in general has a large number of real injuries.  Sure, bumps and bruises and the like, stuff that you can expect when practicing a contact, combat art definitely occur, but how many people end up in the hospital, with life-threatening injuries that they get from daily training?  Probably not very many, and this helps keep the government at bay.

To anyone who thinks it is somehow inevitable that the government will get involved, I would ask why do you think this?  If they don't have a reason to get involved, such as excessive injuries, then they won't.

Remember lessons from history:  what did the Okinawans do when the Japanese invaded?  They took their training underground, and even got innovative and developed weaponry like the sai, nunchaku, and tonfa.

In Brazil, the government is trying to gain regulatory control over Capoeira.  Most capoeiristas are not jumping on the bandwagon.  It is clear to them that they would just be fighting with a corrupt beurocracy if it happened.  This very idea runs so strongly against the very traditions that capoeira is a part of, that it just makes no sense.  The art was developed by the slaves, the lowest on the social ladder, they were even under the ladder, the downtrodden and powerless.  They developed the art as a means to fight back.  It was underground for a long time.  To think that the government could control it is simply silly.

Remember another thing:  Regulation most certainly means Standardization.  Creativity and innovation will be crushed.  One of the things that makes the martial arts so wonderful and rich is the huge variety of different arts.  And within the same art, we encounter creativity and innovation by those who are free thinkers.  If Regulatory Agencies came into power, whether private or government, this creativity and innovation will be supressed.  What would end up being taught would certainly be a watered down, junky version of limited value.

Just think about Modern Wushu.  This was created by the Communist Chinese governent in the 1950s, as a "national" art and sport, and the traditional fighting arts were suppressed for a long time.  Sure, it can be spectacular, but its value as a martial art is really limited.  The focus has changed, to be performance and competition, and flash.  Impressive as an athletic endeavor, but unimpressive as a martial art.  Thankfully the traditional fighting arts did go underground and were preserved, but those who did this were taking a big risk in disobeying the government.

So if Martial Arts in the US become regulated, the real stuff will just go underground and be done behind closed doors.  No matter what Standardized crap is taught in a formal school, the really good stuff will be taught and practiced by a select few in the background, when nobody is looking.  The real arts would survive, but they would have to go back into hiding.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 9, 2006)

exile said:


> I know, the mind recoils in horror at all the bloodletting that would be going on. I can imagine something similar in TKD, with the WTF, ITF and ATA all going at it. In a sense, you could say, well, what that shows is that the instructional federation should be syle-neutral---but yeah, how likely is that? It _could_ happen, but only if there were some kind of crisis that forced the various approaches to unite for the sake of survival.


 

See, I just think that a Style Neutral organization is impossible.  How can they possibly think that they can regulate a style that they know nothing about?  You can't guarantee quality instructors, or establish a curriculum.  You have no ability to regulate or judge a style that you don't know yourself.  And just think about how many different styles there are, and how vastly different they are?  How could someone with a Muay Thai background for example, who happens to be on the board of directors of a regulating agency, hope to regulate how a Tai Chi Chuan instructor does things? Or Shotokan, or Wing Chun, or White Crane, or Capoeira, or Tae Kwon Do, or Judo?  And this is just the tip of the iceberg!  The idea boggles the mind!

Good thoughts on this thread, by the way.  It was good to bring up the idea and examples of self-regulation, good to toss these ideas around.


----------



## exile (Oct 9, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> To anyone who thinks it is somehow inevitable that the government will get involved, I would ask why do you think this?  If they don't have a reason to get involved, such as excessive injuries, then they won't.



I think this is true, and I think that the only realistic model for regulation would be self-regulation along the lines we've talked about in skiing and diving. 



Flying Crane said:


> Remember another thing:  Regulation most certainly means Standardization.  Creativity and innovation will be crushed.  One of the things that makes the martial arts so wonderful and rich is the huge variety of different arts.  And within the same art, we encounter creativity and innovation by those who are free thinkers.  If Regulatory Agencies came into power, whether private or government, this creativity and innovation will be supressed.  What would end up being taught would certainly be a watered down, junky version of limited value.



This is the problem with self-regulation all right. In Korea, the creation of the WTF/Kukkiwon alliance with the military government led to a homogenization of what by most accounts had been quite a lot of variation in Kwan practice and training methods. The Korean TKDocracy was strongly driven by considerations of nationalism, postwar recovery and sport rivalry.  
This I believe tended to push TKD technically too far in a sport-competition-oriented direction. I don't think that would have happened under a separate-Kwan system. 



Flying Crane said:


> Just think about Modern Wushu.  This was created by the Communist Chinese governent in the 1950s, as a "national" art and sport, and the traditional fighting arts were suppressed for a long time.  Sure, it can be spectacular, but its value as a martial art is really limited.  The focus has changed, to be performance and competition, and flash.  Impressive as an athletic endeavor, but unimpressive as a martial art.  Thankfully the traditional fighting arts did go underground and were preserved, but those who did this were taking a big risk in disobeying the government.
> 
> So if Martial Arts in the US become regulated, the real stuff will just go underground and be done behind closed doors.  No matter what Standardized crap is taught in a formal school, the really good stuff will be taught and practiced by a select few in the background, when nobody is looking.  The real arts would survive, but they would have to go back into hiding.



Which it seems they have had to do periodically over hundreds of years in various places. The idea of regulating Capoiera... just daft.


----------



## born_fighting (Oct 9, 2006)

i see for's and against alot here. I cast my hand in with the against. And i am from Canada, if the government got involved you would see garage dojo's poping up, underground fights and more problems then it's worth, YES it would get rid of the Mcdojo or it may Cause them all to be.. But what about peopel like me that have criminal records, who wish to have a career owning and operating the only thing there good at.. as it stands becuse i got charged with asault and battery and assult with a deadly weapon, i cant join the military , go to the usa, or leave my country for that fact. if i want to do a job i can work construction. so put the gove in there and i would be out of a job, i would pay them for the right to teach if i was alowd to.. puffff. no thanks the government can keep there hands out of my Kamono, the day the priminister earns a black belt the government can have there hands in the dojo's. thats my opinion. I don't know how it is in korea, i havent been there, but i have seen the chinese gove delve into it and they destroyed kung fu and made wushu there is no excuse for that, turn a fighting sytstem into a spectator dance sport event in silk? lol Whats with that...


----------



## ajs1976 (Oct 9, 2006)

I'm for some government regulation.
1.  Require back ground checks and clearance for anyone that is teaching children
2.  Require CPR and basic first aid training

As for as regulating the content, I think it would be to difficult because of the variety found in the arts themselves.


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 9, 2006)

Dang!  I just posted this this morning and look at the thread already.

OK....it doesn't matter if I meant 'Government' or 'Private Industry' oversight.   The point is....what should the oversight be....and in what form?

Several good points have been brought up...which is why I wanted this thread to happen.   As for why it is here on the TKD message board.....why not?  Of all the groups out there, I would have thought the TKD group would have had the most experience with this type of stuff (ergo Kukkiwon).   So I see no need to jump thread to another board (unless you don't like other styles conversing here).  I say....build the thread...they will come.

Maybe the way to first approach the topic is not what it should have...but what it should not.

I take it no one wants 'style' or 'art' to be an issue.  I could go along with that.

I also take it no one wants a particular organization to head it up (someone brought up the failed NAPMA attempt to create a regulatory body).

Many would not want this to be a government action.  OK...I tend to agree we already have too much government intervention in our lives now.  My only contention is....in this instance....it probably is the lessor of the evils as government will not care about style, art or organizational affiliation.  And I just don't think any particular private group has the muscle to make any program effective.  Unfortunately...I think it would take at least State level licensing to enforce the requirements are met.

So what should it do?   Well....in my mind....check for a minimum standard of experience.  Something as simple as:

Instructor:   A minimum age of 18 with no less than 936 hrs of intruction/practice experience.  This would be certified by sworn statement of the ranking teacher initially, and once the system is in place, the individual school would keep such record of training on file.  Once a person reaches achieves this minimum standard and seeks licensing for themselves....it would be up to them to maintain that record and present it to the licensing bureau.

Assistant instructor:  A minimum age of 16 with no less than 468 hrs of instruction/practice experience (basically 1/2 of the above...also allowing for child labor laws to be met by setting the minimum age at 16).

Master Instructor:  A minimum age of 25 with no less than 1040 hrs of active teaching in a period of no less than 5 years from the date of initial rating as an Instructor.   (at a minimum, this would ensure the 'master' has not only practice but instruction experience teaching others.  The figures are based upon a minimum of teaching 1 1hr class twice a week over a ten  year period.  If someone accomplishes that minimum time requirement in under the number of years....the minimum age of 25 and the 5 year minimum time requirement ensures the is a level of maturity before a person is licensed as a master instructor).  

None of these requirements would prevent someone from teaching whatever style or art they want, nor would it prevent them from utilizing student workers.  But it would help set a minimum standard for who could do such work and thus protect the consumer at large and benefit the greater whole of those who seek to make their living teaching martial arts.

Additionally, I really don't see it as a bad thing that all commerical teachers be required to be certified in first aid and cpr.  What harm can come from making that a requirement?  After all...the concept here is to give a minimal level of consumer protection and enhance the reputation of martial artist overall.  

I tend to like the idea of the background check.  Look...this isn't a bad thing.  We would be looking for people with histories of violent crime, felonies or sex offenses.  Having a speeding ticket, a DUI or getting popped for being drunk in public wouldn't be a disqualifier (just proof you are a goof).  I would also include people who have active DVO's (domestic violence orders) against them.  Note...I said 'active'.  If you get your act together...five years down the road...you shouldn't have that held against you.  But if you served time in Prison, got convicted of felony Fraud, or plead to sexual misconduct....you don't deserve the opportunity to stand in front of a group of impressionable people and parents should have the right to know if the local Karate teacher is a buggerer of little boys.

Now I know there is a concern over the licensing Fees.  That is a much more difficult area to resolve.  I would hope it would be something minimal such as no more than say $25 to $50 annually.   I initially thought  one time fee might be better, but I think there needs to be some occasional oversight of the licensee.  Perhaps the license could be for 3 or 5 years with fees of say $150 to no more than $500.

So how would that fee be spend?  Well...first in the production of paperwork that would be necessary for documenting the licensing.  The forms could be presented to the applicant free at no charge with collected fees paying for the printing.  

Who would be in charge of collecting this?  Why not your local Circuit Court Clerk who already collects licensing fees for a variety of professions in your community.  A portion of the fee would go to the Clerks office for processing and storing the aforemention applications.

Who would verify the documents?  How about an Pugilistic Instruction Omnibusman.  I personally think this should be a locally elected official who also has minimum requirements set for eligibility to run for this office.  It would actually be a part time job and the fee he would be paid would come from a portion of the licensing fee mention above.

I know many of you will say...but how do we keep this Omnibudsman honest.  Well....most states already have law on their books for 'malfeasance of office'.  These would apply no less to this office...and a complaint would be filed with your local County Attorney if you have evidence they are not fullfilling the office according to the law.  

Basically, this would be a first step in making shure the guy down the road that hangs his shingle for Dingles School of Ancient Chinese Wisdom and Death Touch is atleast checked up on.  Someone at somepoint has to make a sworn statement and document his training and experience...and this will tend to keep the fruit cakes out of the field.  

No...none of the above will stop you from practicing on your own....or from you teaching your buddies for free in your garage.  But it wasn't intended to do that anyway.  This is a way to ensure that the guy who is running the 300 kids per year through his dojang door at least gets looked at.....and knows it.  The licensee will have to present valid ID to go through the process...and this information will be on file....so if their is ever a problem (like the guy who likes to feel up his female students...or the instructor who likes to take the 8 yr old boys home for 'special private lessons') there will be enoug info on file that the appropriate agency (police, social services, etc) can know who to look for and have a chance of actually finding them.    None of which would be bad for our overall reputation.


OK...I've given you some specific to work with, with regard to the thoughts I've had.  So what ideas do you have?  What would be good?  What would be bad?  What could work?  What couldn't?

The Emperor


----------



## ajs1976 (Oct 9, 2006)

> Instructor: A minimum age of 18 with no less than 936 hrs of intruction/practice experience.


 
Just curious.  Where did the 936 hours come from?


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 9, 2006)

2 hrs of class instruction/practice 3 times a week for 3 years.   I know others will say they got their Black Belts in less time....but we are looking at 'Instructor Licensing' here...not what 'rank' they are.  Some schools  do not use 'Black Belts' or such as a measuring standard.  Many Chinese Martial Art schools simply look at your total training time.  In fact, such criteria is already used to place people in AAU competition.

JH


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 9, 2006)

I wanted to address also the points of 'Standardization' and 'Self-regulation'.

OK...standardization isn't a issue when you don't include styles or arts in the language of the licensing process.   So that takes that one out of the mix.

As for self-regulation....I think we've already seen that isn't going to happen.  Self regulation would entail voluntary submission to the criteria....and as we have seen on this thread already....no one is going to voluntarily do anything.  That leaves it up to the various organizations to regulate.  The problem with that is....we are right back in the same boat we are in now where one organization doesn't recognize what another organization is doing.   The approach is wrong.  It isn't about what is good for the organization...but for the consumer in general and the body politic of martial artists at large.   Frankly, the State level government is the best way to go for something like this.  It is large enough to ensure compliance and yet not too large so that consumer watchdogs can't ensure it doesn't become mired down in bureacracy.  Bottom line is....it would take an agency with authority to take punitive action (i.e. pad locking your doors) to ensure compliance with a 'regulatory practice' where have such a great divergence and variety of interests (I.E. TKD, Karate, Kung Fu, Judo, Wu Shu, etc ad naseum).  And that isn't just an opinion...it is just a fact of life.

JH


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 9, 2006)

I just can't get on board with this.  Whatever the government touches, generally turns to ****.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 9, 2006)

Eok, I see you've put some serious thought into this.

Even with those standards, I fail to see how it would help insure the quality of MA instruction out there.  I've known people who have trained for years in various styles under the auspices of various organizations who wouldn't be qualified to teach.  I'm sure you do as well.

Can you give us some insight as to why you think this is a good thing?

Jeff


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 9, 2006)

Well....I can't see how it would be a bad thing.

'Quality' will always be a subjective evaluation made by the consumer of the service.   There are good colleges, so so colleges, elite colleges....and fly by night technical colleges.  Nonetheless....State regulations ensures that the students of these entities have some recourse when things go awry.   So all I'm looking at is achieving a 'minimum' quality.  Let's set the bar so to speak.  Frankly...there is no agreed bar at this point..and that has always been part of the problem.  Case in point...the recent thread on this message board about an 8 year old black belt and the missing KKW certifications.  Granted...that is a civil matter, but maybe if that instructor had been forced to undergo a scrutinization...it might have impacted upon his professionalism and business practices as a whole.

