Ustw..... Ata......

[ShaolinWolf]

You guys are still missing the point. THe whole thing is you are not a qualified Judo instructor or grappling instructor. Your not a black belt in juijitsu or anything like that. You couldn't start your own judo school. It's more like teaching the bascis. You can only teach what you've learned. Also,

I don't fully understand why they made it a certification because I think you should only be able to teach what you've learned. Ceritifcation makes no sense if you can't teach it. Like I said, there are plenty of people how know how to grapple in ATA. And the basis of my arguement is that ATA is not trying to make expert Grapplers, they are trying to teach you how to get out of a situation were you to go to the ground. I mean, I would feel pretty stupid only knowing how to defend myself from a standing position only. They are just teaching the basics so you can learn how to defend yourself. It's not a full blown judo course. No way. No instructor can teach that.

Now some can teach amateur judo, like how to put into holds. We know the open guard, closed guard, sleeper hold, triangle choke/hold, hip throw, shoulder throw, side mount, front mount, joint locks and other chokes, and other things. Just the basics of how to grapple, to get from one position to another. In no way are we expert grapplers.

And as to the fact you wouldn't want a white belt showing another person(assuming you aren't sayin certification, because it's not possible), I don't think ATA had that in mind. Anyways, what I'm saying is its certification to teach simple grappling. No TKD instructor can teach a whole school black belt Judo because they themselves don't know it. And yes, you have to have experience. No way you can teach without experience and alot of practice. And I don't think ATA had in mind how to teach proper technique. My instructors have learned from their instructor and they know how to grapple. Maybe not the expert way, but they can hold their own against someone with no MA knowledge on the street. That's why ATA allows certification. Not in a full blown course. Just street grappling. No art. Nil art. Street self defense.

:asian:

P.S. I don't think TKD of any kind is a joke and I don't think my own org is better than anyone else's. I'm just trying to show the differences, but I've been pushed to the point where it sounds negative. You misunderstand me in some of my stuff I typed. I do think TKD is all that I said it is. Self defense, poomse and stuff. I'm just saying MOST people think it's wimpy and simple self defense that won't do you any good on the street. Then they take the class. I don't know about you, but the jointlocks we learn in TKD self defense with all the pains, I think they work on the street. And so do many other things incorporated into them.

 

[terryl965]

Shaolinwolf,Do not sweat the small stuff they just don't understand it is that simple.Gos Bless America

 

[ShaolinWolf]

Thanks Terryl. You take ATA TKD?

 

[Disco]

Perhaps terminology is the problem. Using the term "certified", implies full understanding of something, to many people. In many of the "old school" dojangs, TKD training was fairly inclusive. It included strikes, kicks, jointlocks, takedowns, throws, and even some grappling. Our instructors taught these without seperate documentation for each sub level and it was accepted without discourse. Mabey we as a martial arts society have become to insightful of the many fragmented disciplines that now exist. We tend to lean toward everything now as a speciality and those that teach these new specialities, project them as such. Where did Krav Maga come from? It came from prior training in other martial arts. Nobody can re-invent the wheel, all they can do is just make it look different, but it's still a wheel. Yet KM is being touted as something special. The same can be said for other new breeds such as Systema. Understand, I'm not saying anything bad about these systems, but at the very most, there just new wheels in the showroom. They teach a varied mixture of techniques and these techniques came from something else. To be honest here, everything within the arts have come from something else, it's a pyramid. One dosen't have to be a so-called expert to teach basic concepts, but one should be understanding of the principles that allow things to work. My personal opinion follows closely to that of Bruce Lee's, in take what works and discard the rest. The difference is, I stay within a given style/system and constantly add self defense techniques, while still adhearing to the other concepts of the system. It's what the teachers that started their different disciplines did.

 

[Spud]

Well put Shu2jack.

I see a basic disagreement that will not be resolved by repeating that someone just doesn’t get it or is missing the point. This disagreement is not a bad thing. That’s not an unacceptable thing it is a common thing that happens when people are passionate about their art.

