Questions regarding Systems - Organizations - Headmasters
- Thread starter Tony Dismukes
- Start date
Mark Lynn
Master Black Belt
Tony I'm not saying that anyone needs to be in charge of the whole thing as in all of BJJ, however someone should be in charge of the Gracie style of BJJ. Like wise some one should be in charge of of say JKA Shotokan but I'm not saying they should be over all of Karate (all of the various styles) as it is practiced in Okinawa, Japan, etc. etc. And in sports like Boxing there are organizations who have some sort of governing body who sanctions events, make the rules, etc. etc. just like in the days of Kickboxing you had the WKA, PKA etc. etc. Someone headed or was in charge of those organizations (sports).
Well from a marketing standpoint it could add value. Being recognized as the head of something, the chief instructor, the owner, world champion etc. etc. denotes some type of authority, and more than likely some type of marketing bump, it helps sell the product, bring in more students etc. etc. so in a sense it does add value.
But rereading back over the thread here, I think I'm in more agreement with you than not. It might seem I was putting forth the view that all arts should and need to have a central governing body, and that is not the case. I do see benefits of having organizations, likewise I've seen abuses of organizations as well. I believe they have their place.
If someone wants to be called GM or their students bestow them that title so be it, I have the right to not do business with them. Whether or not I do business with them depends on what I can get from that business relationship not whether they have a title or not. So for me it is a non issue, I don't care one way or another.
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,419
- Reaction score
- 329
The only benefit I can think of is having one person as the centralized focus of the system. In otherwords, someone to develop and keep the system focused on whatever the the art was developed for in the first place. Do you need a hierarchy of GM and masters and such? Nope. You need an instructor and a student and that's about it.
Originally Posted by Tony Dismukes
This raises more questions. Does a martial arts system need to have an organization? Does it need to be a single organization? What is the purpose of the organization? Does it need to be run by one person as opposed to a board of some kind? Does that one person need to be a "grandmaster" with all the assorted baggage of that title? Could it instead be a "president" who serves a limited term and just carries out certain specified duties?
Do a martial art need an organizaiton? No.
Does it need a single organizaiton? By this I assume you mean can they belong to more than one? Yes.
What is the purpose of the organization? Well, too be honest and blunt, for many it is to make money. For some to organize competitions. For us it is to establish a central curiculum and governing body for the distribution of rank.
Does the one person need to be a GM? Nope.
Could it be a president? It could be anything you want it to be or nothing at all. It's like this, and I'll speak candidly and bluntly: titles and colored belts are toys for grown ups. The martial arts doesn't 'need' any of that crap and would likely be better off without it. But egos abound in the martial arts so we need titles such as master and grandmaster and supreme grandmaster and 10th Dans and 12th Dans and all the other stuff.
There is no universal guideline for the martial arts.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #24
Just for the record, there is not anyone in charge of the "Gracie" style of BJJ. We seem to do okay regardless.
It's mostly a non-issue for me as well. I don't really care much about how organizations and hierarchies are set up in an art so ling as the politics don't get in the way of my training. I just raised the initial question because I keep seeing these statements in conversation that "someone needs to be in charge" and I wonder, why?
If you want to organize anything on a national or international level (NFL football, taekwondo, kendo, judo, and fencing being good examples), you need a large organization. For an art to simply spread and be taught, even internationally, you actually don't need one, though you'll end up with more permutations of the art under the same name (not necessarily a bad thing).
or the art simply to exist in the moment, or in one studio ...
If you want the art to exist beyond the founder(s), you do. That organization need not be more than a single dojo/dojang/studio with a headmaster and at least one instructor with enough knowledge of the system to continue it when the headmaster retires, dies, etc.
I took it to mean can there be more than on organization for an art. Which I agree; yes. Many arts have multiple, often prominent organizations. Some times they even coexist peacefully.
You may find this surprising after all of our KKW/WTF discussions, but I am inherently mistrustful of large organizations for precisely the first thing you mentioned. That, and elitism, tendencies in some orgs to control members, and a tendency to place its continued existence at the top of the priority list.
However, for the rest of the reasons you mention, plus the ones I mentioned above, organizations are very useful.
Agreed
In principle, I disagree. In practice, those elements, which were originally had a practical purpose (colored belts were invented partly so that Kano could tell who was advanced and who was not when he taught outside of his own student group, and partly as incentives for participants). Most titles were originally functional titles.
In practice, those things tend to muddy the waters a lot, and tend to be the first place where systemic abuse and commercialization attach themselves.
So very true.
I love our organization they have lots of awesome events and publish great books and videos. If I ever have any questions they are totally available. Really to me it's almost like a martial arts family. Some politicking goes on but most of us kind of universally dislike it, so it's not as common as one might think. Our head person leads a modest life and has not become wealthy by running our organization.
I had been kind of a loner up till I joined. I had heard horror stories from others about the problems of big organizations. But the reality is I actually really like being a part of our org and in my own small way helping to support it. We do important and worthwhile work in our communities.