I think background checks are reasonable.  They are not intrusive and easily done by every local Sheriff's Office in the country.  For a nominal fee (from $2 to $10) a person's background can be easily checked.  Every other industry that deals with children had to undergo them...ergo...why I think it is just a matter of time before the MA industry will see regulation.   The CPR criteria can't be a bad thing and would ensure a minimum safety competency of those running schools.  As to the time requirements and the reporting...I think this will ensure the people involved are looked out.  Sometimes...and ounce of prevention is worth a pound of the cure.   

The market will always dictate who has the successful school.  I'm not thinking of anything that would impede that.  But I think such measures, as a first step (and that may all that is ever necessary) is a step in the right direction.  It can only help teachers regain credibility in the public mind (and lets face it...right now...a martial art teacher is seen as someone who isn't taken very seriously...and martial arts in general are evaluted along the lines of about as reputable as local professional wrestling).  Sure there are those that think their teachers walk on water...but that always isn't a good thing.  Just the fact that someone from the outside can come in an take a look will deter the least of our fellows from hanging a shingle and doing more damage to us in general.    I don't know that this will ever happen.  But I do think it is something we should think about....seriously...and not just reject outright.  I would rather martial artists sponsor such an action than it be driven by the rantings of some disenchanted soccer mom motivating a politician to sponsor and pass a bill into law with absolutely no knowledge of what we do, who is doing it and how it will affect all of us.

I'm sure I haven't thought of everything.  I think that was why this was supposed to be a good thread for debate.  If it never happens...maybe just by us debating it....we'll come up with a plan.  If we have been down the road atleast as a mental exercise....it can only make us more knowledgeable about the nuances of being a professional teacher of martial arts and how we might deal with regulatory requirements (no matter who is the regulating authority).

JH


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 9, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> (and lets face it...right now...a martial art teacher is seen as someone who isn't taken very seriously...and martial arts in general are evaluted along the lines of about as reputable as local professional wrestling). .
> 
> JH


 
That's a pretty broad sweeping generalization.  I'd like to see you support it.


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 9, 2006)

The truth hurts.

I'll give you an example.    Among what demographic do todays martial arts teacher find the greatest number of enrollments.

Answer:  Children

Begs the question:  Why don't we see these numbers among adults.

Answer:  They've got more important things to do than waste their time and money on what is essentially an activity for kids.


It wasn't always this way....and we did it to ourselves.

JH


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 9, 2006)

There are schools that focus on children as a clientele, and there are those that do not.  Usually there is a different atmosphere, depending on the focus.  BUt that doesn't equate the Martial Arts Instructor with the local pariah.

Like any profession, there are those who carry a high degree of respect in the community due to how they behave and how they teach.  There are others who have little respect in the community for the same reasons.  This isn't unique in any way to the martial arts instructor.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 9, 2006)

Lots of training halls around the world do not focus on children.  Just for examples : JKD, MMA, BJJ, Budo Taijutsu, Modern Arnis and most FMA systems, IRT, Krav Maga, etc.  Plenty of systems are taught to adults with literally thousands studying them in the USA and around the world.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 9, 2006)

The idea that a government body will help insure a minimum level of quality in the martial arts is simply ridiculous.  Even if somehow it managed to do that, it would have to be way more intrusive than you have suggested. 

On a second note, why worry about what the "general public" thinks about you?  If you offer quality instruction, what difference does it make to you or your students if the populace outside of your training hall doesn't take you seriously? 

If someone wants to study martial arts, there are plenty of resources now to find a good school.  But still, the most important one for any school is word of mouth.  Also, if you come across a bad school, report it to the local Better Business Bureau.  People do check with that.

Jeff


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 9, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> The idea that a government body will help insure a minimum level of quality in the martial arts is simply ridiculous. Even if somehow it managed to do that, it would have to be way more intrusive than you have suggested.
> 
> Jeff


 
Seriously, probably all it would end up being is an extra tax on this particular industry, in the form of Permits and Licenses and such.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 9, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> Seriously, probably all it would end up being is an extra tax on this particular industry, in the form of Permits and Licenses and such.


Absolutely.

And when that didn't pay for all of it, other taxes would be raised to pay for another useless, unwanted government program.

Jeff


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 9, 2006)

I think that we need to resist government regulation of martial arts because the government is very EFFECTIVE at implementing regulations.  The ruling body, or organization, that is on the "inside" is going to set things to benefit their organization.  This is how nearly all government regulation works.

I think that it always starts with people who have higher ideals in mind, but greed and POWER eventually ****s this process up.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 9, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I think that we need to resist government regulation of martial arts because the government is very EFFECTIVE at implementing regulations.  The ruling body, or organization, that is on the "inside" is going to set things to benefit their organization.  This is how nearly all government regulation works.
> 
> I think that it always starts with people who have higher ideals in mind, but greed and POWER eventually ****s this process up.


Well said.

Jeff


----------



## exile (Oct 9, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> This has already been tried with Napma and its related off shoots.  Not a bad idea at all but the people at the top were and are more interested in making their money than in really regulating quality.  That is at least my opinion based on first hand experience.  They do and did however give out good information that is currently being used in many a McDojo!  However quality was never really an issue with organizations like this.



Hey Brian---missed this post, sorry---could you say a bit more about NAPMA?---I've not heard of it. What's the deal with them? Who set them up and what was their intended role in MA instruction?


----------



## exile (Oct 9, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> See, I just think that a Style Neutral organization is impossible.  How can they possibly think that they can regulate a style that they know nothing about?  You can't guarantee quality instructors, or establish a curriculum.  You have no ability to regulate or judge a style that you don't know yourself.



Yes, that thought has been nagging at me. You are either in too deep to be neutral or you are out too far to know anything. 



Flying Crane said:


> And just think about how many different styles there are, and how vastly different they are?  How could someone with a Muay Thai background for example, who happens to be on the board of directors of a regulating agency, hope to regulate how a Tai Chi Chuan instructor does things? Or Shotokan, or Wing Chun, or White Crane, or Capoeira, or Tae Kwon Do, or Judo?  And this is just the tip of the iceberg!  The idea boggles the mind!



Right again---by the time you get knowledgeable enough to be able to have a well-argued position on how things should be done, you've lost your `neutrality'. In skiing, and maybe scuba, things are different because there never was that explosive proliferation of styles and different strategies all of which have some claim to validity. In skiing, the differences where that racers from certain countries discovered certain things first---it came down to particular individuals experimenting, becoming successful, and their teammate picking up on it and then the ski schools of that country saying, you see, it's only the French/Austrian/Italian/Swedish/etc racers who can win, so you'd better demand a French/Austrian/.... ski instructor if you want to learn how to ski well. Patrick Roussel discovers absorbtion/continuous contact with the hill and voila, we have the French Style, three gold medals for Killy, and a zillion dollars for schools that teach avalement. The joke of course is that a year later, every racer in the world has learned avalement, and they're off doing something new---stepping to adjust the line; then suddenly it's the Italians who are the kings of the hill... but within another year, everyone catches up. Ski `styles' don't really exist, and never did. Racers have no pride and no nationalism; if they see something works for one racer, they try it out and if it works, it becomes their own. All professional skiers use the same techniques. It just isn't the same as MA. I think I probably was wrong to bring in the PSIA example, just for that reason...[/QUOTE]



Flying Crane said:


> Good thoughts on this thread, by the way.  It was good to bring up the idea and examples of self-regulation, good to toss these ideas around.



I agree. There are problems for sure in the martial arts, and one of the biggest is that it's hard to tell just how serious or damaging the other problems are.


----------



## exile (Oct 9, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> Also, if you come across a bad school, report it to the local Better Business Bureau.  People do check with that.
> Jeff



I had the idea a couple of weeks ago that maybe what we need is a kind of Angies' List category for MAs. I mean, Angie lists all kinds of services, why not MA instruction? But it was quite correctly pointed out to me that people in a particular school will very likely love it even if it is a McDoj., because they don't know enough to see that they aren't getting any kind of rigor or depth in their training. 

I do think there should be some kind of Baddies List available for MA places. But I have no clue about how it would work in practice. Everyone reading this thread, and on MT generally, will pretty much be able to come to fairly accurate conclusions about how good a place is just from talking to a couple of instructional staff there and watching a few classes in action. But the people who you want to protect---people like the one whose child Iceman now has to deal with because his parents were fed a line by the McDojang owners they went to about KKW poom cert for their son---they really don't have a clue that anything is wrong till something really goes wrong. They'd be very likely the ones writing ecstatic praise for the McDoj. programs they're in. It really _isn't_ the same as when the guy screws up your shower re-tiling job. Angie's is great for that kind of thing, but for substandard dojs. ... probably not.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Oct 9, 2006)

I dislike the idea of the goverment regulating or saying who can or can not teach.
i wish the laws where a little bit easier on those that close done McDojo's and fakes. personaly I know way to many with false certs that have students who have no idea that their instructor made up or bought their rank or liniage I have a deep dislike for fakes  Lets just say i think they should be closed down some how
sorry  I think to say more would violate MT rules


----------



## exile (Oct 9, 2006)

tshadowchaser said:


> sorry  I think to say more would violate MT rules



?? But couldn't you give us more of an idea what you had in mind without getting into Bad Territory...? 

OK, on the one hand you don't want more gov't regulation, and most people on this thread seem to feel that way too. But you also think fakes should be shut down... like, if an MA school deliberately deceives their members. What's the bridge between the two?


----------



## Sirius (Oct 9, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> It's also contrary to the "founding concepts" of the United States. It amazes me when people say only government can fix this mess. Look how well the government does with many of it's programs. Does it really need to worry about other things? In the end, even it it went well, I think all it would do would be to raise the price of instruction as to pay for a bureaucracy.
> 
> Jeff


 

That's true. In a practical sense, starting a dojang is like starting any business and it isn't the gov'ts job to regulate it. In the spirit of free enterprise, the marketplace will weed out undesirable instructors.


----------



## MJS (Oct 10, 2006)

Thread moved to General Martial Arts.

Mike Slosek
MT Supermod


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 10, 2006)

I'm a bit late on this one so here goes my perspective, there cann ot be a standard to be an instructor of said martial Arts for the simple reason, we have to many style to regulate and to many different appoaching to MA. No one agency can control over 10000 styles that people make up everyday.
For example I can create a stle called couch potatoe, I can sit on the couch make a few moves and open a beer and fall asleep until morning it find some idiot to except the style I created.

So as you can see how do you regulate someting that I create if people want to me pay me to learn there business.

America land of the rich and home for all suckers


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 10, 2006)

exile said:


> Hey Brian---missed this post, sorry---could you say a bit more about NAPMA?---I've not heard of it. What's the deal with them? Who set them up and what was their intended role in MA instruction?


 
Here you go.  This is a link to their website : http://www.napma.com/ .
I believe they went bankrupt and then changed hands but I am not absolutely sure on this.  I know multiple instructors who run Dojo's and Dojang's who used to swear by NAPMA!  Personally while they offer some good information I can get the same info for free in other places.


----------



## Kreth (Oct 10, 2006)

Sirius said:


> In the spirit of free enterprise, the marketplace will weed out undesirable instructors.


Unfortunately, this isn't true. The fact that Ashida Kim and other frauds are able to attract students just doesn't bear this out. Some people just want a fantasy, not real training, and the frauds provide that.


----------



## exile (Oct 10, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Here you go.  This is a link to their website : http://www.napma.com/ .
> I believe they went bankrupt and then changed hands but I am not absolutely sure on this.  I know multiple instructors who run Dojo's and Dojang's who used to swear by NAPMA!  Personally while they offer some good information I can get the same info for free in other places.



Gotcha---thanks, that was quite interesting. What it reminded me of was the fitness industry and all these different `certifying' associations for personal trainers---it's like an alphabet soup of orgs, and the real problem is knowing how professional they really are---are they the real deal or do they just have fancy graphics and good web designers and so on? Checking them out isn't easy to do unless you already know a lot about the whole training scene...and if you're at that point you probably know pretty much all you need to know anyway. I gather from what you say that NAPMA might still be in business [?] 

I'm still not sure why ski instruction in North America wound up going such a different route. The difference may have been that the ski hill owners liked the PSIA setup. Anyone can open his/her own doj., but you can only ski on the mountains that are there and have facilities. It's like in baseball or hockey or any other pro sport---if the owners figure out what they think is good for all their bottom lines, that's what you're going to see. And that's probably the reason why you never _will_ get any kind of setup comparable to what you have in skiing going on in the MAs. Ah well, let Chaos reign! :wink1:


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 10, 2006)

exile said:


> Gotcha---thanks, that was quite interesting. What it reminded me of was the fitness industry and all these different `certifying' associations for personal trainers---it's like an alphabet soup of orgs, and the real problem is knowing how professional they really are---are they the real deal or do they just have fancy graphics and good web designers and so on? Checking them out isn't easy to do unless you already know a lot about the whole training scene...and if you're at that point you probably know pretty much all you need to know anyway. I gather from what you say that NAPMA might still be in business [?]
> 
> I'm still not sure why ski instruction in North America wound up going such a different route. The difference may have been that the ski hill owners liked the PSIA setup. Anyone can open his/her own doj., but you can only ski on the mountains that are there and have facilities. It's like in baseball or hockey or any other pro sport---if the owners figure out what they think is good for all their bottom lines, that's what you're going to see. And that's probably the reason why you never _will_ get any kind of setup comparable to what you have in skiing going on in the MAs. Ah well, let Chaos reign! :wink1:


 
Yes with the ski industry I am sure that the owners of the mountains had alot to do with what was going on.  I believe NAPMA is still going after a change in ownership, bankruptcy or whatever happened.  I see it as an organization that is attempting to do good things and puts out some decent material but unfortunately it is also about making a big buck for their organization.  For me I do not need any more drains on my training halls funds after taxes, insurance, rent, etc.  What I make goes straight back into Research and Development and equipment.  Plus most of the material that organizations like NAPMA have is available for free if you are willing to search for it.


----------



## Grenadier (Oct 10, 2006)

Who is to say what passes / does not pass in a particular martial arts system?  If the person deciding is doing this for his own system, then that's his choice, and his business, not mine.  

At the same time, what if his criteria are vastly different, and even conflicting, with another school's methods?  This could easily create an unpleasant situation, that could close such a school.  

Different styles use different methods.  What works well for one might not necessarily work well for another.  This is why it's best to let each style police itself.  

On another note, we need to look at certain unpleasant possibilities.  What if someone the likes of Count Dante were appointed to that position?  What if someone like Ashida Kim were appointed to that position?  What if Frank Dux somehow found his way into that spot?  

The original poster's idea has good intentions, but often times, such intentions pave the road to a certain unpleasant place.


----------



## exile (Oct 10, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Yes with the ski industry I am sure that the owners of the mountains had alot to do with what was going on.  I believe NAPMA is still going after a change in ownership, bankruptcy or whatever happened.  I see it as an organization that is attempting to do good things and puts out some decent material but unfortunately it is also about making a big buck for their organization.  For me I do not need any more drains on my training halls funds after taxes, insurance, rent, etc.  What I make goes straight back into Research and Development and equipment.



