Hi Andrew.
That is not totally true. In cases where I've seen the material, I have longer commentary. Some example of detailed reviews:
You know, some of those were ones that I read, and was referring to when I said that you didn't really review anything. To take them one by one:
Right. The first one.
I understand that this was your instructor at one time, and you believe him to be, in your words, "the real deal", and as a result you do bring more information as to what the course is like, but again, this is just a list of what is in it coupled with some pricing and an anecdote about the reason it was done in the first place. There is no review here. You talk about what you receive (physical objects, the books etc), but little on the actual content or process, other than "you buy the next one when you're ready for it". There is no mention of how your progress is monitored, how you can tell whether or not you're "ready" for the next bit, what value for money is actually being shown, or even whether or not it's one you'd recommend.
Based purely on the information you posted on that page, though, if I was to offer a review it would be as follows:
"This Home Training Program is a structured approach to learning San Soo Kung Fu, a supposedly ancient Chinese art based around Five Families, and Five Animal forms, which was brought to the US by Jimmy Haw Woo. Woo wasn't fond of the idea of the animal forms, stating that "We fight like men, not animals", so he abandoned that side of the system as he taught, instead focusing only on the Five Family methods. He also simplified the name to Kung Fu San Soo, as he felt it would be easier for the American students to pronounce and remember.
The system itself is a highly aggressive system, comprising of large, swinging strikes, kicks, and grappling, including joint locks and throws, some very acrobatic in execution. It is claimed that this method allows smaller people to fight against larger opponents without needing to rely on strength to overpower them. It is presented here by Master Bill Hulsey, a student of Jimmy Woo's, along with Frank Woolsey. He has divided the course along the same lines as taught in his live classes, starting with the 45 "Ah Soo" lessons, which act as the "basics" for this system, before moving on to other methods.
The course material consists of books and DVDs, starting with the "Yellow Belt" package, at $169 plus shipping. Unlike many other courses, there is no set progression or testing, so it is left up to the student to decide when he or she is ready for the next set of techniques. This can raise some major issues of quality, as it can be assumed that the student, only having the basics to go on, really isn't the best judge of when they should progress. Ideally, I'd look for something that provided at least some form of guidance and feedback, so on that alone I'd be leaving this program where I found it.
However, I would be remiss if I didn't at least address the content in the course itself.
Master Hulsey presents the material in an intimate, friendly environment, rather than a stale, plain recording studio, and seems genuinely interested in providing the pertinent information for his distance students. Unfortunately, the little that I saw left me less than impressed, as the technique shown had some major issues, from the lack of a present guard, to being wildly open a lot of the time, poor balance and body structure being shown, incredibly telegraphed striking to (what looked like) badly targeted areas, and more. Additionally, there are some major issues with the historical information that he gave, such as the idea that the American's "didn't know how to punch", as well as issues with some of the information designed to separate his approach from others (such as the idea of the targeting being more "precise"... by targeting towards the "spleen, liver, kidneys, heart", instead of "ribs, ribs, ribs, ribs". Hmm, most systems I know treat targeting far more precisely than that...). The actual methods of the system also seem to fly in the face of it's claimed history of being "thousands of years old", and "the oldest martial art in existance", being largely overly aggressive, overly complicated, unrealistic for actual application in many cases, and more. The idea of only having a couple of belt levels being "traditional" is beyond ridiculous, as it's a very modern construct as it is, and that combined with this "Chinese" system having the majority of it's practitioners wearing either Korean or Japanese uniforms is just plain odd.
The video of a distance student, although the student is relatively clean in their execution of the techniques, show the issues with such distance learning programs. The student was universally poorly distanced, had little to no sense of timing and rhythm, was regularly in very dangerous positions, and relied completely on the attacker stopping as soon as the defence started.
In conclusion, this is not a program I would recommend. The delivery is well meaning and sincere, but that cannot, and does not make up for the problems found in the system itself, or the issues with this form of learning."
There, as you can see, is a breakdown of the product, relative value shown, and a conclusion/recommendation. This is what makes it a review, rather than a summary or overview, which is what your site actually has. Oh, and I genuinely would have major issues with what is being taught in this program, for the record.
Here you were closer, as you were stating whether or not you'd recommend it... but that, by your own admission, was probably due to your "lack of appreciation for TKD". You complain about the way the techniques are structured, as you're used to overkill methods (the San Soo and Kempo approaches), wanting longer, more complex actions against simple attacks such as a wrist grab... when, I really gotta tell you, what you describe is likely far more valuable than what you wanted to see. In Japanese arts, the idea of te hodoki (grip releases) are very much what you describe, and are an essential skill for later techniques. This is less of a review, and more just you saying you don't like the structure of the "lessons".