I feel that I do indeed get it (or my own version of whatever it is). I’ve been fortunate enough to train in ATA twice – receiving my first dan in 1992; and returning as a white belt in 2003. I’ve been around the martial arts and personal training scene enough to be very skeptical about 20 hour certifications, be it in judo, yoga, cardio-kick, business management or basket weaving.

Again I understand and respect that ATA is delivering a controlled curriculum to their instructors on what is taught especially when it is outside of Songham Taekwondo. That is commendable. My big heartburn is when ATA schools are marketing that they will teach students krav maga, judo or grappling with certified instructors. Perhaps that is a problem with individual school owners, but I hold it is more of a marketing issue with national.

 

[Shu2jack]

You guys are still missing the point. THe whole thing is you are not a qualified Judo instructor or grappling instructor. Your not a black belt in juijitsu or anything like that. You couldn't start your own judo school. It's more like teaching the bascis.

I understand what you are saying, but your point is flawed. That is MY point. (I mean that with no disrespect). You said yourself we do not become a qualified Judo or grappling instructor. So if you are not a qualified instructor in that art how can you teach (a.k.a. instruct) that art or it's techniques? There is nothing wrong with teaching students basic techniques and such from different styles, but there is a difference between knowing a technique and "knowing" a teachnique.

Like Disco said, "Using the term "certified", implies full understanding of something". He pretty much sums up my arguement. Full understanding of something takes years (or decades) of consistant practice. There is nothing wrong with teaching students basic stuff, but you must realize we lack full understanding of what we would be teaching and thus our students will have even less understanding. This leads to the degrading of techinque. Do not mislead yourself or students with saying you are "certified".

99% of our blue belts do not have full understanding of orange belt techniques. Most black belts will have a good understanding and in our system it usually takes until 2nd degree until a lot of students have full understanding of most of the color belt techniques.

And I don't think ATA had in mind how to teach proper technique. My instructors have learned from their instructor and they know how to grapple. Maybe not the expert way, but they can hold their own against someone with no MA knowledge on the street. That's why ATA allows certification. Not in a full blown course. Just street grappling. No art. Nil art. Street self defense.

Like my instructor (6th degree master in ATA) once told me, "I am not here to teach you how to kick and punch. Anyone can do that. A 3 year old can do that. I am here to teach you how to do it properly." Anyone can grapple. You do not need certification for that. Students want to know how to grapple effectively, properly, and skillfully in such a way that it minimizes the risk of self-injury while executing those techniques on another person. You need more than a 3-day certification to learn that.

Shaolinwolf, what you are saying would be totally true and make perfect sense IF full understanding of the basic technqiues shown could be learned in three days. Trust me, it takes a few years just to begin to fully master and understand even basic techniques. Nothing wrong with passing on what you have learned and been shown, but students look up to us and consider what we say when it comes to TKD as truth. With 3-day certification we ourselves do not know the full truth.

 

[ShaolinWolf]

I agree with all that. And I don't think 3 days is enough. I don't even get why they hand out certificates in 3 days, other than it opens the door to learn how to teach basic grappling. You aren't allowed to show grappling in your school until you have the certificate. And what I've been saying is that you need experience in grappling to teach any of it. The only thing I think the certification is good for is people like my instructors. They can't teach with out the certificates. They know how to teach it, it's just the papers are needed. But for people who say "I'm going to get certified in this so I can teach it, and don't know anything other than what they see in the seminar."(and the seminars don't usually last a full 3 days, not even 2. Sometimes not even 1). I pity them, but at the same time I see they want to expand their MA skills.

I personally don't want to take a grappling course to black belt in judo or jujitsu right now, so that is the best route for me. I think of grappling as more than just ranking, I don't believe in ranking in grappling. Sure there is ranking, but I have a different mind set for grappling; always have, probably always will. I don't care about ranking, I care about skill. Even in TKD, I don't care about rank. I mean, it is nice to have the belt and all and have people look at you and all as your rank, but nonetheless, its your skill that matters.