I think that probably a lot people wind up making the decision in that direction. It's a trade-off. The fact that there's a lot of really good info publically available kind of tips the balance in favor of a do-it-yourself approach. You just have to be careful in evaluating what's out there.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Plus most of the material that organizations like NAPMA have is available for free if you are willing to search for it.



What do they call it in the home improvement/renovation world---`sweat equity?'---you do your own work and you save a huge amount. I know who puts out good research and good demo vids and so on, and can follow up on leads. The good thing about doing it that way is that you are always following your own sense of what makes sense and what doesn't. But some people probably like a central source that does that kind of thing for them---to each, his/her own, in the end.


----------



## KempoFlow (Oct 10, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> The truth hurts.
> 
> I'll give you an example. Among what demographic do todays martial arts teacher find the greatest number of enrollments.
> 
> ...


 
I strongly disagree.  I feel that most parents spend what money they do have on their children first and take care of themselves last.  I enrolled both of my children in MA before I began taking classes myself.  In fact if money gets tight again, I will be the one putting my practice on hold I would not take my children out of class before me.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 10, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> It's also contrary to the "founding concepts" of the United States.  It amazes me when people say only government can fix this mess.  Look how well the government does with many of it's programs.  Does it really need to worry about other things?  In the end, even it it went well, I think all it would do would be to raise the price of instruction as to pay for a bureaucracy.
> 
> Jeff



I feel that there is a need for SOME regulation of martial arts schools -- especially if they offer day-care/day-camp type programs for children.  I'm not suggesting that it would be practical or feasible to assess skills to teach -- but that, especially when they work with kids like that, the programs need to meet some criteria such as background checks for instructors/leaders, maximum number of people to be supervised, first aid training and so on, just like for any other day care provider.

Otherwise - I just don't think that there's a good way to address the numerous ways that martial arts are taught (personal students, non-commericially, "semi-pro" classes as part of rec programs, commercial schools and all the other ways I couldn't describe so briefly!)


----------



## Rook (Oct 10, 2006)

You know, I remember a late night commercial I saw on a tape recorded in the early 1990s.  A man dressed in a business suit began by talking about the "extreme dangers" of Filipino martial arts, which he also felt were in some way historically fraudulent, then the commercial switched to shots of his TKD training hall and his students kicking boards.  

I remember a petition that someone brought up a scan of from the 1980s calling for a ban on SAMBO because it came from the Soviet Union.  

I remember the attempts that still continue to the present to ban mixed martial arts.  

I remember a karate instructor who tried to have all the Silat schools in Chicago formally disrecomended by the Better Business Bureau.  

The fact that we still have FMA, SAMBO, MMA, and Silat is due to the lack of power these people had in the halls of government.  Put them together on a commission to regulate martial arts, and they may well have banned them all as dangerous and fraudulent.


----------



## Monadnock (Oct 10, 2006)

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers. For all we know, this type of regulation could someday be tacked on to the Patriot Act for crying out loud.

It seems what needs regulating are the "non-Martial Arts" schools. By that I mean, the day-cares, after-school kids programs, sign here on the line for the next three years, Black Belt club contract house title lien Martial Art schools. These aren't martial art schools. It looks (a little) like martial arts, they pass it off as martial arts, it says martial arts on the window, the backs of the uniforms, on the bumper stickers, but it aint Martial Arts.

If you want to teach in the Public Educational System, you most likely go through a thorough background check, have to meet all sorts of qualifications, actually GO TO A SCHOOL to learn what you are going to teach, but with the "non-Martial Arts" schools, any Joe and open up, join an association, and begin taking in the greenbacks.

That's what DOES need regulating are not the (real) Martial Arts schools.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 10, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> Well....I can't see how it would be a bad thing.



There's a huge difference between not seeing how something can be bad and it being good... 

And I can see plenty of ways a licensing program such as you describe can go wrong.  Bribery to waive/overlook/provide certifications of meeting the requirements just to begin with.  Arguments and disputes over what constitutes a creditable hour; does an hour of solo practice in the gym count towards certification?  How do you track that?

In short -- just because something can be done, and might not be bad, doesn't mean it would be good.



> 'Quality' will always be a subjective evaluation made by the consumer of the service.   There are good colleges, so so colleges, elite colleges....and fly by night technical colleges.  Nonetheless....State regulations ensures that the students of these entities have some recourse when things go awry.   So all I'm looking at is achieving a 'minimum' quality.  Let's set the bar so to speak.  Frankly...there is no agreed bar at this point..and that has always been part of the problem.  Case in point...the recent thread on this message board about an 8 year old black belt and the missing KKW certifications.  Granted...that is a civil matter, but maybe if that instructor had been forced to undergo a scrutinization...it might have impacted upon his professionalism and business practices as a whole.
> 
> I think background checks are reasonable.  They are not intrusive and easily done by every local Sheriff's Office in the country.  For a nominal fee (from $2 to $10) a person's background can be easily checked.  Every other industry that deals with children had to undergo them...ergo...why I think it is just a matter of time before the MA industry will see regulation.   The CPR criteria can't be a bad thing and would ensure a minimum safety competency of those running schools.  As to the time requirements and the reporting...I think this will ensure the people involved are looked out.  Sometimes...and ounce of prevention is worth a pound of the cure.


I'm a cop.  Let me tell you how that "small" burden, as you're suggesting it, would work out.  You'd file paperwork, the investigating agency would look it over and that'd be about it.  And, in some states, the process you seem to be envisioning isn't even legal!  (A teacher's "background check" is really just running their fingerprints against the national records, in most cases.)  The public, in VA, for example, can only get the criminal history from & with the agency their asking in VA.  If you want a "full" criminal history, unless you fall under law enforcement purposes, you need to go to each place they've lived.  And, it's only minimally effective to protect kids, as the fact that there remain numerous cases of day care providers and teachers abusing kids despite the various requirements and checks shows.  A background check casts only some light on what a person will do, since it only looks at what they've been CAUGHT doing before.  There is also the whole issue of paying for someone to do this background investigation...  The cops do happen to have a few other things to do...



> The market will always dictate who has the successful school.  I'm not thinking of anything that would impede that.  But I think such measures, as a first step (and that may all that is ever necessary) is a step in the right direction.  It can only help teachers regain credibility in the public mind (and lets face it...right now...a martial art teacher is seen as someone who isn't taken very seriously...and martial arts in general are evaluted along the lines of about as reputable as local professional wrestling).


I disagree with this, as well.  Many martial arts teachers are respected business men & women in their communities and their schools have solid reputations among the public.



> Sure there are those that think their teachers walk on water...but that always isn't a good thing.  Just the fact that someone from the outside can come in an take a look will deter the least of our fellows from hanging a shingle and doing more damage to us in general.    I don't know that this will ever happen.  But I do think it is something we should think about....seriously...and not just reject outright.  I would rather martial artists sponsor such an action than it be driven by the rantings of some disenchanted soccer mom motivating a politician to sponsor and pass a bill into law with absolutely no knowledge of what we do, who is doing it and how it will affect all of us.
> 
> I'm sure I haven't thought of everything.  I think that was why this was supposed to be a good thread for debate.  If it never happens...maybe just by us debating it....we'll come up with a plan.  If we have been down the road atleast as a mental exercise....it can only make us more knowledgeable about the nuances of being a professional teacher of martial arts and how we might deal with regulatory requirements (no matter who is the regulating authority).


Regulation does not equal professionalism.  Boxing is a heavily regulated sport, but it's also (sadly) earned the reputation as sporting's red light neighborhood. 

I'm not opposed to any and all governmental involvement in martial arts.  I want schools that effectively operate day care programs to be regulated like day care programs, because I've seen some serious and frightening actions in these programs.  (Like taking the kids, without parental knowledge, to a neighborhood park, and failing to bring them ALL back to the school, and not even realizing this until the police had found the kid and contacted his parents...)


----------



## CuongNhuka (Oct 10, 2006)

Kreth said:


> The main argument is that any regulatory board would end up comprised of mostly mcdojo instructors, who would proceed to make it difficult for anyone outside of their circle to obtain licensing.


 
That is what will probably happen. But the intention is to make it so it is harder to open a mcdojo. Look at Japan. Almost no mcdojos, mostly because you have to be a third degree black belt in a reputable association. And you lose that status if you open a mcdojo.


----------



## shaolin ninja 4 (Oct 10, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> This debate comes up from time to time...and recently, I was asked to bring it up again...so here it is.
> 
> 
> Korea has government regulation of martial arts instruction. You can't just go to Korea and hang a shingle. You must be licensed. Today, you even need to have earned a degree in Martial Arts Education to even get a job.
> ...


 
Back ground check on instructors would be a great idea.
I dont want some criminal teaching my kid.


----------



## exile (Oct 10, 2006)

shaolin ninja 4 said:


> I dont want some criminal teaching my kid.



Me neither. And if I have the slightest suspicions about someone who's teaching my kid anything, I'm going to check it out till I know whether or not that person checks out OK. But look at it from a _law enforcement_ point of view:  people take classes in everything from calligraphy and pottery to violin and piano to line dancing and gymnastics. And every parent of every kid in every one of those classes feels the same way. How are you going to mandate a thorough enough background check on every one of the instructors in every one of the classes someone's child is taking? What law enforcement agency has the resources to do this? Most people do not have criminal backgrounds---how open to scrutiny should their civil records be? These aren't trivial questions; there have to be convincing answers before you can make the case that everyone who teaches children must have a full criminal-record background search on them. To me, even leaving the privacy vs. security issues out of it, it just looks _undoable_.


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 10, 2006)

To the poster that mentioned being a cop and knowing background checks won't work.   Well...you aren't the only one in the law enforcement profession posting on this board....and whether they work or not is not as black and white as we'd like...but it would be a deterrent.   Knowing it is there would keep most known felons from drawing attention to themselves by applying.  And it isn't that difficult to do a background check for criminal history...and your local sheriff's office can do it.  Being able to do it and dispensing the information are two different things.  The Sheriff's office doesn't have to fork over a copy of the criminal history, they can simply note felony records exist and where they can be found.  If someone want to take the time to go dig them up...they are public record...and that would be up to them.  Nonetheless, the Sheriff Office would be reporting the criminal history check to the governmental licensing agency...thus avoiding your problems with dissemination of someone's history to the public at large indiscriminantly.  

OK....let's recap.  First....I'm just bringing this topic up...and I took the pro side of the base issue of regulating MA's so we'd have a starting point for discussion.  I'm not all out advocating such a thing....I'm simply stating we should talk about it in detail.  That can't hurt anyone.  And it will give us a chance to look at it from all angles.  Several of you have brought of great points of contention that would need to be address.  But that is provided legislation is moved forward...and we seem to have a majority at this time saying they are not in favor of regulation.   HOwever, a great number of posters have expressed they do favor background checks and licensing for schools that run day care/after school/ or heavily catered to children programs.   That might be a gauge of jurisdiction of any law...meaning it would apply to only those schools engaging in certain types of practices and programs if they want to run said programs.   I hope you will all to continue to debate that idea further and refine it.  

As some have mentioned, we could end up with some politician who has no basis of expertise in MA drafting law that could affect us all.  That simply supports my argument we should be discussing things like this now...before something like that happens.

I'm not very concerned about a 'Count Dante' or 'Ashida Kim' (btw..these are both alias and not their real names) obtaining a position as a MA Omnibudsman.  You all know and keep up iwith everyone in your own communities...and I'm sure you'll all beat feet to the media and your local law makers if there ever were such a person attempting to gain the position.  So I think that fear is unfounded.  Also, if such a position were kept at the local level as I suggested (by Circuit Court District)....it would stay local enough that you would definitely be able to keep up with who is seeking the position.

WHich brings me again back to the fear of one style having influence over all the others.   FOlks, I initially detailed that any such regulation would NOT be specific to any style.  It isn't a factor in the law and wouldn't come into play.   Too many of you are still thinking along the lines of 'regulating styles'.  You are trapped in your own style box.  Change your paradigm and look at a bigger picture.  Such a law would include all pugilistic schools, ie. boxing, wrestling, fencing and martial arts in all it variety.  So the law could never be style specific.  We aren't interested in if your school thinks you need three tournaments and two seminars with two years of teaching in house and a letter from your grandmaster.  Nobody would care.  The idea is....basic experience.   WHich is why I thought of something based upon a number of hours committed to the 'activity' prior to being allowed to just go out and claim to be Joe Master Kung Fu to the masses.   It was a rough idea.  I was hoping someone would pick it up and tweek it, roll it around, come up with something workable even it if was different and spit it back out at us.  It is easy to say, 'It won't work' and how do we know this one is doing what that one is doing.   Look...that is more along the lines of dictating curriculum...and I already state any law would have to be NON-style specific; ergo....unrelated to curriculum of any type.  Again....change your paradigm and stop thinking about this from your own particular style.

Obviously this is a good issue to debate because we do see some folks saying they have concerns...whether they be about McDojo's, flakes, or safety and welfare of kids.

So don't worry about this poster's 'intentions' or whether they pave the way to hell or not.   Just as you have to stop thing style specific about this topic....you have to stop making it personal (and that mean attributing your subjective evaluations to the person who brings the idea up.  Attack the idea...leave the person alone....'cause you may be wrong about the person...which means you could be wrong about the idea too).  I know its hard to seperate them sometimes...but please try.

The Emperor


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 10, 2006)

I find it ironic that the person who is now saying don't make it personal is the same one who told some of the first posters on this thread that their concers where "whining".

Jeff


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 10, 2006)

Perhaps....but I didn't single anyone out.


And to complain without contribution is whinning....which is why the whinning comment was made.


So.....anyone got something to contribute?


JH


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 10, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> Perhaps....but I didn't single anyone out.
> 
> 
> And to complain without contribution is whinning....which is why the whinning comment was made.
> ...


So, if we don't play along with your premise that it is going to happen, we aren't contributing?  

I think it's a bad idea.  I also don't see it happening anytime in the near future.  And many people have contributed to this discussion.

Jeff


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 10, 2006)

No. I'm just saying if you simply want to state you don't like and don't think it will ever happen.....post that. But don't hijack the thread with complaints which are subjective evaluations. It distracts time and energy away from those trying to tackle the issues to see if it even workable in any form. Of course that doesn't mean it will ever happen. But if the subject doesn't interest you....go to a thread that does interest you. 

I've already seen threads on this site get hijacked several times. Sometimes by accident (serendipity effects)....sometimes on purpose because someone didn't like the subject matter or was simply bored with it.

JH


----------



## Kacey (Oct 10, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> Perhaps....but I didn't single anyone out.
> 
> 
> And to complain without contribution is whinning....which is why the whinning comment was made.
> ...



I contributed quite a bit earlier in the thread, which neither you nor anyone else has responded to... so I see no reason to retype it, or even copy it.  Feel free to either backtrack or follow the link.


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 10, 2006)

Sorry.  But I did respond to several points you made in your previous post (I thought some of them were quite good).  But if there is some specific point  you want 'ME' to address....please IM with it or repost it, please.  

I have mad cow disease and forget things easily.  LOL!

