Basically, an accrediting body, right?
I agree, but I don't ever see this happening. Not only will ineffective martial art schools not seek accreditation, but many schools that teach martial arts that are effective probably won't seek it either (due to *insert philosophical babble here*), which would effectively make the ineffective martial arts indistinguishable.
Yep and it can be made of the "Top" martial artists in the field (they will have their own type of test to qualify for that position). Like they would need to have strong analytical skills among some other things. Those who would be grading would come from different back grounds. So if I'm testing, I would be graded by 3 Graders from the heads of Jow Ga. 1 grader from my opponents system and 1 graders from 10 other systems. I can only be Gain a Mastery Title for what I train. The other graders cannot give me one or affect the one I'm seeking.
I'll get a detail grading on Jow Ga and a comparative grading from the other systems. This grading would be done independently. The reason I want the other systems involved so that they can see with their own eyes the function of an system. This way they can "write articles" that are more accurate than the noise that we often hear and debate. The question should never be about "who is better" It should be questions like: Was the person functional with the techniques of the system? Was the person able to meet the challenges of the other system? It shouldn't be about win or lose.
The comparative grading of from the other systems is what they see and think about your abilities and how you represented your system. It is used for Personal Growth and not marketing or business purposes. It's not for bragging rights. For example, I'm getting graded and a BJJ grader sees that I'm having trouble dealing with BJJ. From there the BJJ gives me recommendations of what I can work on. or what I did really well with in terms of going against BJJ. If I didn't do well with grappling from the BJJ system then the BJJ grader can say something like "think about how you move your feet an dhow your BJJ took advantages of certain things I was doing.." They won't give answers or criticize the system. They will just offer a perspective of things that I may have missed during testing. Maybe I played too much of a defensive role which resulted in more stalemates or less opportunity. Then offer general things that may help. They should not make recommendations like (take BJJ). The students there are there to represent their system.
Part of representing your system includes showing skill set ability against other systems. in Front of other systems. Having another system Vouche of your skill sets is valuable. The graders become a Trusted Source. This would kill most of the debate. All testing and results should be recorded.and saved as history
The accreditation system should then offer support to the schools and associations that are head by the accredited master. This will help the school to thrive even if its a small school. When the master retires then one of his students must seek accreditation in order to continue to receive support.
The reason why I don't think it should be about winning is because it creates a hostile environment. Here's an example: If a BJJ can use 100% of BJJ against me, then I should be able to use 100% of Jow against BJJ, but that would include Jow Ga weapons.. A Master has to be accredited on all that she / he trains and teaches. But if you make it about functionality, then that would include functionality against trained and untrained. Attackers are dangerous too. Just because a boxer isn't trained in kicking doesn't mean he can't punch your lights out.
Just because BJJ is untrained in the staff, doesn't mean that he cannot take the staff away from you and beat you with your own staff. By not making it about winning all participants can then focus on function.
If you lose a fight, you can still be considered functional with your system if you used the techniques you trained, so long as your lose was not great.