My instructors can teach me and I can learn the basics and some more advanced stuff. None of them have taken a judo course to black belt, but they are excellent grapplers. How, I don't know, other than they practiced and watched videos and met people who know how to grapple. I can see they execute proper technique because I was in Judo for about 1-2 yrs. Not that I'm an expert or anything, I just know what I see(and I can't always duplicate it the same way and I know it's not always proper.). Their technique is pretty good.

Anyways, I agree that just simple throw out certificates are stupid. I just think people need to invest more time into the process after certification if they want to teach their students noteworthy stuff. That's why you get the certification. You need to seriously learn how to grapple to actually teach your students. Simple certification processes are stupid, unless you are just getting it to certify to teach what you already know. I agree.

:asian:

 

[Shu2jack]

You aren't allowed to show grappling in your school until you have the certificate.

.....oops..... Well, I guess if the ATA can sell swords, a 6th degree weapon, to the general student population then I can teach my junior color belts what a pressure point is and how to take advantage of it.

Seems like we are on the same page now. Honestly though, I think your instructors could get away with teaching some ground fighting, pressure points, and grappling if it was taught as a way to escape self-defense situations and just not purely "ground fighting" or PPCT.

 

[ShaolinWolf]

Yes, that is true. I didn't mean it like that. I mean, as I've said before, with over 1500 schools, who's keeping track. It's just...yeah.


Also, I thought Pressure points were part of the ATA cirriculum. That's another certification process?! I thought that was knowledge all MA's needed to know and that you taught it automatically?!?! I mean, we teach pressure points in the self defenses, do we not?

:asian:

 

[Shu2jack]

Also, I thought Pressure points were part of the ATA cirriculum. That's another certification process?! I thought that was knowledge all MA's needed to know and that you taught it automatically?!?! I mean, we teach pressure points in the self defenses, do we not?

I do not believe pressure points are part of the regular curriculum. I believe that is taught in PPCT courses. Pressure Point Control Tactics. Ground fighting is knowledge all MAs need to know, yet the ATA wants certification. Really, pressure points are very easy to learn and apply so most instructors just teach them naturally to students.

Personally, I combine pressure points, ground fighting, hand/elbow/knee oriented (as opposed to kicking), and joint locks in my self-defense teachings. All these things flow together and should be used in combination with the others.

 

[ShaolinWolf]

Right. I just didn't know you had to take a PPCT course for that. I know how to use pressure points(taught them plenty), and that's aggrevating you need to take a certification course. LOL.

 

[Shu2jack]

Just teach them without the certification. On the old form sheets they have escapes for certain self-defense situations. Some of those escapes are joint locks. Other times myself and other students would ask, "What if it does not work?" Then our instructor would show us other methods, including other joint locks, pressure points, strikes, and escapes. Just come up with your own "situations" to teach pressure points, joint locks, etc. and to show how students can apply techniques.

 

[MichiganTKD]

Ironically, I look at illustrations of Krav Maga techniques, and they look just like the TKD techniques I'm used to practicing. For example, an illustration I saw a while ago demonstrated a technique against a knife wielder by blocking the knife and following through with a knee to the groin and palm strike to the chin. Guess what? I was taught that years ago. The students I feel sorry for are the students who only learned sport-style Tae Kwon Do, don't realize TKD actually began as a very powerful self defense-oriented art, and think it is just used for tournament competition (Thank you, USTU.). The TKD I grew up with is comparable to anything out there. I trained with guys you did not want to mess with.

 

[Shu2jack]

I was also looking through a Brazillian Ju-jitzu book made by some of the members of the Gracie famly. (Renzo was one of them I believe) They went through a lot of the techniques for various ranks. A lot of what they used for stand up defense for higher ranks was stuff a lot our lower ranks know. Granted they are more of a ground system, but it I just find it funny how TKD gets a lot of disrespect while the Gracie family and brazillian ju-jitzu gets a lot of fame while both styles share quite a few techniques.

 

[MichiganTKD]

Arrogance has a lot to do with it. I don't think the Gracies are going to be winning any humility contests anytime soon.