JH

P.S. I'll have to wait til tommorrow to check back.  I have to stop now so I can watch Tito Ortiz *****slap Ken Shamrock again.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 10, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> No. I'm just saying if you simply want to state you don't like and don't think it will ever happen.....post that.



Quite a few people have done just this... only to have you complain that they are "whinning" - which, by the way, is spelling with one "n" - "whining" - your spelling would be read as winning - which I doubt is what you mean.



EmperorOfKentukki said:


> But don't hijack the thread with complaints which are subjective evaluations. It distracts time and energy away from those trying to tackle the issues to see if it even workable in any form. Of course that doesn't mean it will ever happen. But if the subject doesn't interest you....go to a thread that does interest you.



This is an open forum.  You are welcome to post your opinions (within the forum rules, of course) and so is everyone else.  Unless you've become a moderator while no one was looking, you don't have the authority to tell anyone what they can and cannot write, simply because you don't want to read it.  If you don't like what someone write, you can choose to ignore them through the ignore feature... or you can go to a thread that does interest you, by not annoying you in this fashion.  



EmperorOfKentukki said:


> I've already seen threads on this site get hijacked several times. Sometimes by accident (serendipity effects)....sometimes on purpose because someone didn't like the subject matter or was simply bored with it.



As I said, this is an open forum.  If you truly feel the thread has been hijacked, click on the little red triangle in the upper right of a 'hijacking' thread, state your concern, and submit it to the moderators, who will then deal with it appropriately.  That is their job - not yours.

Now, if you're quite done with hijacking this thread yourself, by complaining about people hijacking the thread, perhaps we can return to the discussion at hand.

happen.....post that. [/quote]

Quite a few people have done just this... only to have you complain that they are "whinning" - which, by the way, is spelling with one "n" - "whining" - your spelling would be read as winning - which I doubt is what you mean.



EmperorOfKentukki said:


> But don't hijack the thread with complaints which are subjective evaluations. It distracts time and energy away from those trying to tackle the issues to see if it even workable in any form. Of course that doesn't mean it will ever happen. But if the subject doesn't interest you....go to a thread that does interest you.



This is an open forum.  You are welcome to post your opinions (within the forum rules, of course) and so is everyone else.  Unless you've become a moderator while no one was looking, you don't have the authority to tell anyone what they can and cannot write, simply because you don't want to read it.  If you don't like what someone write, you can choose to ignore them through the ignore feature... or you can go to a thread that does interest you, by not annoying you in this fashion.  



EmperorOfKentukki said:


> Sorry. But I did respond to several points you made in your previous post (I thought some of them were quite good). But if there is some specific point you want 'ME' to address....please IM with it or repost it, please.



Given the length and non-specifity of your response, it was quite difficult to determine just who, and what, you were responding to.  Therefore, I did not realize you were responding specifically to my points, or to anyone else's.


----------



## MJS (Oct 10, 2006)

Moderator Note. 
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Mike Slosek
-MT Super Moderator-


----------



## Kenpodoc (Oct 10, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> So far all I'm hearing is a lot of whinning. The very thing I asked you not to do. If you think 'McDojo" operator's will take over, explain WHY. Better yet......how about a solution to THAT problem. A criteria to keep the McDojo owner from overrunning the process.
> 
> The Emperor


The solution is to not regulate the Martial Arts and let the market control.  I can never understand why people are always worrying about  regulating MA schools.  If you don't like a school leave and tell your friends why. If someone else likes that school, respect them enough to allow them to make their own decision. In general central  regulation leads to mediocrity. Personally I like a society where there may be some risk secondary to lack of regulation but there is also the opportunity for innovation and greatness.

Jeff


----------



## Ceicei (Oct 10, 2006)

Kenpodoc said:


> The solution is to not regulate the Martial Arts and let the market control. I can never understand why people are always worrying about regulating MA schools. If you don't like a school leave and tell your friends why. If someone else likes that school, respect them enough to allow them to make their own decision. In general central regulation leads to mediocrity. Personally I like a society where there may be some risk secondary to lack of regulation but there is also the opportunity for innovation and greatness.
> 
> Jeff



Jeff, I really like what you say.   Find a niche and make it better...

- Ceicei


----------



## exile (Oct 10, 2006)

Maybe we could try to restart this from the basics of the previous back-and-forth. There seem to be two separate points that have emerged from the original unspecified idea of `regulation': one, background checks to ensure that MA instructors don't have shady pasts; two, some kind of professional credentialing. That's one dimension of the discussion. The other is, government or private? They're not totally independent, because the issue of background checks seems to require some kind of involvement of law enforcement agencies in the deal, and that's a problem a lot of people have commented on in terms of both the civil liberties/privacy/aversion-to-gov't-involvement perspective or the bueaucratic mess aspect or both. The credentialing aspect on the other hand doesn't require government involvement, but does seem to involve the potential of (i) undesirables who know how to play the system getting into positions where they can use the credentialing system to attack competitors, or (ii) incompetents who will make grossly uninformed decisions which will make life miserable for MAists, especially small school operators who don't have the clout (= $$$)  that bigger belt-mills have, allowing the latter a lot more influence in how things are done.

EoK thinks that (a) the background check issue is one where a lot of people want some kind of law enforcement oversight of MA schools, particularly where children are taught (which is going to be an awful lot of them). He thinks that (b) the credentialing aspect can maybe be handled nongovernmentally---I _think_---and can be handled in a `style-neutral[ way. A lot of people are uncomfortable with both (a) and (b).

Is this a fair way to summarize very broadly the sides people have been coming down on? I'm a little punchy from all the posts and the arguments on various sides, so this summary might be missing some important points... it probably is.  But does it seem to be at least roughly where we've got to by this point in the discussion?


----------



## tshadowchaser (Oct 10, 2006)

> I can never understand why people are always worrying about regulating MA schools


because that person who realy has no experence in the arts but has fake certs up the *** my well put you out of business if they can fake a program for kids and sweet talk the adults into thinking they earned that blackbelt they just paid $1500 to test for.





> OK, on the one hand you don't want more gov't regulation, and most people on this thread seem to feel that way too. But you also think fakes should be shut down... like, if an MA school deliberately deceives their members. What's the bridge between the two


 
 Personally I like the old fashion way.  GO in and close it down but that gets one involved in all sorts of legal situation where the fake usually will win. Somehow it was easier when you could call out a fake in front of his students and beat the **** out of him.  
  I was at a school the other day and saw certs on the wall that I know the instructor had made for himself. His instructor in the only style that He has any real rank in doesnt seem to care or is to dense to figure that a person claiming to be a master in a couple of styles puts the 1st dan in her system above the master ranks. The rank certs where right in front of me and his instructor as I talked to her. I cant for the life of me figure out why she puts up with it other than he is getting her to promote his students in a legit art while he promotes them( behind her back) in his system.
  I know that putting the truth in the local newspaper when one knows a fake is opening a school will also end up in a long legal battle tat will be very expensive but it is one solution.  Perhaps an anonymous letter to the editor or one with a fake name and address from the sender exposing the flaws in the fakes certs and history is a way.
 Exposing these fakes is hard at time because people will believe what they


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 10, 2006)

Best way to get rid of bad schools is word of mouth, not government regulation.

Do you honestly think having someone sign off on a piece of paper attesting that they trained so many hours will help get rid of bad instructors?  They'll just pad each others sheets.  Or will the bureaucrats come in to go through records to verify training?  Or will we have to pay a government employee to sit and take notes who was and wasn't at class training?

About the assumption that it's going to happen, why?  I'm not hearing a public outcry saying martial arts needs to be regulated.  The vast majority of people just don't care one way or the other.

The whole idea is silly and fruitless.

Jeff


----------



## exile (Oct 10, 2006)

tshadowchaser said:


> I know that putting the truth in the local newspaper when one knows a fake is opening a school will also end up in a long legal battle tat will be very expensive but it is one solution.  Perhaps an anonymous letter to the editor or one with a fake name and address from the sender exposing the flaws in the fakes certs and history is a way.Exposing these fakes is hard at time because people will believe what they



The problem with the approach you're alluding to is always the same: the ordinary reader of the newspaper, with no knowledge of the situation, will view it as he-said-she-said, and pretty much dismiss it all with a plague-on-both-your-houses reaction, or else, even worse, decide that _you're_ the problem, that you have an agenda and are going after some guy who's a competitor in order to subvert his business... basically, getting the story upside-down. Anonymous letters almost _always_ trigger skepticism in a lot of people---`if you're telling the truth, why are you hiding behind anonymity' etc.etc.

The original problem you refer to in this post is the problem of Gresham's Law---bad money drives out good money. The anxiety that drives the call for regulation is I think what you say in your post---bad MA schools will drive out the good, by the very nature of the difference between them. But at the same time, you think that getting gov't into the picture will do way more harm than good. EofK has a vision of some kind of credentialing program that will protect the good schools and force the bad ones to come up to scratch, but people don't seem to be buying the idea that this is going to be doable. I'm getting the sense that most people feel the current situation, with all its faults, is preferable to any of the regulatory steps that have been proposed, and that it's not a case of Gresham's Law after all---a good school can survive even with a dozen bad schools swimming hungrily around it---the idea being that quality will prevail in the end.

 Not sure where else the discussion can go, at this point...


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 10, 2006)

> Somehow it was easier when you could call out a fake in front of his students and beat the **** out of him.


 
Ahhhh.  The good ol' days.  (LOL)

I'm not sure where this thread will go next either.  I just hope it goes on.  We've already covered a lot of ground...and at least a few other people are thinking about it....whether it be that it is a 'silly and fruitless' idea....or that there may be some way to devise a system to help midigate the problems of frauds or predators in our midst.  

I have to freely admit...the thought of "LOCAL" legislation doesn't frighten me.  I suffer no paranoia in that regard.   Of course it is something we as a people should have a voice in...but I'm not all that afraid of a system that bears no bias by design somehow being used to shut down honest business owners.  It seems to me, the one's who would scream the loudest against such regulation would be the one who would be exposed or found out by the process.  When the DUI laws were toughened, there were a lot of people who screamed that forcing motorist to subject to chemical testing at the request of law enforcement was an invasion of their fourth admendment rights.  But today, does anyone think the DUI laws were a bad thing.  No. I don't need some personal horror story of an innocent person who got convicted.  I think the science of todays testing bears out the legitimacy of the test.  I've seen far more 'slip through the system' to avoid a wrongful conviction.  In fact...I can't find a single case where a truly 'innocent' person was convicted.   Now that doesn't mean if we enacted any kind of regulatory law with regard to MA's the same would apply.  But I certainly am not skiddish about examining theoritically a program to see if it can be fair, balanced and sound (even scientific if possible).  It might never come to fruitation...and I guess thus be fruitless....but I hardly think it would silly to engage in the intellectual exercise.

I'd be interested to see anyone explore some other design for qualifying MA's at large for licensing to operate a school of MA instruction.  I think the key has to be it has to be non-art and non-style specific (ergo...no bias), practical and logical.   We could discuss other issues such as fees or funding allocations seperately, although at some point they would have to be addressed.  Also, we definitely would need to look at what degree of disclosure would be acceptable and what limitations should be in place (i.e. the background checks....should they be criminal history checks?).  Lastly, there would be the issue of WHO would have the oversight.  As I previously suggested, I think this could and should be managed locally even if it was empowered at the State level.  I agree that this is not some thing the Federal government should ever be involved in.  But if you think about it....most other professions are regulated at the State level with little to no regulation from the Federal level.  

And I do grant that after such a mental exercise, we might just decide that it is not something we want anyway.  The devil we live with might be prefered to the devil we create, so to speak.

Thoughts anyone?


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 10, 2006)

I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my "silly and fruitless" remark.  It was not meant to be about the discussion, but about the implantation.

It does bear talking about just to clarify why it would be bad.

If a school acts like a daycare provider, by all means, treat it as such.  One of the three schools in my community is just this.  The pick up the kids from school, have them do their homework, then do an hour of some of the worst TKD I've ever seen.  The school even has it's own forms.  Parents pay a lot for this service, and it is in essence day care with an organized gym class.  Call it a day care center in gi's and be done with it.  I will look to see if they are licensed as such.  If it's in this little town, schools like it must be all over the place.

I asked this before, but I'm assuming you missed it in all the other posts, if you think this is going to happen, why is that?  I've heard of a few tries to do something like this in a couple of states (NY and NC), but it really didn't have a chance from what I've read.

JeffJ


----------



## Rook (Oct 10, 2006)

If you want the government to help get higher quality martial arts instructors, maybe you should be lobbying to lower the barrier to come here from Taiwan - that way more of the high ranking CMA people could come here themselves and see the state of the people who claim to be part of their system in America.  

Some of the CMA experts on Taiwan have little idea what is being passed off as their style in America - and if there was an alternative to learning Chinese, flying to Taiwan, searching for a CMA teacher, figuring out who could set up an introduction and then persuading him to teach you, there might be a much higher overall quality of CMA here.


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 11, 2006)

> if you think this is going to happen, why is that?


 
OH...well..for some of the very things you mentioned.  Karate Day Care.  I think it is just a matter of time before some parent somewhere will get some State Rep to put up a bill.  I think like many of you though that it would be written by someone without an inkling about what real martial art instruction is about...and probably will be written so broadly as to affect all of.  I'm not saying outright I'm against it...because I'd have to read it first.  But there are definitely things I wouldn't want to see in such a bill.   And I think as the commercial aspects continue to grow within the MA community, sooner or later the insurance industry will push some law on us forcing all teachers to have 'malpractice' insurance.  Hey....it's already out there....it just isn't a requirement of law yet.   Again, forcing a business to keep some kind of accident liablility insurance may not be a bad thing (for the public or the business).....but I'm not sure I want the government to make that part of any law.

Those are two reasons I think there will eventually be some type of regulation on martial arts instruction.   Frankly, all the developement of the commercial aspects is just drawing attention to us....and not necessarily in a good way.   But there really is no going back now to the days of the patron sponsoring a favored teacher and that being enough for  him to live a comfortable life free of worrying about how the utilities will get paid this month.

Rook....you comment takes us down the path of bias.  I think there are plenty of excellant and competant teachers of Martial Arts in this country that we wouldn't need to relax immigration laws just to get some Asian teacher to the country.   If there is a legitmate teacher of martial arts in Taiwan that you think should be here....you certainly can volunteer to sponsor their immigration through existing legal channels.  It really is a myth that a teacher must be Asian to teach excellant classical martial arts.   It also is a misnomer that there are not American devised systems of martial arts that are not effective.   I think we deserve a little more credit than that.

JH


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 11, 2006)

There are already a lot of regulatory committees, boards, cadres, associations, groups and there are still really only a handful of people who have been approved/certified/endorsed by such who really do the job right.  Look anywhere.

Background checks, though admirable efforts in investigation, are not as revealing as we think they are.  How many people are you aware of that steal, do drugs, drive without a license or insurance, beat their kids who never seem to get arrested?  So in the case of the instruction of children, while a background check in one state might reveal an arrest record and up and another might reveal a conviction record only, any given instructor could have abused/molested many, many children so long as s/he was never caught, reported, arrested or convicted.

