Politics?

[SamT]

Are politics a common thing in larger TSD organizations, or does it extend to most all martial arts? The main one in question is the World Tang Soo Do Association. While talking to my instructor after class, I asked him what it truly meant to have the title of Sah Bum Nim. After he explained, I asked why the WTSDA has both a 4th Dan and a 4th Dan Master rank. He said that the only difference is that to recieve the title of Master, a student has to be teaching at least 25 students in their dojang. He said that that was all politics, and refused to go any further, saying that as a Gup, I don't need to worry about it, I should only worry about my own advancement in the martial arts.

Which brings me to ask, does anyone know why this specific limitation exists? And, are there more like that? I've heard of organizations that require so many black belts to be churned out before an instructor will be rewarded the next Dan rank, but does it extend further than that? And why? The only logical one I heard was a rank in Kung-Fu, in which an instructor has to train a student from the ground up to the equivalent of 1st Dan, which I can understand.

 

[MBuzzy]

Are politics a common thing in larger TSD organizations, or does it extend to most all martial arts? The main one in question is the World Tang Soo Do Association. While talking to my instructor after class, I asked him what it truly meant to have the title of Sah Bum Nim. After he explained, I asked why the WTSDA has both a 4th Dan and a 4th Dan Master rank. He said that the only difference is that to recieve the title of Master, a student has to be teaching at least 25 students in their dojang.

I would say that politics are a common theme among all martial arts, but particularly so within Tang Soo Do.

I don't personally know the politics behind the decision to make teaching 25 students and owning a Dojang a Sabamnim requirement. At least in the US SBD Fed, the SBN certification is simply a test at Kodanja. It is therefore possible to be a SaDan and not a SBN, but you must be a SaDan to be a SBN. I know that years ago, the title was simply awarded when your teacher felt you were ready. In some organizations, it simply comes when you reach SaDan - or other ranks. In some organizations, you just have to teach students....so in short, yes Politics is a MAJOR concern.

He said that that was all politics, and refused to go any further, saying that as a Gup, I don't need to worry about it, I should only worry about my own advancement in the martial arts.

Unfortunately, I would have to say that you will have to get used to hearing that. Actually, that very phrase is one of the main reasons why I spend so much time here. Immediate access to people all over the world in different styles, organizations, and ranks...If you are interested, I would encourage you to seek the answers to your questions. Without disobeying your SBN, of course.

Which brings me to ask, does anyone know why this specific limitation exists? And, are there more like that? I've heard of organizations that require so many black belts to be churned out before an instructor will be rewarded the next Dan rank, but does it extend further than that? And why? The only logical one I heard was a rank in Kung-Fu, in which an instructor has to train a student from the ground up to the equivalent of 1st Dan, which I can understand.

I would have no guess as to why the limitation to instruct 25 students would exist, but to give you some insight, in some organizations, the title SBN is an officially sanctioned title. Therefore, it comes with the ability to receive insurance, certification, and accredation from your governing organization. The 25 student requirement may very well be just an arbitrary number chosen at some point.

You will run across odd rules like this throughout your martial arts journey, I'm sure.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if some organizations required you to "create" a certain number of Dans to reach your next rank....and hence the birth of belt factories. That one is all money based. Plain and simple...sacrificing quality for numbers when mixed with human nature. Simple equation.

 

[rick_tsdmdk]

All these titles and rank requirements exist for three reasons


#1 - Power. Keeping power for the federation - specifically the higher ups.

#2 - Money - keeping the coffers full in order to be able to travel the world doing seminars.

#3 - Standardization - everyone must teach the exact same techniques the exact same way.

These are the exact same concerns that McDonald's restaurants have.

 

[Empty Hands]

Are politics a common thing in larger TSD organizations, or does it extend to most all martial arts?

Politics are common in ALL human institutions, large and small. Everything from deciding who has to take out the garbage at home to how the office fridge is organized to international relations are all riddled with politics.

 

[MBuzzy]

All these titles and rank requirements exist for three reasons


#1 - Power. Keeping power for the federation - specifically the higher ups.

#2 - Money - keeping the coffers full in order to be able to travel the world doing seminars.

