Regulating Martial Arts Instruction

Status
Not open for further replies.

EmperorOfKentukki

Green Belt
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
115
Reaction score
9
This debate comes up from time to time...and recently, I was asked to bring it up again...so here it is.


Korea has government regulation of martial arts instruction. You can't just go to Korea and hang a shingle. You must be licensed. Today, you even need to have earned a degree in Martial Arts Education to even get a job.

Great Britian requires those who would teach martial arts to meet certain criteria to open and run a program.

We in the U.S. have long fought the intrusion of government regulation into the martial arts industry. But why? Who will it harm? Who will it benefit?

It seems to me, the only way many of the problems we all complain about within the Martial Arts community can only be resolved by outside intervention. After some 60 years, it seems obvious we, the grand community of various schools, organizations, arts, etcetera ad infinitum, have proven ourselves completely incapable of policing ourselves. Thus, it will have to come via some regulatory body. Every other commerical and professional industry has already submitted to such regulation. This one seems to have had a rather long run...perhaps...overdue....for regulation. Already we have seen regulation enforced in certain communities, and some states have take up the gauntlet with mixed results.

Nonetheless....it will probably happen sooner or later. Thus, it is incumbent upon us to think now about what criteria should be applied, how it should be applied, and who should apply it. I would like posters in this thread to take up this discussion and list specifics they believe should be addressed. Rather than just post the usual rhetoric railing against regulation....please accept the challenge of trying to come up with an actual solution instead of just complaining about it. It is easy to sit back an criticize. It takes greater application of cognitive skill and character to offer a viable plan. Debating the pros and cons is quite acceptable, but please don't let it degridate into a pitched battle of words about how something won't work. At least explain in detail why.

JH
 

Kreth

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 26, 2003
Messages
6,980
Reaction score
86
Location
Oneonta, NY
The main argument is that any regulatory board would end up comprised of mostly mcdojo instructors, who would proceed to make it difficult for anyone outside of their circle to obtain licensing.
 

Brian R. VanCise

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
27,758
Reaction score
1,520
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
The main argument is that any regulatory board would end up comprised of mostly mcdojo instructors, who would proceed to make it difficult for anyone outside of their circle to obtain licensing.

That is probably what would happen Kreth!
 

SFC JeffJ

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
9,141
Reaction score
44
It's also contrary to the "founding concepts" of the United States. It amazes me when people say only government can fix this mess. Look how well the government does with many of it's programs. Does it really need to worry about other things? In the end, even it it went well, I think all it would do would be to raise the price of instruction as to pay for a bureaucracy.

Jeff
 

Brad Dunne

Brown Belt
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
472
Reaction score
25
I will echo what has been already said, but will add the following. Even though, using korea as an example, the government has some sort of mandate in place, it has not stopped corruption in any form it takes. So I ask this, just what has government intervention accomplished? IMO - nothing, but allowed a closed door license to cheat and steal............
 
OP
E

EmperorOfKentukki

Green Belt
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
115
Reaction score
9
So far all I'm hearing is a lot of whinning. The very thing I asked you not to do. If you think 'McDojo" operator's will take over, explain WHY. Better yet......how about a solution to THAT problem. A criteria to keep the McDojo owner from overrunning the process.

The Emperor
 

SFC JeffJ

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
9,141
Reaction score
44
So far all I'm hearing is a lot of whinning. The very thing I asked you not to do. If you think 'McDojo" operator's will take over, explain WHY. Better yet......how about a solution to THAT problem. A criteria to keep the McDojo owner from overrunning the process.

The Emperor
Excuse me? Whining? For someone who says they don't want this to turn into a "pitched battle of words", that is pretty inflammatory.

Jeff
 

ArmorOfGod

Senior Master
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
2,031
Reaction score
39
Location
North Augusta, SC
The US has narrowly avoided the passage of several laws over the past three or four years. The most recent was in North Carolina (I believe). If I can dig up the details, I will post them, but all of the proposed laws had to do with states approving who got to get teaching licences and were allowed to run schools in those states.