Peer review is subjective to political standings (including governmental and/or art-specific and inter-art conflict), personal opinion, bribery, blackmail, bias.

It's a nice idea and with the scary changes coming down the pipeline limiting our freedom to bear and possess firearms, edged weapons, et al, it is unfortunately very likely we will see some kind of attempt at regulation at some point in the nearer than farther future.

We really have to be careful of the slippery slope we all think is fine and dandy ... until we hit the sudden stop at the bottom.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 11, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> To the poster that mentioned being a cop and knowing background checks won't work.   Well...you aren't the only one in the law enforcement profession posting on this board....and whether they work or not is not as black and white as we'd like...but it would be a deterrent.   Knowing it is there would keep most known felons from drawing attention to themselves by applying.  And it isn't that difficult to do a background check for criminal history...and your local sheriff's office can do it.  Being able to do it and dispensing the information are two different things.  The Sheriff's office doesn't have to fork over a copy of the criminal history, they can simply note felony records exist and where they can be found.  If someone want to take the time to go dig them up...they are public record...and that would be up to them.  Nonetheless, the Sheriff Office would be reporting the criminal history check to the governmental licensing agency...thus avoiding your problems with dissemination of someone's history to the public at large indiscriminantly.



I'm aware that there are at least several people in these forums who are LEOs of various stripes; I provided that information simply to provide some evidence that I know whereof I write on the topic.  The reality is that it is very unlikely that any law enforcement agency, be it sheriff, municipal or county police or anything else, will be doing even partial background investigations attendant to any form of licensing for martial arts.  In my state, they don't even do more than a basic criminal history & fingerprint check for a CCW.  The police review of a liquor license is similarly minimal.  It's a simple matter of practicality.  Teachers, day care providers and some others in close contact with children have a criminal history check, NOT a background check done.  When it gets into what you can and cannot release -- some of that is subject to state law, some if it is federal law, and some is simple regulation.  Again, speaking only for VA, a law enforcement agency cannot simply note that felony (or any other) records exist.  They can check and release to an authorized person (broadly speaking, either the subject of those records, or a person they have granted permission to release the information to, and a very few others) the general existence of records at that agency.  A person can (or at least used to be able to) go to Richmond and get a complete criminal history for VA only based on the State Police computerized records.  I know that Maryland is (or was) different; you at least used to be able to go to any MD State Police barracks and get a complete MD criminal history, if you were authorized to do so appropriately.  Release to other governmental agencies is not any different than any other release; it must be authorized by law.  We frequently had problems with juvenile probation and family services because, until a recent law change, they wouldn't share information with police without a court order.  Perhaps in your state (I'm guessing Kentucky), it's different.

Might any check be a deterrent?  Sure.  But is it appropriate or necessary?  Why couldn't, say, a person convicted of felony DUI (3rd offense in 10 years in VA) or felony shoplifting (3rd larceny offense in VA is a felony), especially if the conviction was many years in the past, become a responsible, competent and qualified martial arts instructor?  At the same time, I wouldn't want someone convicted of certain misdemeanors teaching, especially to kids.  Again -- just because you don't see a down side doesn't mean it's a good thing.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 11, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> Perhaps....but I didn't single anyone out.
> 
> 
> And to complain without contribution is whinning....which is why the whinning comment was made.
> ...



So, I guess, now, participation in this discussion must be on your terms or it's not going to happen?  Sorry...  That's not how things work.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 11, 2006)

exile said:


> EoK thinks that (a) the background check issue is one where a lot of people want some kind of law enforcement oversight of MA schools, particularly where children are taught (which is going to be an awful lot of them). He thinks that (b) the credentialing aspect can maybe be handled nongovernmentally---I _think_---and can be handled in a `style-neutral[ way. A lot of people are uncomfortable with both (a) and (b).
> 
> Is this a fair way to summarize very broadly the sides people have been coming down on? I'm a little punchy from all the posts and the arguments on various sides, so this summary might be missing some important points... it probably is.  But does it seem to be at least roughly where we've got to by this point in the discussion?



I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify my view on one other point.  I'm not actually in favor of regulating martial arts schools as such; its the martial arts schools that function as "disguised" day care centers with their before & after school programs, summer camps, and more that I want to be regulated -- *as the day care centers that they actually are!*  If a place teaches kids, but only for an hour or so, and doesn't do that day care center type of stuff, I'd leave it in the hands of the parents just like dance classes, art classes, or other youth athletics.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 11, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> If a school acts like a daycare provider, by all means, treat it as such.  One of the three schools in my community is just this.  The pick up the kids from school, have them do their homework, then do an hour of some of the worst TKD I've ever seen.  The school even has it's own forms.  Parents pay a lot for this service, and it is in essence day care with an organized gym class.  Call it a day care center in gi's and be done with it.  I will look to see if they are licensed as such.  If it's in this little town, schools like it must be all over the place.
> 
> JeffJ



In some states, they are.  In many, they've avoided that.  If you can't tell...  I have an issue with these types of places.  I don't care if they exist; they fill a need.  I just want them to be regulated as they are.  I recounted one stupid mistake where they lost a kid.  I know of another case where a "part time instructor" broke into the home of two students in the middle of the night; his intentions may be surmised since his first act was to attempt to bind the two little girls...but they were never proven.  The kids & parents kicked his butt and he was subsequently arrested & convicted on various charges.  I'm not saying that treating the school as the day care center it is being would have prevented the second -- but it would have prevented the first because there would have been adequate supervision to realize that the kid was missing!


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 11, 2006)

Well...I appreciate all the proactive comments that have been made on this thread.  It was good to bat the idea of regulation around.  This is an issue that will pop up again, I'm sure.  

The delimna of regulation is like most things in life.  To get something, we have to be willing to give up something else.  Like the saying says, 'Freedom isn't free."  Someone always has to pay the price...sometimes for others so they can be free.   I think the main concern is to prevent vicitmization while protecting individual liberty.  Well..there is a reason that justice is symbolize by the scales.  There always has to be a measuring and balancing of opposing concepts to arrive at a just action.  It is never easy...and the reality of life is that there can never be a situation where 'everyone is a winner.'  I think that philosophy, so often preached to our children, is actually a disservice.  Because it isn't logical...nor realistic.  WIN - WIN is a myth.  To gain a benefit there would have to be some sacrifice.  To make regulation work, we'd have to be willing to subject the innocent and honest to the same scrutiny we demand of the dishonest and guilty.  That is the trade we make to keep the criminal at bay from the innocent.  

We didn't come up with any master plan...but I didn't expect us to.  But hopefully by having such debates we will remain aware of our enviroment, our society and the signs of the times.  To dismiss a discussion of this type because of a belief that it will never happen could be dangerous wishful thinking.  It might be worth taking notice when people want to argue and attempt to stop others from having such discussion.  It is from those sources that the worst of the fears envisioned may originate.  The most dangerous activity may be to remain ignorant.  Knowledge may not insure happiness.....but it certainly doesn't predispose one to harm.

The Emperor


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 11, 2006)

One thing that should be considered is that McDojos wouldn't exist if there wasn't a market for them.  Can we ethically restrict this market based on what we feel is correct?


----------



## Ceicei (Oct 11, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> One thing that should be considered is that McDojos wouldn't exist if there wasn't a market for them. Can we ethically restrict this market based on what we feel is correct?



Some people actually like being in a "mcdojo".  If it fits what they want, then why stop them?  It's their choice.  Not every person who goes to the local dojo want to become a "serious martial artist" (ie. training in it for life).  Not every person go for self defense purpose. There are many reasons to train and different needs / wants.

- Ceicei


----------



## exile (Oct 11, 2006)

Ceicei said:


> There are many reasons to train and different needs / wants.
> 
> - Ceicei



Absolutely. As long as no false claims are being made and no one is mistreated by being led to think they're getting something they really aren't (thinking here of Iceman's problem with his 8-year-old student and that child's parents thinking they were getting a KKW-certified poom, from that thread in the TKD forum).


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 11, 2006)

Which brings us to the point, "why sue McDonalds for getting fat?"  The same idea applies...


----------



## Rook (Oct 11, 2006)

Ceicei said:


> Some people actually like being in a "mcdojo". If it fits what they want, then why stop them? It's their choice. Not every person who goes to the local dojo want to become a "serious martial artist" (ie. training in it for life). Not every person go for self defense purpose. There are many reasons to train and different needs / wants.


 
The way I see it, this is fine as long as they realize what a low level of actual fighting and cultural learning they are actually recieving.  The problem is that we have so many people who go to a McDojo and are convinced that they are either highly effective fighters or well versed in oriental culture only to find when it matters most that they are not.


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 11, 2006)

Good point about filling a market niche.  I was trained 'old school' and thus that makes me lean to the self defense approach.  But I also competed in point fighting and forms competitions.  So I enjoyed that activity.  But I have a passion for the history and could spend hours on end studying that.  Nonetheless, I have to admit that the mixed martial art approach is extremely effective fighting and about the most realistic way to train (short of actually killing someone...and I'm not advocating we restore the colliseum and start having gladatorial fights again).  Each is a different aspect of martial arts.  I guess each has its place.  But Rook makes an excellant point about people being honestly informed about these difference and where the program they are looking to really falls.  Too many schools in the drive to get every dime from their markets try to be all things to all people.  This just isn't realistic.  And there is another factor that often gets overlooked.  Age.   I'm approaching 50 and have had some serious injuries that mean I must change my activities or risk crippling myself which would cause me to lose my career.  As much as I respect the hardcore full contact fighting....it would be stupid for me to try to engage in this activity.  We recently began carrying the Tazer at my department...and this tool is a God send to aging Officers like myself who, even though we are get the job done tough men, physically just can't recover from the punishment of battling suspects 1/2 our age in the prime of their life.  The tool allows me to completely immobilize the most violent person without risking myself to injury.   So as we age, we also may have to rethink about our martial arts life and activity as well.  The most foolish fighter is the the old one who just can't accept life has changed him.  We've seen boxers fight too long, football players cripple themselves by not leaving the game, and MMA fighters let their pride put them in situations of humilating defeats.   

I know there are schools out there that offer great kid programs and I'd rather seem them in a martial arts class then sitting at home playing "Grand Theft Auto" and planning how to shoot their classmates at school.  Yet there is something demeaning about having an activity that has become almost sacred to me be turned into playtime for 4 year olds.  There is something about seeing an 8 year old Black Belt and a 14 year old Master that galls me and feels like a slap in the face of all the struggle and discipline I forced on myself to achieve these things.  It is a struggle just to balance those feelings against each other.

I guess I wouldn't feel this way if the instructors would have the ethics to explain to the parents and children that their rank in no way equates to the rank of adult Masters with 20 years of devotion.  And it isn't just the years.  There is also the maturity that comes with age.  As Rook pointed out, there is something slightly unethical about giving young students the impression the play-martial art they are studying prepares them for real self defense.  I think if there was a completely seperate ranking system for children, totally seperate from that applied to adults, I wouldn't feel as irked by this.  Unlike the advise of the marketing people....I don't think this kind of honesty would cost you loss of revenue for your school.  Maybe I'm just being idealistic now....but I just have faith it would actually make a 'McDojo' into an actual 'Dojo' again.

The Emperor


----------



## exile (Oct 12, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> Good point about filling a market niche.  I was trained 'old school' and thus that makes me lean to the self defense approach.  But I also competed in point fighting and forms competitions.  So I enjoyed that activity.  But I have a passion for the history and could spend hours on end studying that.  Nonetheless, I have to admit that the mixed martial art approach is extremely effective fighting and about the most realistic way to train (short of actually killing someone...and I'm not advocating we restore the colliseum and start having gladatorial fights again).  Each is a different aspect of martial arts.  I guess each has its place.  But Rook makes an excellant point about people being honestly informed about these difference and where the program they are looking to really falls.  Too many schools in the drive to get every dime from their markets try to be all things to all people.  This just isn't realistic.  And there is another factor that often gets overlooked.  Age.   I'm approaching 50 and have had some serious injuries that mean I must change my activities or risk crippling myself which would cause me to lose my career.  As much as I respect the hardcore full contact fighting....it would be stupid for me to try to engage in this activity.  We recently began carrying the Tazer at my department...and this tool is a God send to aging Officers like myself who, even though we are get the job done tough men, physically just can't recover from the punishment of battling suspects 1/2 our age in the prime of their life.  The tool allows me to completely immobilize the most violent person without risking myself to injury.   So as we age, we also may have to rethink about our martial arts life and activity as well.  The most foolish fighter is the the old one who just can't accept life has changed him.  We've seen boxers fight too long, football players cripple themselves by not leaving the game, and MMA fighters let their pride put them in situations of humilating defeats.
> 
> I know there are schools out there that offer great kid programs and I'd rather seem them in a martial arts class then sitting at home playing "Grand Theft Auto" and planning how to shoot their classmates at school.  Yet there is something demeaning about having an activity that has become almost sacred to me be turned into playtime for 4 year olds.  There is something about seeing an 8 year old Black Belt and a 14 year old Master that galls me and feels like a slap in the face of all the struggle and discipline I forced on myself to achieve these things.  It is a struggle just to balance those feelings against each other.
> 
> ...



EoK---you make some excellent points in here. The thing you, Rook and several other people have talked about is _candor_. Letting people think that cardio-kickboxing routines and so on actually give you fighting skills is unconscionable.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 14, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> Yet there is something demeaning about having an activity that has become almost sacred to me be turned into playtime for 4 year olds.  There is something about seeing an 8 year old Black Belt and a 14 year old Master that galls me and feels like a slap in the face of all the struggle and discipline I forced on myself to achieve these things.



Tough. 

You want someone to be able to push around martial arts schools just because it does not fit your idea of what martial arts should be? They are no more hurting you than a homosexual couple hurts my marriage.

There have been some great points made in this thread. Kreth started it off from the first by pointing out that the really bad McDojos are probably going to be the most eager to take over running the government program. Considering just how eager some people are to join soke boards, do you really think that they would stand aside instead of volunteering their time to help the goverment pass standards?

I can support a local goverment regulation that would require *any* group teaching some sort of sports to be qualified in CPR and first aid and I think that there should also be regulation that *any* group that teaches kids closely (i.e. has a changing room and kids) should have all employees and staff run through a background check. These are not just for martial arts, and would not be run by a bunch of busy bodies that want to make themselves feel important by pushing others around.

The attitude you show is the exact thing I fear in any martial arts regulation. The standard excuse is that something has to be done to protect the children, and then intolerant people use the power they have to push their view of the martial arts on everyone.

Flying Crane made some great comparisons with scuba. The thing is, none of the various scuba orginizations will teach you much differently than any other. None of them will tell you to hold your breath as you ascend, all of them have you deal with decompression tables and you will not walk out of any of them not knowing that going down 150 feet with regular air is a bad idea.

Now take a look at how different martial arts are from each other. Marc MacYoung came up with this list of different outlooks of martial arts. I can think of a few more to add to the list.

