Regulating Martial Arts Instruction

[EmperorOfKentukki]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Rook]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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:

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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.