I had been kind of a loner up till I joined. I had heard horror stories from others about the problems of big organizations. But the reality is I actually really like being a part of our org and in my own small way helping to support it. We do important and worthwhile work in our communities.
You've probably said so before, but who is your organization?
The Tactical Hapkido Alliance.
Once upon a time I belonged to an organization that had a Grandmaster who would travel to the various schools with in the system once a year and all expenses for the trips where paid by him. Yes he was able to afford this because of his other work ( job). He never charged the schools and in fact often brought gifts for the students and instructors.
He never asked anyone with in the system to pay dues to the organization or for testing.
Heck he never wanted the title of GM ( heck he hated it), it was kind of forced on him by a group of masters and a couple grandmasters one day . They told him for his system to grow and to have some set "organization" with in the system he had to take the rank so that others could advance in rank and there would be a visible head of the system. By accepting the rank he made room for is students to have rank and advance in rank.
Until the day the man died he set the rules, said which forms would be done, and was respected for his leadership and guidance.
So NO it is not always about money sometimes it is about just being the head and being the person others look to for leadership
He never asked anyone with in the system to pay dues to the organization or for testing.
Heck he never wanted the title of GM ( heck he hated it), it was kind of forced on him by a group of masters and a couple grandmasters one day . They told him for his system to grow and to have some set "organization" with in the system he had to take the rank so that others could advance in rank and there would be a visible head of the system. By accepting the rank he made room for is students to have rank and advance in rank.
Until the day the man died he set the rules, said which forms would be done, and was respected for his leadership and guidance.
So NO it is not always about money sometimes it is about just being the head and being the person others look to for leadership
Mark Lynn
Master Black Belt
Tony
I apologize if I misspoke about someone being in charge of the "Gracie" style of BJJ, I thought someone from the "Gracie" family headed their organization; and I was (for lack of a better term), standing up for their right to do so even though I don't train in their system. It seemed on this subject that people were taking strong sides of yes there needs to be a head of a system or no there doesn't, and frankly I don't really care. But I believe that having a head, a central leader, by whatever name they are called isn't an inherently bad thing and that they can serve a purpose and having an organization or whatever isn't inherently bad either. Therefore I thought a safe bet to try and get my point across would be the "Gracie" style of jujtisu since I thought it was promoted and led by the "Gracie" family and contrast that with all of what is currently called BJJ which has moved well beyond just the "Gracie" system.
So to be clear like you I don't really care about organizations and hierarchies (other than trying to avoid pissing someone off by stepping out of line on how they do things) in fact I've spent most of my seminar training times doing just that, going here and going there avoiding politics and just wanting to train. But for the sake of this discussion again I'll stay on the pro side of the argument for organizations.
As to your wondering why someone should be in charge I'll try another example.
Take Modern Arnis it was headed by GM Remy Presas, he dies and the organization splinters badly. Now everyone is doing their own thing, you have Datu Tim with the WMAA, Datu Dieter with the DAV, SM Dan Anderson with his organization MA80, Dr Remy Jr. with MARPPIO, the MoTTs with IMAF, Jeff Delany with his IMAF, Datu Worden with Natural Spirit, the Modern Arnis masters in the Philippines, Bruce Chui has his Arnis International, and I'm sure there are a host of others Modern Arnis instructors with their own followings who are independent. All of these organizations teach GM Remy's art their way, they are all similar because of the root, but all of these people have a different view, a different training methodology, curriculum, etc. etc. All of these also have some sort of organization that governs/oversees the training, seminars, selling merchandise, membership of schools etc. etc. They all govern differently, they all have different rules, requirements etc. etc. and this is a good thing. But someone whether it is a board of officers, or a person, someone leads, someone oversees, someone administers each one of these organizations and that too is a good thing. Some do it better than the others but overall it is good that there is this type of diversity allowing Modern Arnis to grow and spread after Remy's passing.
By each of these senior practitioners of Modern Anris going their own way and developing their way it has given the art diversity, but had they not taken it upon themselves to create and market, to promote their own organizations, had they not raised the funds to do so. Had schools not aligned themselves with each of these organizations, had instructors not had the diverse curricula to teach students from and create more instructors etc. etc. then frankly I think the art would wither and die. As it is the art grows. Tim with the WMAA is traveling around the world giving seminars spreading his version of Presas Arnis, Dieter with the DAV teaches across Europe, SM Dan has gone to Europe and teaches different places here in the states, same with the MoTTs etc. etc. However if everyone was only concerned with teaching in their backyard to their buddies, if Datu Hartman only concerned himself with Horizon Martial Arts, SM Dan with his school Dan Anderson Karate, Chuck Guass with his school, and Ken Smith with his etc. etc. then I think Modern Arnis would wither on the vine.
Some people end up having the business smarts or they have the guidance to pave the way for others to spread the art. They are the leaders and the heads of successful organizations, others don't the organizational skills or business sense (experience), maybe they don't have the charismatic qualities that it takes to attract a following, or the skill set or whatever and their organization or classes stay small. It doesn't mean one is a better teacher or practitioner than the other, nor does it mean that successful organizations are bad and the guys at the top are just ego manics.
