Credentials and exposure - Was: Is MT friendly as in the TIN?

[Bob Hubbard]

:deadhorse

David, Robert - Enough. Every point has been made repeatedly. Move on to something else.

Next one to harp on this I'm booting.

 

[D.Cobb]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
:deadhorse

You've been just waiting for the chance to use this one, haven't you!

I love it!
:rofl:

--Dave

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Actually...they inspired me to add a new smilie to the board.

See, the constant bickering, and nitpicking, and asprin consuming did amount to some good after all.

:rofl:

 

[KennethKu]

Please allow me to elaborate on one critical point about rank, Arnisador. The information is of value to members.

ARK mentioned that one instructor may train his studently less vigorously when compared to another instructor. And under such situation, equally ranked students from both instructors are of different capability.

That is hardly anything new. All legitimate organizations have long ago figured out the solution to such problem. That is why there are : standard curriculum, standard procedure to test and promote, central registry for ranks and titles, certification for instructors and other safeguard. All aim to eliminate the inconsistency in teaching, testing and promotion.

When some one reports his/her rank, he/she reports the rank, registration number, name of instructor/s , name of person who tested him/her. In that way, people can tell if he/she has a reputable instructor or a deadwood instructor. In any large organization, there are some deadwood instructors inevitably fell through the safeguard. But members of the organizations tend to know who is reputable and who is questionable. In posting the name of your instructor and your tester, people know if you are properly certified.

This is common knowledge. I am surprised that there are people who are not aware of this. I am equally surprised there are people who do not know how to verify rank.

 

[A.R.K.]

Well Ken, that all sure sounds real good. Of course, none of it applies to the real world.

Since the Kukkiwon is a good example lets take a look there, shall we. I know people in TKD that have trained for a couple of years and made BB. I know people who are MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better pratitioners, train harder and go to more classes and it's taken 6 or more years to make BB because the instructor wasn't Monty Hall and wasn't interested in $$$ over quality.

And BOTH are registered with the Kukkiwon.

All legitimate organizations have long ago figured out the solution to such problem. That is why there are : standard curriculum, standard procedure to test and promote, central registry for ranks and titles, certification for instructors and other safeguard. All aim to eliminate the inconsistency in teaching, testing and promotion.

Lets see...the Kukkiwon is suppose to be legitimate isn't it?

Standard curriculum...uh no. Standard forms yes, the rest is up for grabs from clique to clique.

Standard testing procedures...only for forms. Time requirements vary dramatically.

Central registery...yep your right there. But it is only a clearing house with perhaps standardized forms. Nothing else is regulated. Doens't look like their to interested in eliminating the inconsistencies in teaching, testing and promotion.

This is common knowledge. I am surprised that there are people who are not aware of this.

And you can only verifiy rank if they are members of an organization that uses a registry. Or you contact their school/instructor personally and are confident that the person you are actually talking to is who they claim to be. Certificates the same way...unless you know what every organization/style/system/school certificate looks like.

Do you?

:asian:

 

[KennethKu]

Whether you accept it or not, that is the way the real world works. You can ask Yiliquan about how they maintain the authenticity of their art. You can ask ITF how they are achieving that same objective. They will tell you the same methodology I have posted.

Whether you accept it or not, in the TKD world, people who earned their ranks, are proud to list the names of their instructors and testers, as to facilitate any attempt to verify their claims of ranks. They provide their names, ranks, as well as registration numbers. And in the real world, it is up to the person making the claims, to provide every necessary information to allow his/her claims to be independently verified. Failure to do so, only arouse suspicions of the validity of the claim. Whether you like it or not, that is the way things are.

Established organizations do not require you to resort to "....Or you contact their school/instructor personally and are confident that the person you are actually talking to is who they claim to be. Certificates the same way...unless you know what every organization/style/system/school certificate looks like....."

All one has to do, is to post NAME, RANK, registration number of certificate, name of organization, name of instructor/s, name of tester. Let the truth be known. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Some one inside the organization would know about your instructor and what kind of students he/she produces. That would tell a lot about the person, more than any argumentative debate could ever produce.


When you keep repeating the lazy instructor example, you fail to realize (which some one of your position (claimed) SHOULD have known) that people have long resolved that problem.

 

[Marginal]

Originally posted by A.R.K.
Well Ken, that all sure sounds real good. Of course, none of it applies to the real world.

Since the Kukkiwon is a good example lets take a look there, shall we. I know people in TKD that have trained for a couple of years and made BB. I know people who are MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better pratitioners, train harder and go to more classes and it's taken 6 or more years to make BB because the instructor wasn't Monty Hall and wasn't interested in $$$ over quality.

And BOTH are registered with the Kukkiwon.

Not to mention that by your own words, either is also fully qualified to teach and/or start up their own style.

 

[A.R.K.]

Not to mention that by your own words, either is also fully qualified to teach and/or start up their own style.

When have I ever mentioned that a two year 1st Dan in TKD was eligible to begin his own system?

 

[Marginal]

All those locked thread topics tend to bleed together. Could've been three years for Sokeship. (Not much of a difference all told.)

 

[A.R.K.]

You've still lost me...I don't recall anyone talking about a three year sokeship.

The only thing close that perhaps your thinking of is Dr. Kano of Judo fame doing so at the age of 22.

 

[KennethKu]

Marginal was referring to your criterial about who qualifies to create a new art or style.

 

[A.R.K.]

I don't recall stating my criteria, only what has been done in the past by other martial artists.

:asian:

 

[KennethKu]

originally by ARK
Fringe,

I would venture a minimum age of 22 and at least 3 years in a discipline would qualify an individual to have enough information to begin a new system.......

from your post on the first page of the locked thread "Claims on the Internet".

 

[Marginal]

Originally posted by A.R.K.

You've still lost me...I don't recall anyone talking about a three year sokeship.

The only thing close that perhaps your thinking of is Dr. Kano of Judo fame doing so at the age of 22.

Technically, you claimed that three years was sufficient. You then cited Kano as justification for the comment once people got riled. There really wasn't much to misunderstand as it was written in that particular thread. Simple unqualified language/direct comments and all that. (As KennethKu's quote demonstrates.)

 

[Zepp]

Anyone else feel this thread belongs in a different forum?

:deadhorse

 

[A.R.K.]

I didn't claim that 3 years was sufficient, only that it would qualify based on what one/some have done in the past. That is not my criteria, it is an observation of what has been done in the past.

I think you've both read much more into the comment than what was intended. The whole point on that topic was what would qualify someone to begin a new discipline, that was a minimal/exceptional example.

My personal opinon varies dramatically from Dr. Kano's example. But it is important as well to cite history as an example of what has been done...and what could be done under similar circumstances.

:asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Marginal
Technically, you claimed that three years was sufficient. You then cited Kano as justification for the comment once people got riled. There really wasn't much to misunderstand as it was written in that particular thread. Simple unqualified language/direct comments and all that. (As KennethKu's quote demonstrates.)

Technically? or Actually?

 

[arnisador]

To my mind "I would venture" is speculative language, not a definitive statement.

 

[Marginal]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
Technically? or Actually?

Technically. It's what he wrote. There really wasn't room to infer anything else (outside of mind reading). Even the additional comments didn't come across like the amendations offered here claim they were meant to sound.

 

[KennethKu]

Success has a thousand fathers but failure is a bastard.

After every one pointed out how absurd the 3 yr time in training really is as "qualifying" some nuts to make up his own gig, the claim is now being disowned like a disease. Big surprise there.

"Definitive" or not, "technically" or not, Marginal just reminded ARK of how his own words, now fly in the face of his latest post.