Now you get people like you with your attitude of how "sacred" martial arts should be and let them try to tell people who are into martial arts for seperate reasons what they can and can't do. Heck, there is an entire forum where if you don't train like they do they will make fun of you and treat you like you were just as bad as Ashida Kim. The guys that practice Taiji for health, the guys that train to win in tournaments and the guys that learn how to draw and deploy a knife all controlled by one group? With people on the board taking offense at how people "cheapen" their "sacred" activity? Because I know that the guys that are fired up enough to seek to get into a position to control others are the same type that are not going to stop with just passing rules about first aid. They are either going to use it as a vehicle for their own ambition or use is to stamp all the heresy they see in other martial arts studios.

Not only no, but *hell no!*:soapbox:


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Oct 14, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Tough.
> 
> You want someone to be able to push around martial arts schools just because it does not fit your idea of what martial arts should be? They are no more hurting you than a homosexual couple hurts my marriage.
> 
> ...


 
Oh, my goodness. Why do I use up my rep. power just as I run into a post like this one?

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed.

Anyone who's ever served on a board _anywhere _knows that 80% of the folks spend 80& of their time dreaming up hurdles to throw in the way of others and that power and control for power and control's sake alone is the order of business. Do we really, really want this for the martial arts - a bunch of passive-aggressive types writing manuals and codes that we are LEGALLY obligated to follow?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 14, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Tough.
> 
> You want someone to be able to push around martial arts schools just because it does not fit your idea of what martial arts should be? They are no more hurting you than a homosexual couple hurts my marriage.
> 
> ...


 
I have to agree with Johnathon that Don's post is very, very good!  I also have to agree with Johnathons point about people just putting up hurdles for other people to jump through.  I see this all the time in the medical field and guess what?  It is one if not the major reason your healthcare costs so much.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 14, 2006)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, no matter how hard you try, you can't be 100% sure that you can control what others will do.  You can, however, be 100% that you can control what YOU do.  

So, CONTROL WHAT YOU DO!

I think that this is the only realistic response to McDojos.  I cannot stop the fact that they may have taken the same product that I have consumed and repackaged it into a different form.  And, in reality, I wouldn't want to.  They only reason they did that was because they discovered other consumers with other needs to fill.  This, IMHO, is innovation.

The bottom line is this...look at the MDK and see what regulation and standardization has done for that art.  It destroyed the diversity, killed the innovation, and stifled almost all of the creative potential.  When they did this, they created a dinosaur art that will not be able to evolve fast enough in response to changes in the environment.  

Regulating martial arts in general would have the same result.  

As it stands now, from my POV we have all of these options out there for me to choose from.  Some of them fit my needs better then others.  Are my needs so important or so "right" that they should be forced on everyone else?  

No.

Shake hands with an eight year old blackbelt.  High five the 14 year old "master".  They have the freedom to go out and meet THEIR needs and are actually going out and doing so...as opposed to pissing and moaning on the internet about this or that excuse.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 14, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I have to agree with Johnathon that Don's post is very, very good! I also have to agree with Johnathons point about people just putting up hurdles for other people to jump through. I see this all the time in the medical field and guess what? It is one if not the major reason your healthcare costs so much.


 
Ah, so now we see the source of the "administrative" costs...:barf:


----------



## exile (Oct 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> The bottom line is this...look at the MDK and see what regulation and standardization has done for that art.  It destroyed the diversity, killed the innovation, and stifled almost all of the creative potential.  When they did this, they created a dinosaur art that will not be able to evolve fast enough in response to changes in the environment.



There are other examples of just this point all over the place. A strong case could I think be made that something along these lines has happened to the whole art of TKD---the pressure emenating from the WTF/KKW in the direction of tournament competition based almost exclusively on high foot strikes, leading to neglect of the `kwon' part of the name, the neglect of locks, throws and sweeps that were present during the Kwan phase of the art (and still recoverable from the hyungs), etc. etc. Standards are good, but have to somehow to coexist with the freedom to experiment---the enforcement of super-specialization hasn't done TKD as a vesitile fighting system any good, I don't think, but at least at present, individual dojangs and instructors are free to incorporate their own discoveries about these `lost' elements of the system. 

As in biology, diversity is one of the main keys to survival. If one technical package (as in e.g., skiing) emerges as having the best design specifications for the task, then so be it---but nothing like that to be happening in the MAs. There's a great line I read somewhere once---`Art does not flourish in an enviroment of bureaucracy'. Good to keep it in mind.

But in fairness, I don't read EoK's comments as calling for a Politburo to oversee doctrinal purity in matters of technique---seems more like he's after a way to mandate high quality MA instruction, as vs. low-quality instruction that pretends to be high quality. The problem is that it's hard to see how this can be done without concentrating authority over what dojangs do in a few hands. And it's all downhill from there.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Ah, so now we see the source of the "administrative" costs...:barf:


 
The hurdles that I have to jump through every day would blow your mind.


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 14, 2006)

> But in fairness, I don't read EoK's comments as calling for a Politburo to oversee doctrinal purity in matters of technique---seems more like he's after a way to mandate high quality MA instruction, as vs. low-quality instruction that pretends to be high quality.


 
You are actually one of the few that understood what I wrote.   Seems  others are just a little too interested in villifying me personally to grasp this was all an intellectual exercise.

The Emperor


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 15, 2006)

exile said:


> But in fairness, I don't read EoK's comments as calling for a Politburo to oversee doctrinal purity in matters of technique---seems more like he's after a way to mandate high quality MA instruction, as vs. low-quality instruction that pretends to be high quality.



Try reading some of his past posts and you will find a pattern that might convince you otherwise.

Nobody will really come out and say something that they know will be unpopular if they want something to be accomplished. The easiest way to get something done for them is to give a reason that involves something like saving children from criminals and from there expand their powers to tell folks how they can rank, etc from there. And that is the type of thing that would happen with any type of quasi-goverment orginization. Those that are given a mandate would soon find ways of making sure that everything is done to their own narrow tolerances.

And if you want people to be able to differentiate between high quality and low quality you instruct them, you do not look for a mandate- which is a form of control. You scream, yell and tell people what the truth is. You do not force anyone to do anything. You lay the facts out and let people do with it as they will. People have a right to be right and the right to be wrong and make decisions you think are wrong.

Take a look at me and the way I act. I scream a lot about idiots and frauds in the martial arts. The best efforts of people on one side like Bruce Calkins and the moderators on the other fail to get me to temper my words of scorn. I have helped people leave Konnigun and supported them as they were pursued by frivolous lawsuits. If you want my opinion, I will give it. If you don't want it, you probably still will get it.

Yet I will fight to the last for anyone to be able to control what is and is not "high quality" martial arts and what people can do, say or teach.

Mandate? Define mandate. I see it as a form of control. And after all I do to counter the bad influences of martial arts jerks I still would not give anyone any form of control over anyone else. Everyone wants the whip hand and nobody wants the whip used against them. What they don't realize is that as long as someone has the ability to use the whip against someone else it can come around to be used against them. And the people seeking that power are the ones you want least to have it.

People have the right to inform others about good quality martial arts as compared to poor quality. I do it myself. I just do not have any respect for people that will not do anything to inform people but instead want to jump straight into having a _mandate_ to control what can and can't go on.


----------



## exile (Oct 15, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> If you want people to be able to differentiate between high quality and low quality you instruct them, you do not look for a mandate- which is a form of control. You scream, yell and tell people what the truth is. You do not force anyone to do anything. You lay the facts out and let people do with it as they will. People have a right to be right and the right to be wrong and make decisions you think are wrong.



I had the idea for a long time that someone could do very well by publishing an annual assessment of MA schools, sort of along the lines of Consumer Reports yearly issue on new model cars, or Phil Edmonston's Lemon-Aid guides, or that sort of thing (e.g., much dearer to my heart, the Campaign for Real Ale's guide to just about every pub in the UK that produces cask-conditioned ales). There are a huge number of people taking MAs or looking for a place to take it. But it's hard to figure out how to do it (not that that means it can't be done, and done well). There are tens of thousands of dojos, dojangs, CMA studios and so on all over the country. It's not like cars, where an outfit like CR can buy a large number of the available new models, run their engineering investigations and performance tests on them and publish the results---a single team of people going to MA schools for a week and publishing their considered impressions wouldn't be able to put a dent in the numbers. but if you had a nework of MAists in a large number of cities who provided input---you'd have to know them and trust their judgment and honesty---you might be able to at least get a project like that started. It would be a huge undertaking, but there's probably enough of a market out there that it might be sustainable...


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 15, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> You are actually one of the few that understood what I wrote. Seems others are just a little too interested in villifying me personally to grasp this was all an intellectual exercise.


 
I'm not trying to villify.  I just disagree with the concept that is proposed.  I think that idealism like this always starts with good intentions, but pretty much always goes wrong in the end.

Let the McDojos exist.  Make what you do what you want it to be.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 15, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> You are actually one of the few that understood what I wrote. Seems others are just a little too interested in villifying me personally to grasp this was all an intellectual exercise.


 
Disagreement with the proposed concept is not villification, and has nothing to do with you personally.  Do I see potential merit in regulation?  On some levels - for example, my association requires all instructors to be CPR and first aid certified, and to help ensure all its instructors meet this standard, it provides training on a regular basis at major events.  We also require that instructors in each state work out regularly with the state technical director, who, in turn, works out regularly with the association's senior Master Instructor, to keep technique consistent and to provide clear guidelines for the continued growth and improvement of the instructors, and therefore of the students.  I see merit in this form, and level, of regulation.  Do I see sufficient merit to suggest that the government be providing the regulation?  No, I don't believe so, for reasons already stated.  This is not intended as villification of you or your idea - but neither is it agreement; the two can, and often do, exist separately from each other, as they do in this case, at least for myself.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 15, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> You are actually one of the few that understood what I wrote.   Seems  others are just a little too interested in villifying me personally to grasp this was all an intellectual exercise.
> 
> The Emperor


I don't recall seeing any personal attacks, just people who disagreed with you.  YOU then seemed to decide that anyone who held a different view was wrong and attacking you...


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 15, 2006)

> I don't recall seeing any personal attacks...    jks9199


 
Quote:
Originally Posted by *EmperorOfKentukki* 

 
_Yet there is something demeaning about having an activity that has become almost sacred to me be turned into playtime for 4 year olds. There is something about seeing an 8 year old Black Belt and a 14 year old Master that galls me and feels like a slap in the face of all the struggle and discipline I forced on myself to achieve these things._

Don Roley makes this post: 




> Tough.
> 
> You want someone to be able to push around martial arts schools just because it does not fit your idea of what martial arts should be?


 
Actually....I never make such an assertion.




> The attitude you show is the exact thing I fear in any martial arts regulation.


 
I wan't aware I was showing an 'attitude'.  I was expressing some feelings I experienced.  Are you afraid of 'my feelings'.   I don't see why?  I'm not afraid of them.



> Now you get people like you with your attitude..


 
You know....when you keep saying 'you' in response to a post someone makes....that sort of implies you are speaking directly to or about them.  That would seem to make the statements 'personal' wouldn't you think?



> I just do not have any respect for people that will not do anything to inform people but instead want to jump straight into having a _mandate_ to control what can and can't go on


.

Well....that seems to be a clear statement of Mr. Roley's opinion of me.  I guess you could understand it if I actually said the things he was so upset about....but...well...I don't recall ever using the word 'mandate' in my postings.  I believe you have taken the words others have used and directed them to me.  Put words in my mouth, so to speak, which I didn't say.  I have to admit, Mr. Roley, you do seem to take exception to everything I ever post.  I wonder where that directed hostility is coming from.    Did I have sex with your wife?


The Emperor


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 15, 2006)

Emperor of Kentukki, I do not think that anyone is villifying you but you do seem to have pointed words towards anyone that disagrees with your posts.  You also seem to want to have an argument.  Why that is I do not know.  However, I would ask you and others to keep your comments on the topic at hand and debate the idea of regulating martial arts instruction.

Truthfully I do not think that regulation will work based on what I have seen in other fields.  I think it would end up mismashed and be a mess in a very little time.  Having said that I would not have a problem having a criminal history check on any business owner that involves the teaching of children.  Even though I know how easily it is for someone to slip through the cracks of record checks. (I did alot of record checks in another time in my life)


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 15, 2006)

> but you do seem to have pointed words towards anyone that disagrees with your posts.



Actually....no.  If you do the research you'll see that such a global statement is not accurate.   I can tell the difference between disagreement with a postion...and taking a dislike to a person.  But thanks for trying to apologize for him.

The Emperor


----------



## Paul B (Oct 15, 2006)

*Moderator Note.* 

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Paul Bladen
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 16, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> I wan't aware I was showing an 'attitude'.  I was expressing some feelings I experienced.



Which were in a thread you started about regulating martial arts. Regulation means control. And attitudes like the type you show does indeed scare me.

The very idea that people should be able to control and make determinations of what is and is not good martial arts in a quasi legal sense scares the heck out of me. The only people I know who could judge many arts would not have the time or interest in the matter. Those that do step forward would be those with an agenda.

Let me say that 99 percent of the stuff I see with katana on the internet makes me laugh. I am not even that good. But if things came around to regulating a difference in good swordsmanship and bad swordsmanship in a quasi goverment contest, the odds are that the numbskulls would be put in charge of determining what  is  good or not. I do not think most of the people here could really tell good kenjutsu from bad half as well as I. So how can they make an official status of their opinion.

How can anyone dare to say what is an acceptable level of skill in an _official_ status? I will say that someone is not qualified to start their own art any day of the week. But to have the goverment regulate that type of thing galls me. The power of goverment is far more powerful than my single voice and can be a vicious master indeed. Who judges if the judges are worthy? People can ignore me if they wish and they have the right. Once things get into regulation they no longer have that option.

Control, regulation, madates...... they all will only work if the people in charge of holding the whip hand are perfect. And the people most worthy of controlling others do not want that job. You would instead get people who started their own art and tried to make a living off of teaching martial arts than the guys I respect.

Edit- oops, just noticed after all this typing that the emperer was suspended. Well, my points are still valid even though I feel like I am kicking a dead horse.


----------



## midnight503 (Oct 18, 2006)

> Which were in a thread you started about regulating martial arts. Regulation means control. And attitudes like the type you show does indeed scare me.


 
Sigh*   The thread was began at the request of another member.  Simply starting a thread does not necessarily mean advocation of a process.  You have missed the point.  The point was to talk about the topic and throw out ideas.  Pro and con....the point was the dialogue...not the administration of anything suggested.   I don't necessarily advocate legislation that would regulate martial arts.  I also don't suffer paranoia over the subject or the discussion of it.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by *exile* 

 
_But in fairness, I don't read EoK's comments as calling for a Politburo to oversee doctrinal purity in matters of technique---seems more like he's after a way to mandate high quality MA instruction, as vs. low-quality instruction that pretends to be high quality._

In response you made this post:



> Try reading some of his past posts and you will find a pattern that might convince you otherwise.
> 
> Nobody will really come out and say something that they know will be unpopular if they want something to be accomplished. The easiest way to get something done for them is to give a reason that involves something like saving children from criminals and from there expand their powers to tell folks how they can rank, etc from there. And that is the type of thing that would happen with any type of quasi-goverment orginization. Those that are given a mandate would soon find ways of making sure that everything is done to their own narrow tolerances.