You start this out by blatantly stating your lack of interest in the Ninjutsu systems, due to some rather flawed information you relate (there is no thought of Hatsumi creating the arts, he has synthesised what he learnt from his instructor, Takamatsu, into what is now referred to as Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, but he didn't make any of the material [speaking of the "traditional schools] that he teaches up. Whether or not Takamatsu made some of them up is another question, but it always needs to be noted that at least two of the systems have unimpeachable pedigrees in Japanese martial arts, those of the Takagi and Kukishin lines. There is no "aping" of movies, as the art flies in the face of such things, with much work being done to go against such images, unlike the San Soo system above, which is very much a movie-style system in many regards [such as the frequent flashy moves and takedowns]). So I'd rethink such initial comments, as it really does colour your following words.
When it comes to a "review", you again list the costs and some of what you receive, then offer two complaints and an alternative. That, again, isn't a review. It's a lacklustre summary.
Now, don't get me wrong, I could rip RVD's course apart quite easily, and have done so before. I'm really not a fan of it at all, and you'll be hard pressed to find many Ninjutsu practitioners that are fans (other than those who have gotten their ranking that way...), but this isn't a review.
It's impossible for me to purchase and review all these courses...nor am I eccentric enough to want to
However, I'm hoping that others who have participated in these programs will add their comments and reviews.
Then set up the site as one where people who have purchased them make their own reviews. There's an option for comments on the pages, but no invitation to give personal insight based on actual experience going through one of these things. The question is, though, if you don't want to get them all, and can't get them all, how are you in a position to review them? And if you're reviewing them without any actual experience with them, why should anyone listen to what you say about them?
I've also tried to add information where I know the people involved. For example, I spoke with Jon Ferguson from Hapkido Online, Larry Tatum with his home study program, etc. and consolidated the information they gave me into my comments.
These are another two programs where you state that you haven't seen them, so no review is really possible. The only information that they really seemed to provide (especially Larry) is what you get in the package... which surely could be obtained by getting the program? Jon gave some info stating that the program they have (Hapkido Online) will be the "only online learning system" for the Tactical Hapkido Association... uh, okay? Were they using a dozen or so already, and wanted to simplify? Why do they need one?
It's a short list, but growing. Since I opened the site up, people have sent me six more programs (not all of which I've had time to list yet). I'm honestly surprised how many there are.
I could probably tell you about a dozen more, honestly, but don't see much point in giving more advertising to such approaches.
I suspect from your sig that you're a ninjutsu practitioner, and may not have liked my comments on the history of that style. That's fine - we can agree to disagree, but I think my comments on the Van Donk and Stephen Hayes courses jibe with a lot of commentary I've read elsewhere.
You suspect from my signature that states "Ninjutsu Australia" that I'm a Ninjutsu practitioner... well, yep. Amongst other things. And honestly, I have no issue with people questioning the claimed history of the systems, there are certainly doubts over a number of the arts taught. The issue was not only with that (although what you think was your "correction" was completely wrong, so you know), but also with comments about the San Soo system only using Yellow, Green, Brown and Black belts because it's more "traditional"... when Chinese systems don't use belts, they use sashes, and that ranking is a very modern one anyway, so there's nothing "more traditional" about any such ranking approach. Chinese systems tend towards very simplified ranking... you're a student, or you're the teacher. That's it. No belts, no colours, no ranks, really.
But yeah, your take on what is taught in Ninjutsu schools around the world is not correct. Either.
I didn't pass judgement on any art, actually. Even my comment on ninjutsu was simply to question the hagiography that it was handed down from ninjas of long ago, Haatsumi is the 34th heir, etc. You're absolutely right that I'm not in a position to state whether it's better to study Hapkido versus Kung Fu San Soo versus Shotokan - but then, I don't do that. I simply examine the programs.
You didn't pass judgement on any art? Hmm....