#3 - Standardization - everyone must teach the exact same techniques the exact same way.

These are the exact same concerns that McDonald's restaurants have.

Maybe I'm being idealistic, but I tend to think that there is a bit more to it. Granted, those three issues do play a very large part in ANY organization. Martial Arts, Corporations, you name it. I will be the first one to tell you that when you get down to it, your instructor is running a business. You are paying for a service.

Aggregate up to the organizational level and they are also trying to run a business. But not only for the money and power, but for the proliferation, success, and life of the art. I like to believe that the most senior people in most organizations have devoted a lot of their life to their style and are interesting in being sure that it is around for future generations.

I've seen plenty of issues with power - mainly from people who don't understand their authority and abuse power, but my no means is this widespread in what I've seen.

As for the money, it is kind of required to keep things running. I happily pay my federation dues to keep the organization running smoothly, to continue putting out instructional materials, and to have those seminars....which I go to whenever I can.

As for the standardization - necessary evil. If you want to unite people into a single organization, standardization is required.

Back to the topic at hand, I would be very interested to see the decision structure involved in the requirement for 25 students. There is probably a very good reason that the decision was made. As for the split between Sabom and rank....at least in most organizations (Again I qualify, because I can only speak for the three organizations that i've been involved with) this is required to ensure quality instruction, not to mention insurance and liability concerns!

 

[MBuzzy]

By the way, Rick and SamT, Welcome to Martialtalk! It is always VERY good to have more TSD practitioners on the board. Please feel free to look through our archives and bump some old threads and ask new questions.

Also, consider stopping by the Meet and Greet area of the board to introduce yourself. We like to greet new members there!

Thanks for your posts so far!

 

[DMcHenry]

I don't see a lot of politics in my organization, thus the reason I'm a member. There isn't money involved (or VERY little), virtually no standardiztion (instructors get to decide what/how they want to run their schools), and I don't see any 'power' issues either as here are only 3 heads of different arts that verify promotions.

Maybe it exists in most organizations, not all.

And I've met many very unselfish organization heads and leaders. It may just depend on what side of the fense you are on, and the qualifications for memberships or promotions a particular org requires if you consider it politics or nor. You just need to pick an association you feel comfortable with and leadership you believe in.

 

[Yossarian]

Im from a WTSDA background(my school left the org due to politics) and ive never heard the 25 student thing. Doesnt mean its not true though since im nowhere near sadan, ill have to ask some of the Masters and see what they say.

 

[tellner]

Are politics a common thing in larger TSD organizations, or does it extend to most all martial arts?

You will no more find politics in a martial arts organization than you will find leaves in a forest or sand in a desert :shrug:

 

[DMcHenry]

I thought I had heard that for ATA (Am. TKD Assoc.) instructors have to have so many schools for higher dan promotions.

 

[Montecarlodrag]

We once were affiliated with WTDSA. We left the organization because of politics.

I don't mean to offend anybody. This is only our experience and the reason we left the WTSDA:

WTSDA is a very big and powerful association, huge Headquarters
But they treat you as good as how-much-money you are worth.
If you have a Dojang with 500 members, it means money for them. Gup tests, Dan tests, memberships, etc.

You can be mediocre as Marial Artist, but if you have many students, you will achieve the same Dan Rank as if you were an excelent Martial Artist.


If you have a dojang with 15 members, they don't even bother with you, even if you are an outstanding Martial Artist and your 15 students are world class.

If a WTSDA Master goes to your dojang to teach a seminar or watch a Dan test, they charge big money, they ask to stay in 5-star Hotels, first class plane tickets, a minimum of 50 tests, etc. (like royalty)


After we left WTSDA, we were visited by a few 5th dan or higher ranked TSD masters, from other organizations. None of them asked the money and things WTSDA's did.
I remember once a 5th Dan master said: "Don't worry about hotel. I can stay at your house. I will take my sleeping bag and sleep in any spare room you have"
He's one of the most humble persons I have met, despite his rank and great knowledge.

Politics are a problem in all organizations, not just TSD.

 

[DMcHenry]

I've heard that before, in fact, 3 or 4 instructors I work with now are former WTSDA members that left due to politics like you mentioned. I did the same thing when I atteneded a seminar/dan testing with them - stayed at the instructors house, etc.