 
Unfortunately, you began with a very large assumption...and proceeded erroneously from there in re several points.   You assume I was looking to find support for regulation of the martial arts.   I did state I was not afraid of 'some' forms of regulation.  That does not mean I believe 'style or curriculum' should be regulated and I never stated it should.   While I personally do feel the rank structure as it currently exist has been abused in some cases, rank is still very much a product of subjective evaluation.  At no time did I ever suggest there should be regulation with regard to rank.  The ranking of minors did come up in the thread and I have voiced an opinion that I would prefer Dan rank to be the reservation of adults with some other system for those under 18.  These are not new opinions for either me nor for several others...including members of this message board.  In my initial suggestion (which I was asked to come up with one to spur discussion) I never included 'rank' as a factor in licensing.  Experience was a factor, but rank was never an issue with regard to the discussion of regulation.  The subject of child protection was brought up in regard to the phenomena of martial art schools running 'after school' and 'day care' programs.  I did express mixed feelings about how these activities effect the overall image of martial arts practice and instruction.  But I never advocated closing such schools or that they weren't entitled to engage in such activities.  In fact, I didn't even bring that up ... it was brought up by other posters.  I did agree that as other 'centers' have to meet certain guidelines for childcare, it seems only appropriate that martial art schools engaging in the same of similar practices should too.  But that was activity specific...and actually didn't have much to do with martial arts and thus could probably already be dealt with through existing laws (and I do believe at some point somewhere....it will be brought up in some jurisdiction leading to a precedence that will carry over into other jurisdictions).    

I could go on...but the point is thus:   THIS WAS AN INTELLECTUAL EXERCISE.  One in which I played 'devils advocate' (obviously quite well...maybe too well for you Mr. Roley).  But just so your concious will be clear...allow me to retort...and be clear.

I don't advocate Laws telling who can teach martial arts.  But I do think a community does have the right to establish what types of businesses it allows to operate within its confines.

I don't advocate Laws providing bias toward any particular art or style.
PERIOD!

I don't advocate Law establishing rank or curriculum structures.  But I do think a community can set standard for education and experience for ANY field or business they deem to regulate within their jurisdiction.  I.E.  YOu can't get a license as a Doctor...if you don't have a MEDICAL DEGREE.  And no....it makes no difference where you got the degree...so long as you pass the licensing requirement of the jurisdiction you are in.

Do I think Martial Artists need to be licensed?   NO.  But I do see the right of a community to require a license of a BUSINESS within their community.  If paying a small fee and getting a 'business license' is all they require...then that is fine.  If they require a higher standard for a particular field (i.e. teacher) then that was the choice of the community.

Do I think one day the Martial Arts in the U.S. will be regulated.  In some ways...it already is....but, YES, I do think it will happen.   Maybe not to ALL schools, but to many who engage in certain activities that take them into other fields (i.e. education, day care).   As a recreation, I don't see it ever being regulated.  As a SPORT....it already is.  Ergo...sanctioning.  I believe the INSURANCE INDUSTRY will be the driving force behind any regulation that does occur.  Why?   There is already a lot of precedence of how INSURANCE has driven the licensing and regulation of many fields.  Any where they reach...they influence...both in the private...and public sectors.

So there are my TRUE attitudes.  If you feel a need to be belicose with me for my 'attitudes'....do so for these. 

John Hancock


----------



## midnight503 (Oct 18, 2006)

I think I found the source of the rub.



> You would instead get people who started their own art and tried to make a living off of teaching martial arts than the guys I respect.  _*Don Roley*_



People like.....Ed Parker, Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, Mas Oyama, Choi Yong Sool, Lee Won Kuk, Jigoro Kano, Hwang Kee, Funakoshi Ginchen, Itosu Yasutsune, Chojun Miyagi....or Hatsumi Masaaki?   You mean people like these?  People who all started their own martial arts?   People who all make a living off of it?   Are these the kinds of people you were thinking of?

John Hancock


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 18, 2006)

Reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.    

The Emperor lives.



JH


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 18, 2006)

midnight503 said:


> Sigh*   The thread was began at the request of another member.  Simply starting a thread does not necessarily mean advocation of a process.  You have missed the point.  The point was to talk about the topic and throw out ideas.  Pro and con....the point was the dialogue...not the administration of anything suggested.   I don't necessarily advocate legislation that would regulate martial arts.  I also don't suffer paranoia over the subject or the discussion of it.


 
And why, pray tell, was this other, unnamed member unable to start the thread themselves?  And... Just for fun... why have you apparently switched your username so suddenly?

I personally get kind of suspicious about people who change their usernames often; I can't help but wonder why they can't stand behind their own opinions.  (Note, please, that I am not advocating or suggesting that people list or provide their real name; I don't do so publicly, and wouldn't ask others to do so as a general rule.  But you can find the same username on multiple boards... So far as I know, they're all me.)





> You assume I was looking to find support for regulation of the martial arts.   I did state I was not afraid of 'some' forms of regulation.  That does not mean I believe 'style or curriculum' should be regulated and I never stated it should.



But you did create or posit an artificial structure based on hours of training to qualify as an instructor.  And you have yet to answer my question on that issue; how are the hours to be measured and certified?  Does an hour of solo training count as training?  Who determines if that hour is good enough?



> While I personally do feel the rank structure as it currently exist has been abused in some cases, rank is still very much a product of subjective evaluation.



Ranking will always be somewhat subjective, unless you remove human beings as those assessing rank.  So will teaching quality.




> I could go on...but the point is thus:   THIS WAS AN INTELLECTUAL EXERCISE.  One in which I played 'devils advocate' (obviously quite well...maybe too well for you Mr. Roley).  But just so your concious will be clear...allow me to retort...and be clear.



But that's not how you presented it.  You presented it in a way that effectively said "regulation is going to happen, this is how I think it should be."  Very different than asking something like "How do you think the quality of martial arts instruction can be regulated and controlled?  Here's one idea..."



> I don't advocate Laws telling who can teach martial arts.  But I do think a community does have the right to establish what types of businesses it allows to operate within its confines.



And most communities have created those regulations and licensing procedures.  In fact, regulating some businesses is at least arguably one of the primary roles of the government.

But I (and others) feel that free market competition is a much better way to regulate the QUALITY of instructors than some imposed and artificial structure of training hours.




> DDo I think one day the Martial Arts in the U.S. will be regulated.  In some ways...it already is....but, YES, I do think it will happen.   Maybe not to ALL schools, but to many who engage in certain activities that take them into other fields (i.e. education, day care).   As a recreation, I don't see it ever being regulated.  As a SPORT....it already is.  Ergo...sanctioning.  I believe the INSURANCE INDUSTRY will be the driving force behind any regulation that does occur.  Why?   There is already a lot of precedence of how INSURANCE has driven the licensing and regulation of many fields.  Any where they reach...they influence...both in the private...and public sectors.
> 
> So there are my TRUE attitudes.  If you feel a need to be belicose with me for my 'attitudes'....do so for these.
> 
> John Hancock[



Than why were they not the attitudes and ideas you presented in the first place?  

FYI -- the insurance industry has already regulated martial arts in many ways, from rules for competitions to structure of classes.


----------



## exile (Oct 18, 2006)

jks9199 said:


> And why, pray tell, was this other, unnamed member unable to start the thread themselves?  And... Just for fun... why have you apparently switched your username so suddenly?



JKS---I want to make it clear that what EoK is saying about how the thread started is quite true. There was another thread already in progress in which EoK had posted some comments, including some ideas in passing about how to respond to poor quality instruction, deceptive practices and so on, and I was also a participant in that thread. EoK clearly had been thinking about the issue quite a bit, but it was a little bit off the side of the thread topic we were on, so I suggested that he initiate a new thread completely devoted to just this issue. Since it was his issue and concern, it was natural for him to be the one to start the new thread, so...


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 18, 2006)

exile said:


> JKS---I want to make it clear that what EoK is saying about how the thread started is quite true. There was another thread already in progress in which EoK had posted some comments, including some ideas in passing about how to respond to poor quality instruction, deceptive practices and so on, and I was also a participant in that thread. EoK clearly had been thinking about the issue quite a bit, but it was a little bit off the side of the thread topic we were on, so I suggested that he initiate a new thread completely devoted to just this issue. Since it was his issue and concern, it was natural for him to be the one to start the new thread, so...



That's fine -- and it makes sense, now.  But it's not quite what he said, is it?  That little detail (it came up somewhere else, but was off topic there) is rather different than saying "someone asked me to start it..."


----------



## exile (Oct 18, 2006)

jks9199 said:


> That's fine -- and it makes sense, now.  But it's not quite what he said, is it?  That little detail (it came up somewhere else, but was off topic there) is rather different than saying "someone asked me to start it..."



I _did_ offer encouragement for the new thread, thinking that it would be a kind of meaty issue in its own right and would provoke some intense discussion... I guess it did... :vu:


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 19, 2006)

jks9199, the confusion may lie in that this thread was moved from the TKD message board over to the general message board.  However, it was spurred from a completely different thread which was not about the subject of this particular thread.  I was asked to start a new thread on the subject...and I did...and then it got moved by the 'administrative team' I believe.

As to the name change.  Apparently a few moderators feeling that my post were not to their liking moved rather quickly to have my account suspended before I could even respond to some of their 'snipes'.  I was unable to even access the PM's sent to me by some.  I next found I was banned entirely before I could even get a response from the site admin.  Thus, I was left with having to re-register just so I could talk to the site admin about the delimna.  I also did make a couple of post during that time which some of the moderators took exception to and moved to ban that account as well.  The site administrator finally contacted me directly (I was totally unaware he lived where the blizzard hit and was not getting his messages) and he intervened to correct the problem.   Wah Lah!  The Emperor of Kentukki is once again reinstated, albeit, now I have my private info public so some of the grousing will end.   It never dawned on me to consider that the majority of posters on this site are not familiar with Korean Martial arts nor Tang Soo Do in particular.  Among the TSD community, I'm am known....and known as both midnight503 and as the infamous 'Emperor of Kentukki'.  While other posters on MT did know who I was and while I did occasionally sign my real name to posts...it wasn't something at was offered on every post and now is.  I believe this will make some posters to MT happy....other I'm sure it won't.

That is the real delimna with moderator boards.  On the one hand they prevent a large number of just flamboyant posts.  The cost is at the price of censorship.  Some board operate with out moderators even if it means having to put up with or even overlook the occasional post or poster that makes the blood boil.  Much as the criticism was directed at my suggestion of 'regulation of the martial arts'....MT occasionally suffers from the pitfalls of power abuse many of you voiced concerns about.  Simply being a moderator will not remove bias.   In fact, I discovered that there are posters on MT that aren't even martial artists that have moderator status.

As I've spent a great deal of time on this thread basically having to defend me...rather than a position or point....and the thread has now lost it luster, I think I'll leave it.   Order having now been restored, I find the thread has taken up more time than I'm comfortable with giving it.  When you start your day off with domestic violence, have a homocide for lunch, and watch your country get threatened with nuclear devices for dinner....it sort of make the bickering that has gone on here seem insignificant.   Time I could have better spent on rehablitation of my knee, reading a book, researching a form.....petting a cat.  So I'll go back to occasionally checking in on the TKD, TSD or Korean threads.  Happy swimming to you in your ponds....wherever they are.

John Hancock
The Emperor of Kentukki


----------



## The Master (Oct 19, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> jks9199, the confusion may lie in that this thread was moved from the TKD message board over to the general message board. However, it was spurred from a completely different thread which was not about the subject of this particular thread. I was asked to start a new thread on the subject...and I did...and then it got moved by the 'administrative team' I believe.


 
Well, people do tend to like things catagorized. I mean, imagine starting  thread on kicks that shortly morphed into tomato plant staking techniques. Makes for a useless tread, and too much useless clutter. I for one think the staff here does a good job on keeping things on topic.



> As to the name change. Apparently a few moderators feeling that my post were not to their liking moved rather quickly to have my account suspended before I could even respond to some of their 'snipes'. I was unable to even access the PM's sent to me by some. I next found I was banned entirely before I could even get a response from the site admin. Thus, I was left with having to re-register just so I could talk to the site admin about the delimna. I also did make a couple of post during that time which some of the moderators took exception to and moved to ban that account as well. The site administrator finally contacted me directly (I was totally unaware he lived where the blizzard hit and was not getting his messages) and he intervened to correct the problem. Wah Lah! The Emperor of Kentukki is once again reinstated, albeit, now I have my private info public so some of the grousing will end. It never dawned on me to consider that the majority of posters on this site are not familiar with Korean Martial arts nor Tang Soo Do in particular. Among the TSD community, I'm am known....and known as both midnight503 and as the infamous 'Emperor of Kentukki'. While other posters on MT did know who I was and while I did occasionally sign my real name to posts...it wasn't something at was offered on every post and now is. I believe this will make some posters to MT happy....other I'm sure it won't.


 
Having read through much of this board prior to registering, and the KMA sections having been part of that, one can get the informed opinion that KMAers tend to believe that posted rules do not apply to them. Reading much of those other threads, one is left to wonder if it is a taught part of the art, or if the arts simply attract lower class types than the more enlightened JMA and CMA schools.  This one however is left to wonder why you were even let back in, since multiple accounts are a rules violation with a blanket ban the listed punishment. 



> That is the real delimna with moderator boards. On the one hand they prevent a large number of just flamboyant posts. The cost is at the price of censorship. Some board operate with out moderators even if it means having to put up with or even overlook the occasional post or poster that makes the blood boil. Much as the criticism was directed at my suggestion of 'regulation of the martial arts'....MT occasionally suffers from the pitfalls of power abuse many of you voiced concerns about. Simply being a moderator will not remove bias. In fact, I discovered that there are posters on MT that aren't even martial artists that have moderator status.


 
You want anything goes, try USENET. No censorship there, just survival of the foulest mouth. As to the non-martial artists as mod bit, who pray tell?  Last I knew the staff here was primariy martial arts instructors, a few school owners, and several senior students of the arts. Wasn't aware there were any non-MAers. In fact, the high number of instructors and school owners on board here was one of the reasons I signed up, compared to most MA boards comprised of a couple high belts, and a bunch of newbs.


----------



## Hand Sword (Oct 19, 2006)

I believe, with all do respect, that this thread has run it's course.

Moderators????


----------



## Carol (Oct 19, 2006)

The Master said:


> As to the non-martial artists as mod bit, who pray tell? Last I knew the staff here was primariy martial arts instructors, a few school owners, and several senior students of the arts. Wasn't aware there were any non-MAers. In fact, the high number of instructors and school owners on board here was one of the reasons I signed up, compared to most MA boards comprised of a couple high belts, and a bunch of newbs.


 
I'd also like to know that...esp. after since I've personally been been hit hard and knocked to the mat by several of the mods here.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Oct 19, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:


> I'd also like to know that...esp. after since I've personally been been hit hard and knocked to the mat by several of the mods here.