BlackBeltDL said:
BlackBeltDL said:
Danny Lane teaches a Tang Soo Do homebrew program.Personally, this sentence really turned me off: ĀHis system unites Tang Soo Do, Karate, Judo, Jui-Jitsu, Aikido, Sport Karate, Kickboxing, and Police and Military Tactics and Street Survival techniques, giving you a fast, effective method of Self-Defense.Ā Mixing seven different martial arts into one program is not my idea of excellence.http://www.blackbeltdl.com/program-danny-lane/
BlackBeltDL said:
(A little googling
turns up the fact that he was a
Steve LaVallee student. Perhaps
this is why heĀs not eager to mention his mentor.)
http://www.blackbeltdl.com/program-international-karate-school/
BlackBeltDL said:
First, I suppose I should briefly summarize my feelings on ninjutsu:
Masaaki HatsumiĀs true black belt is in marketing. There is no evidence that he is heir to a centuries-old tradition handed down by ninjas. His training program is a homemade synthesis of various martial arts traditions, skinned in a slick black cowl. Is it an effective art? Sure Ā heĀs not a bad martial artist, just a self-invented one. You can certainly learn martial arts moves by studying ninjutsu, but do so with eyes wide open. You are studying a modern, 20th century blend that shamelessly apes a cool movie image, not an ancient tradition. Unfortunately, the Bujikan and its ilk tend to attract a lot of people who are happy to share a state of reduced skepticism with any comer.
http://www.blackbeltdl.com/program-ninjutsu-home-study/
BlackBeltDL said:
Homebrew systems start with a heavy burden of skepticism for me to overcome. There are so many good martial arts out there covering so many different aspects and possibilities that it makes me wonder why someone has to invent a new one. ItĀs one thing when itĀs a genuine, recognized master (who is often tweaking or refining the art)Ā
itĀs another if itĀs someone no oneĀs ever heard of.
http://www.blackbeltdl.com/program-sajado/
BlackBeltDL said:
I studied with Bill Hulsey locally when I lived in Los Angeles. He is the real deal and a fantastic instructor. One of Jimmy WooĀs students, Hulsey teaches old school San Soo.
http://www.blackbeltdl.com/program-kung-fu-san-soo/
(They're not all negative comments about the systems....)
BlackBeltDL said:
When I was about 18, Stephen K. Hayes was like unto a God to me. Then I learned more about the martial arts and the history of ĀninjutsuĀ and his stock fell precipitously.
http://www.blackbeltdl.com/program-to-shin-do-home-study/
There are other cases where the quality of a system is implied through the language chosen, but this is a decent little collection to demonstrate my point. Especially when the "reviews" can be so short in and of themselves...
I included some examples of more detailed reviews, so I disagree about that. Certainly there are some entries which are just a brief summary because that's all I know. There are a few where the warning/scam flags are very big and it didn't seem worthwhile to go further.
I'm not saying I disagree with some of your negative comments about a range of the offerings, but I haven't seen anything on your page that I'd class as an actual review. Have you reviewed anything before?
By impartial, I mean that I don't have any financial interest in any of these programs. Indeed, I certainly didn't include any affiliate links or anything like that.
While you may not have a financial stake in them, your bias colours a number of your descriptions... and when there isn't any actual review, no viewing of the actual material, all there is are your opinions of the arts themselves... or the teachers (such as in the cases of Larry Tatum and Bill Hulsey).
What I hope to achieve is
- a directory of such programs. I honestly was very surprised how many there were and in such diverse styles.
- review of such programs. As I mentioned, I obviously can't review them all but hopefully people can contribute. I've left the site settings so people can contribute anonymously and I don't plan to censor any non-spam comments.
- advice for people considering such programs.
Okay, that's the way you want to achieve your aims, but what are your actual aims? Why do you think such a directory is needed, or a good thing? And why would you start something that you yourself recognize you will be unable, and are even unwilling to actually complete yourself?
I guess I'd summarize as this: imagine someone takes an interest in a program from an ad or something they see. They google and come across my site, and then read general advice on martial arts home study, my checklist of things to ask schools, compare that program to many others, perhaps look at my forum links (which I need to extend) and come to one of these forums and ask questions, etc. At the end of that, they'll be much more informed about what they're getting into. That's really my only goal.
The problem is that a review is an informed recommendation based on analysis of the product and it's suitability for it's intended market. If you haven't watched most of the programs, how could your review be informed? How could you make a recommendation without analysis of the actual product? Those that you are intending to come to the site will be dominantly uninformed and inexperienced kids who think that such an approach is feasible, as they are "good at learning by themselves" and "there isn't a teacher near me". You know what the real answer is? If there isn't a teacher near you, move. If you don't want to move, or can't move, you can't learn whatever art. The best is you maybe could pick up some techniques, but there is no guarantee you're doing them the way they're meant to be done, at their optimum, or even well. The way it stands, it's like telling kids that you've never tried drugs, but you hear that these are the best ways to try heroin... I'm sure not everyone gets addicted....
Really, I get where you're coming from, but frankly, this goal is fraught with danger. From my perspective, the best case scenario is that no-one visits it... the worst is that people take it as validation of this as an approach to genuinely learn martial arts.
No problem, Chris. I've spend enough time on the mat that my skin is thick
Good to know.
