How to make me understand this? ooooooooooookay.
Well, the only thing I can say is that you don't get certified to teach it in the way a judo instructor teaches it. It's more for fun. Yes, you learn it, but you don't exactly get taught anything but the basics. And what about the one's who have learned how to grapple and want certification, but aren't allowed to teach it in their school, even if they made it to a certain belt in judo/juijitsu? With all the coming of MMA, I don't think that just having one MA is the best thing. Whether you guys want to believe it or not, there is disadvantages to TKD. Yes, there are so many advantages, and believe me, I for one have NOTHING, NOTHING against TKD.
1) You talk about TKD having disadvantages (which I agree, there are), yet you say we don't teach it the way a judo instructor teaches it, it is "more for fun". How does that help us become better rounded martial artists? Especially for MMA. If you want to do it for fun that is cool, but if you want to seriously learn and teach grappling or whatever you need more than a weekend course. As you will learn as you become an instructor, it takes time to be able to fully understand and properly apply techinques. In order to teach them you need experience in applying them.
That is my main problem with the judo certification and such. They certify you before you get a chance to gain experience with the techniques. I do not believe in "See monkey, do monkey, show next monkey".
2) I may not have a rank in any other martial art, but I do know some grappling, PPCT, and other things. Am I certified? No. Why? I have not spent the time to solely practice those methods of fighting. Do I still teach what I know to my students? YES! I teach what I know and what works, but I always wish I have spent as much time practicing those systems as I have TKD because by not having as much experience with those things my techinical knowledge and execution of those techiques are not as sharp as my TKD. I can only imagine the skills of those who train only 3 days to get certified.
And as to the certification, you get certified, nothing more. You have to actually know how to teach it.
Knowing how to teach it requires more than just mimicking teachniques. You have to constantly train with them. You have to be able to apply them consistantly. You have to have a feeling for how much damage you can do with them which can only be gained by experience. Those camps do not require that. They require you "know" them and be able to preform them on a partner a few times. Then you get certified and pass it on to others. That is not knowledge, that is mimicking.
I could go on and on, but I will stop there. I have nothing against teaching students things outside of the normal TKD material. I do it all the time, but I do not pretend to be certified in the material. A black belt means you have only mastered the basics and that takes at least two years in the ATA.
I also agree TKD has it's weakness, but in order to fill in the gaps of our training we must seriously train in different areas and make it another part of our everyday training.
The certification means you are now ready to learn something as an instructor and you can teach what you learn as you go along.
I think this is where we are having our problem. If you teach something you better already know it very, very well. If not, you are only hurting students because you do not fully understand what you are teaching.
I mean this with all due respect, but I want you to take a orange belt. I want you to tell that orange belt to teach the techiques they learn to other students as they "go along" in rank. Even if you "certify" them (promote them to their next rank, thus saying they already have a solid grip of the material of their previous rank), the students they teach will on average have bad techinque and not truly understand what they are doing. Now tell a black belt who has 2 years of experience to teach all the technqiues he has been practicing for years to students. His experience will make those students much better.