 
HeHe.

Actually, to my knowledge, I am the ONLY Moderator who is not currently either formally training or teaching Martial Arts. Shame on me! I guess 20+  years in the arts has left me unqualified to frequent an MA board? BTW, Moderators and Mentors are selected, IIRC, as much (or more?) for their ability to, uh, follow rules? and post productively, coherently AND politely as they are on their "rank". Inappropriate comments on another poster's wife won't get you a Mod. position here regardless of your _formal _credentials, I believe.


----------



## Carol (Oct 19, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:


> HeHe.
> 
> Actually, to my knowledge, I am the ONLY Moderator who is not currently either formally training or teaching Martial Arts. Shame on me! I guess 20+ years in the arts has left me unqualified to frequent an MA board? BTW, Moderators and Mentors are selected, IIRC, as much (or more?) for their ability to, uh, follow rules? and post productively, coherently AND politely as they are on their "rank". Inappropriate comments on another poster's wife won't get you a Mod. position here regardless of your _formal _credentials, I believe.


 
Boxing is a Martial Art, Jonathan, and with your background, you are still training even if you don't have an active coach.  

You are very inspiring to me too with my training and you have taught me a lot.  Perhaps that doesn't count as formal training or teaching but it's still made a big difference to me :asian:


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Oct 19, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:


> Boxing is a Martial Art, Jonathan, and with your background, you are still training even if you don't have an active coach.
> 
> You are very inspiring to me too with my training and you have taught me a lot. Perhaps that doesn't count as formal training or teaching but it's still made a big difference to me :asian:


 
So true, thanks, but I'm not sparring anymore (car accident in 2002). I do workout but painting gets most of my energies.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 19, 2006)

midnight503 said:


> I could go on...but the point is thus:   THIS WAS AN INTELLECTUAL EXERCISE.



I don't think so. You seem to use that excuse, or that you are merely playing devil's advocate. But you seem very involved in the issue. So much so that you would not wait for your suspension to conclude and signed up under a new name against the rules.

I think that by starting this thread, you have gotten the idea that you can make your case more acceptable if you present it as a need for background  checks and CPR training for instructors. As I pointed out, local goverments can pass that regulation for _all_ sports instructors in their area without anyone from martial arts getting involved in politics. I do not want people that want to regulate quality in martial arts telling others what they can and can't say/do but I would want my daughter to train in a ballet studio where the teachers have been checked to see if they are on a sexual predator list.

And the shots you keep taking at me does not convince me that you are just in this for an intellectual exercise. Your trying to make it sound like Brain was apologizing for me, you shot at my teacher, and your various comments like the one  about *my wife* seem to show that you are the one that is engaging in personal attacks. Oh, and FYI Masaaki Hatsumi worked full time as a _seikotsuin_ until he reached retirement age andcollected a pension. There are not many people in their 70s with a day job so trying to pass him off as someone who makes his living off of teahcing budo just does not work.

But that is a case I would like to point out. There are some great people who have taught and made enough money to live off of, but they are few and far between. Most of them became great and only then went full time. But when you deal with full time instructors, you are mainly talking more about the Fred Villaris than the Ed Parkers. I do not think that Ed Parker should be mentioned in the same sentance as Villari, nor do I think that he would have been interested in any art or school that  was not using his name. 

But Villari would. As a full time instructor that isvery keen on marketing his product, I am sure he would be eager to set up a board to judge and regulate quality. Of course, he would be on the board. The vast number of his students would get him the pull to manage it as well. As a member of the board that judges quality, he would have a lot more name recognition.

And that is what I see behind most of these calls for regulating quality. Not concern for students- _marketing._

Most of the people that start their own art or who have tried to make it as a proffesional teacher do not meet my standards of competency. So when they talk about regulating martial arts, I can only say to start with themselves. But I would never make them say or do anything. Because I do not want a system where people can do that. Not for any great love of the guys like Villari, but because I know that they are the ones that will eventually be put in a position to tell me what to do.

(Just a side note. I can understand if you don't want to sign nasty negative reputation comments. But you should know that you can't affect anyone's rating unless you yourself have postive karma. And you are far from that being the case.)


----------



## MJS (Oct 19, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> *1)*jks9199, the confusion may lie in that this thread was moved from the TKD message board over to the general message board. However, it was spurred from a completely different thread which was not about the subject of this particular thread. I was asked to start a new thread on the subject...and I did...and then it got moved by the 'administrative team' I believe.


 
*



			2)As to the name change. Apparently a few moderators feeling that my post were not to their liking moved rather quickly to have my account suspended before I could even respond to some of their 'snipes'. I was unable to even access the PM's sent to me by some. I next found I was banned entirely before I could even get a response from the site admin. Thus, I was left with having to re-register just so I could talk to the site admin about the delimna. I also did make a couple of post during that time which some of the moderators took exception to and moved to ban that account as well. The site administrator finally contacted me directly (I was totally unaware he lived where the blizzard hit and was not getting his messages) and he intervened to correct the problem. Wah Lah! The Emperor of Kentukki is once again reinstated, albeit, now I have my private info public so some of the grousing will end. It never dawned on me to consider that the majority of posters on this site are not familiar with Korean Martial arts nor Tang Soo Do in particular. Among the TSD community, I'm am known....and known as both midnight503 and as the infamous 'Emperor of Kentukki'. While other posters on MT did know who I was and while I did occasionally sign my real name to posts...it wasn't something at was offered on every post and now is. I believe this will make some posters to MT happy....other I'm sure it won't.
		
Click to expand...

* 


> *3)*That is the real delimna with moderator boards. On the one hand they prevent a large number of just flamboyant posts. The cost is at the price of censorship. Some board operate with out moderators even if it means having to put up with or even overlook the occasional post or poster that makes the blood boil. Much as the criticism was directed at my suggestion of 'regulation of the martial arts'....MT occasionally suffers from the pitfalls of power abuse many of you voiced concerns about. Simply being a moderator will not remove bias. In fact, I discovered that there are posters on MT that aren't even martial artists that have moderator status.


 


> *4)*As I've spent a great deal of time on this thread basically having to defend me...rather than a position or point....and the thread has now lost it luster, I think I'll leave it. Order having now been restored, I find the thread has taken up more time than I'm comfortable with giving it. When you start your day off with domestic violence, have a homocide for lunch, and watch your country get threatened with nuclear devices for dinner....it sort of make the bickering that has gone on here seem insignificant. Time I could have better spent on rehablitation of my knee, reading a book, researching a form.....petting a cat. So I'll go back to occasionally checking in on the TKD, TSD or Korean threads. Happy swimming to you in your ponds....wherever they are.
> 
> John Hancock
> The Emperor of Kentukki


 
Mod Note:

Sir,

Before this thread gets any further from the original topic, I'd like to point out a few things.

1) This thread was moved to the General section because it was decided that it was better suited as it seemed to address all arts, not just TKD.

2) I strongly suggest that you take the time to read through the rules of this forum. There were a number of posts that did not meet the general posting rules, therefore the suspension.

3) This is *not* the place to discuss the board policies. If you have a problem with something, feel free to PM or email an admin or Senior staff member.

4) Before this thread gets locked, again, I *strongly* suggest that it returns to the topic!

Mike Slosek
MT Supermod


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 19, 2006)

Ok lets try and bring this back to topic, 

1) Regulation would be possible if all Art was the same and since they are not it is impossible.

2) MMA to my recolation has no system in place for ranking and teaching, if I'm wrong please advise to where I can find tha info.

3) and Ibelieve this is the most important, who or what board will decide you is really qualify and who is let say a belt factory person, you see if you have enough money a BB can be bought and if you don't it can be made ona computer and look authentic enough to pass by most people.

4) There are too many organization that would never give up there controlling rights to just anybody, you see you can teach without ever have taken a single class of MA, read, understand the mechanics of all the material and go out and teach people what is the correct way and then you proclaim yourself a 10th Dan in coach potatoe fu.

Great Plan but will never happen


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 19, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:


> HeHe.
> 
> Actually, to my knowledge, I am the ONLY Moderator who is not currently either formally training or teaching Martial Arts. Shame on me! I guess 20+  years in the arts has left me unqualified to frequent an MA board? BTW, Moderators and Mentors are selected, IIRC, as much (or more?) for their ability to, uh, follow rules? and post productively, coherently AND politely as they are on their "rank". Inappropriate comments on another poster's wife won't get you a Mod. position here regardless of your _formal _credentials, I believe.



Funny.  I always have had respect for those who, once they find they cannot participate in one way, find another way to stay involved.  This commands respect ... but that can only be gotten from those who have it to give.  :asian:


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Oct 19, 2006)

In order to avoid more unnecessary flaming, I will only respond to this comment from Mr. Roley, not so much to appease Mr. Roley as to clarify things for other readers of the thread:



> various comments like the one about *my wife* seem to show that you are the one that is engaging in personal attacks.


 
Message board inherently have communication difficulties in that there is no face to face contact.  80% of our communication comes through body language, which cannot easily be translated to a written communication.  Additionally, sarcasm sometimes does not translate in written form.   

The comment at the conclusion of a post I made was made in pointed sarcasm.  Given the directedness Mr. Roley continued to make posts toward me personally and not toward the topic, it leave the impression I must had commited some offense against him that would have made him have a focused dislike of me.....such as an illicit act commited with one's spouse.  Mr. Roley likes to jab.  Other posters have commented as much both publicly and privately.  Fine.  Perhaps I shouldn't have jabbed back.  But what is done is done.  I prefer not to get baited again ...so I'll decline to comment further on the remainder of the post.  Further comment wouldn't be productive to this thread and just a further digression from the topic itself.  I believe the majority of readers of this thread will conclude on their own that neither I nor Mr. Roley will be sharing warm and fuzzy moments with one another in near future anytime and as this board is sensitive to political correctness, it would be better to just accept that we (he and I) do not see eye to eye.

And I apologize for droning on in this post. 

John Hancock
The Emperor of Kentukki


----------



## exile (Oct 19, 2006)

terryl965 said:


> Ok lets try and bring this back to topic,
> 
> 1) Regulation would be possible if all Art was the same and since they are not it is impossible.


 [/QUOTE]

To my way of thinking, this is the real crux---or one of the real cruxes---of the issue. In the course of this thread I've found my thinking changing a lot. I originally had the ski-instruction model of industry self-regulation, and believe me, they do a very good job of maintaining standards and keeping their instructors' technical and teaching competence bright and shiny. And Flying Crane pointed out a similar situation in scuba diving. But in both cases, _there is only one technical toolkit_. In skiing, what the racers do today will be taught, in digested and learnable units, tomorrow (or maybe early next week). In scuba there are certain constraints that the sheer physical reality imposed on the diver. So we can talk about how well or ill any given instructional facility works...

...but that is very clearly not the case with MAs. And without that, it's very hard to get a handle on the matter of quality control, even if you take an industry-internal perspective. In skiing, it all comes down to the hill owner's interest in safe, effective instruction. We don't have that situation in MA...


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 19, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> The comment at the conclusion of a post I made was made in pointed sarcasm.



If it was just that, I would be willing to think it was just a mistake on your part. But with all the other jabs you have pointed at me and even at the moderators here, I do not tend to believe you. And the comments by others such as Carol and Jonathan seem to back the idea that you crossed the line with your comments about my wife. I tend to believe that you tried to drive me into a rage with your comments so as to lessen my ability to deal with you in a rational manner. You do not know me well enough to know that I take more pleasure in pointing out these tactics than in falling for them.

You leave me with a problem. Should I treat you as someone who tried to enrage me and is unwilling to admit his faults and thus is quite willing to engage in them again? Or should I treat you as someone who does not quite realize that talking about someone's wife and having sex with her is a rather deadly insult? I have lived in places where had I made your comment to a local I would have looked down to see a knife stickingout of my chest. I do not think that is right that people would attack others over words. But it is a fact that some people would and dealing with that reality is a good part of what we call self defense. So I never make comments about having sex with members or the immediate family of someone I am debating with. Not making racial comments, comments about someone's family or martial status and any other thing is just a form of common sense if you want to live long enough to die of old age in bed. Should I treat you as someone who does not even have the intelligence and good sense to realize that comments about someones wife and sex with them is _never_ socially acceptable? Should I treat you as someone who can't understand complex concepts and ideas? Or should I treat you as someone who is simply without morals?

I do not think you are either smart nor heavy in morals. I have never seen someone with as many negative stars as you last long before getting banned. Your comments about the certain moderators being egomaniacs are part of a pattern I have seen where people who go out of their way to piss people off make comments about how the moderators can't handle the truth, differing opinions or whatever and then get to say that they were right when they were so deservably banned. 

You went out of you way to try to make me mad at you. I have tried hard to deal with no comments closer to you than things like "the attitude you show" rather than you personally. If you want to deal with the issues instead of getting personal, then I would be willing to deal with that.

Take a look at just how fast your reputation has fallen since you started this thread. I have never given you reputation. But if you have noticed, my own has risen quite a bit since you started attacking me. Take that as a lesson as how your tactics have backfired.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 19, 2006)

EmperorOfKentukki said:


> That is the real delimna with moderator boards. On the one hand they prevent a large number of just flamboyant posts. The cost is at the price of censorship. Some board operate with out moderators even if it means having to put up with or even overlook the occasional post or poster that makes the blood boil. Much as the criticism was directed at my suggestion of 'regulation of the martial arts'....MT occasionally suffers from the pitfalls of power abuse many of you voiced concerns about. Simply being a moderator will not remove bias.


 
Hold that thought for a moment.  Now take a look at your question from the initial post:



EmperorOfKentukki said:


> We in the U.S. have long fought the intrusion of government regulation into the martial arts industry. But why? Who will it harm? Who will it benefit?
> 
> It seems to me, the only way many of the problems we all complain about within the Martial Arts community can only be resolved by outside intervention. After some 60 years, it seems obvious we, the grand community of various schools, organizations, arts, etcetera ad infinitum, have proven ourselves completely incapable of policing ourselves. Thus, it will have to come via some regulatory body. Every other commerical and professional industry has already submitted to such regulation. This one seems to have had a rather long run...perhaps...overdue....for regulation. Already we have seen regulation enforced in certain communities, and some states have take up the gauntlet with mixed results.


 
Given your experience with this moderated forum, can you understand now why some people might be leery of appointed a regulatory body that would decide who can or cannot run a martial arts program?


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 19, 2006)

For the person who just dinged me - I alllmost edited the post to say "perceived experience".  But I didn't because I wanted him to see his contradiction.  I was NOT criticizing the board.


----------



## MJS (Oct 19, 2006)

Thread Closed Pending Review

Mike Slosek
MT Supermod


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 19, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> For the person who just dinged me - I alllmost edited the post to say "perceived experience". But I didn't because I wanted him to see his contradiction. I was NOT criticizing the board.


 
Corky I just added afew back to you and I saw where you was going with your post, this thread no matter how to try and bring it back to topic it dose'nt


----------