That's sad when things happen like that and cause members to be frustrated enough to leave the association. I left my former association for many reasons, not so much politics - but one of the reasons was my small school was sending in a lot of money I couldn't afford. My current association doesn't have gup testing fees, joining fees, dan dues, dojang registration, etc. etc. and very reasonable dan certificate fees. Like anything, you can get out of it what you put in, we just like our members to try and attend one of the biannual seminars (I was doing that anyway prior to joining). So basically I just kept doing what I was already doing and enjoying - attending a great seminar, and working with other instructors & students. I currently only have a hand full of private students myself but do help other instructors. I've never judged an instructor by how large his school was, just their quality of himself/herself and what they produce.

 

[MBuzzy]

Actually, in some cases, I think that the large organizations make these seemingly "political" decisions to prevent things like that. For example, we have the rule that you MUST test at a regional, federation sanctioned Shim Sa for Dan ranking. If you miss the test date, you wait another 6 months, if you fail the test, you wait another 6 months (some minor issues can be retested, but only by the regional examiner and you must go to them). The testing is very strict. But for that reason, you can't argue favoritism, there are no issues with paying someone to come to your test, the federation maintains control of testing methods etc. So on one hand, you are very restricted and can't promote your own students to Dan rank, but on the other hand, it really helps for the general well being and good order of the membership.

Another example, Seminars must also be federation sanctioned. They highly discourge teaching outside of the federation or having people in from outside the federation. On one hand, big restriction in learning, on the other hand, all of the issues that Montecarlo talked about - non existant in the federation.

Basically what I'm saying is exactly what everyone else has said, politics will ALWAYS be there, no matter what rules or changes you put into place. Even if you put rules into effect just to get rid of politics, they will still be there.

 

[DMcHenry]

I don't necessaraly see the strict testing as 'political' or even attending sanctioned seminars - that can be a good thing. What gets political is not allowing instructors to associate with those outside your federation or attending other seminars. Now I can see why they may not like that, as it can introduce methods and techniques that are different then the standards the federation is trying to set and maintain. It's just not for me.

 

[MBuzzy]

I don't necessaraly see the strict testing as 'political' or even attending sanctioned seminars - that can be a good thing. What gets political is not allowing instructors to associate with those outside your federation or attending other seminars. Now I can see why they may not like that, as it can introduce methods and techniques that are different then the standards the federation is trying to set and maintain. It's just not for me.

Exactly true, sir - I think I missed making my point! I think that the testing rules were made to solve political problems and simply created its own set of political problems. The same thing with the seminars and restrictions. Perfect example, the restrictions on seminars were probably made to alleviate the political problems, but led to the problem of not allowing new ideas from outside the organization.

I view these all as creating potential political problems. My definition of political in this case is: "use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control." Therefore, politics is not always a bad thing, because in my opinion, someone must hold the power and authority. Problems arise when those who hold the power are either not ready for it or abuse it. All of these examples are simply strategies to maintain control. It therefore gives some people power and some less power. The political problems and regulations that we are discussing arise from one person who is not in power diagreeing with the decisions or rules of one who is in power.

 

[DMcHenry]

Yes sir, I agree. I've asked several instructors to leave our association for various reasons, and one of them accused us of 'politics' because he didn't like it. It wasn't politics, he was trying to give himself a self-promotion and earlier than our normal TIG policies. Besides that, I specifically asked him not to go through with his own testing - which he did anyway and claimed a 'master' rank. Because we aren't run on money (he had several fairly large schools) I had no problem asking him to leave (or actually let him come to that conclusion). We would rather maintain our integrity then to allow stuff like that.

Since I don't like all the politics that goes on (and yes, I agree it exists everywhere to some degree) I sure try hard not to get into that myself.

Open associations aren't good for everyone - you have to be more self-motivated. Many like a very structured environment and knowing exaclty what to do. Luckily, there seems to be something for everyone. You just have to pick a leader/group you feel comfortable with and share similar beliefs. When you are happy where you are, then you will even be happy $upporting your association/federation too and won't see it as politics or control.

To each his own - live and let live.