My view point comes from my own experience of one time or another training at various seminars that all of these men taught at; and talking with quite a few of them at one time or another with the discussions centered around the business side of the seminars, their organizations, setting up curricula etc. etc. etc.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #31
No problems, Mark.
Actually, the history of the GJJ vs BJJ terminology might be relevant to the discussion.
In Brazil, the art was known as "Gracie Jiu-Jitsu" or just "Jiu-Jitsu", but there was no single individual or organization in charge of the whole shebang. When Rorion Gracie came to the U.S., he trademarked the term "Gracie Jiu-Jitsu", and aggressively threatened legal action against anyone other than himself and his brothers who used the term - even other family members. (He also heavily promoted the idea that his father Helio was the sole founder of the system - an story which does not hold up to historical scrutiny.) As a result, the art in general become known as "Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu." Individual schools/organizations/teams might be named more specifically - "Renzo Gracie Jiu-Jitsu", "Carlson Gracie Jiu-jitsu", "Machado Jiu-Jitsu", etc - but these were never regarded as separate arts.
Eventually Rorion lost the trademark to "Gracie Jiu-Jitsu" due to a lawsuit between himself and Carley Gracie, who had been teaching the art in the United States longer than he had. By that time, the "BJJ" label had become the default name for the art. These days the term "Gracie Jiu-Jitsu" (without additional qualifiers) is mostly used by schools and instructors connected to Rorion's original school - not because Rorion owns the term any more, but because the rest of the world settled on a new name.
Since the Gracie Academy (now run by Rorion's sons) still emphasizes the old-school street applications and many other schools now emphasize modern sport grappling applications of the art, some people try to draw a line between GJJ (street) and BJJ (sport). This is not really accurate at all. There are plenty of BJJ schools that focus on self-defense, sport grappling, MMA, or any combination of the three. It's all just different aspects of the same art and different individuals with different preferences.
Actually, the history of the GJJ vs BJJ terminology might be relevant to the discussion.
In Brazil, the art was known as "Gracie Jiu-Jitsu" or just "Jiu-Jitsu", but there was no single individual or organization in charge of the whole shebang. When Rorion Gracie came to the U.S., he trademarked the term "Gracie Jiu-Jitsu", and aggressively threatened legal action against anyone other than himself and his brothers who used the term - even other family members. (He also heavily promoted the idea that his father Helio was the sole founder of the system - an story which does not hold up to historical scrutiny.) As a result, the art in general become known as "Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu." Individual schools/organizations/teams might be named more specifically - "Renzo Gracie Jiu-Jitsu", "Carlson Gracie Jiu-jitsu", "Machado Jiu-Jitsu", etc - but these were never regarded as separate arts.
Eventually Rorion lost the trademark to "Gracie Jiu-Jitsu" due to a lawsuit between himself and Carley Gracie, who had been teaching the art in the United States longer than he had. By that time, the "BJJ" label had become the default name for the art. These days the term "Gracie Jiu-Jitsu" (without additional qualifiers) is mostly used by schools and instructors connected to Rorion's original school - not because Rorion owns the term any more, but because the rest of the world settled on a new name.
Since the Gracie Academy (now run by Rorion's sons) still emphasizes the old-school street applications and many other schools now emphasize modern sport grappling applications of the art, some people try to draw a line between GJJ (street) and BJJ (sport). This is not really accurate at all. There are plenty of BJJ schools that focus on self-defense, sport grappling, MMA, or any combination of the three. It's all just different aspects of the same art and different individuals with different preferences.
Mark Lynn
Master Black Belt
Thanks Tony for the history behind BJJ, that was very helpful to me.
This, like the other thread about grandmasters, I think is a subject that's very much "it depends". What is the organization for? What benefit does it provide the school and the students? Those things are going to tell you a lot about the value of the organization, both generally and for you.
For sports competition, for example, you need an organization that can set rules, organize competitions, promote the sport, etc. Schools can't do that individually. Organizations can also create a broader community, provide curriculum to maintain standards, prove qualifications, organize seminars, ensure that teachers have access to further training, etc. Those things have value and can be useful. But at the same time, organizations aren't always useful and may even just be the martial arts version of a diploma mill. And even if they are good organizations with good things to offer, they may still not be the right choice for a school for a variety of reasons (cost vs benefit, etc). So it really depends.
For sports competition, for example, you need an organization that can set rules, organize competitions, promote the sport, etc. Schools can't do that individually. Organizations can also create a broader community, provide curriculum to maintain standards, prove qualifications, organize seminars, ensure that teachers have access to further training, etc. Those things have value and can be useful. But at the same time, organizations aren't always useful and may even just be the martial arts version of a diploma mill. And even if they are good organizations with good things to offer, they may still not be the right choice for a school for a variety of reasons (cost vs benefit, etc). So it really depends.