AoG
 

shesulsa

Columbia Martial Arts Academy
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
27,182
Reaction score
486
Location
Not BC, Not DC
So far all I'm hearing is a lot of whinning. The very thing I asked you not to do. If you think 'McDojo" operator's will take over, explain WHY. Better yet......how about a solution to THAT problem. A criteria to keep the McDojo owner from overrunning the process.

The Emperor
Seeing as how there are scant few folk on this planet who get to tell me what to do any longer ... howzabout you putting forth your ideas as to exactly how martial arts instruction could be regulated in the U.S.A.? In fact, I think I'll refrain from arguing the point with you until you provide a more definitive laundry list.

And, since you've chosen to place this in the TKD section, I'd like to see your list specifically related to TKD, else request this thread be moved to a venue wherein this topic may be explored in a more broad sense.
 

SFC JeffJ

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
9,141
Reaction score
44
I think the whole idea of having a government bureaucracy overseeing martial arts is bad. The idea of some people, that will have to be paid somehow, who in all likelihood would be political appointees, governing martial instruction, I think would become disastrous. There would be arbitrary rules put in place and no matter how well versed the person/people is/are versed in different arts, there would be gaps in their knowledge.

The best way to insure good quality martial arts instruction is too teach good martial arts and ignore the schools of poor quality. If a person really wants quality instruction, it's pretty easy for them to do research into these days. We do not need the government involved.

Jeff
 

matt.m

Senior Master
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
2,521
Reaction score
121
Location
St. Louis
I am going to chime in with Jeff, ignore the mcdojo, buy your black belt factory stuff and go on with your life.

I will use St. Louis community as I know it. I am not an expert but I do have some knowledge so I will put what I have observed.

Heres the thing: in my organization it takes 5 months to go from white to yellow, 6 from yellow to orange, 8 from orange to green, 8-9 months from green to blue. We go on a point system 1 pt. from class participation, 5 pt. for entering a tournament or doing a demo. 5 pt. for 1st, 3 for 2nd, and 2 for a 3rd place showing. You can accumulate 20 pts. for a weekend seminar. Choose one of three options, there is 3 a year. You guys get the idea. In Missouri the class fees are $40.00 a month, $105.00 for a three month payment. I know in Colorado and Florida it is $20 a month more, but it was set for c.o.l.a.

Now, I know 3 tae kwon doist from one school it took them no longer than a year and a half to get their dan. These guys were 4th dan in three years. In Moo Sul Kwan, there has never been a student start as white to finish go to dan in under four years.

The students of the other school signed a bank draft agreement for a 100.00 eft. They have paid for lessons only, up to 4 a week. This doesn't include belt test fees. They have tab or stripes for intermediates between main belts. So the teacher guarantees a student base, he also guarantees a ton of money for belt test fees.

However, the buy your black belt club is hanging out at the well to do areas of town doing Saturday demos and the soccer moms are doing what they think is right. These schools are the ones with the gold, they are the main tae kwon do community to the general public. It is crazy.

With some kind of regulation policies being put in place there will be a grandfather clause so whatever school is in current operation will still be after the regulation process takes effect.

Oh by the way, all the dans at the particular school have kukkiwon certifications so they have their blessing.

I have always said all along that the best instructors are the ones you never hear about unless it is word of mouth for the most part. Not the mall.

So, what happens to the smaller student based school that is in it for good instruction? They pay a lot of money for regulation certs. etc. etc. It can put a school in a bind. I say it is not good.
 

exile

To him unconquered.
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
10,665
Reaction score
251
Location
Columbus, Ohio
Folks---I don't think the idea of regulation necessarily requires government regulation. EofK's idea is that there should be some kind of quality control in the MAs, but we don't necessarily need goverment oversight. My take on EofK's suggestion is something like what happens in ski instruction. There is a national body, the Professional Ski Instructors Association, which issues certifications, and qualification is very demanding. There are several levels: a kind of associate membership, corresponding in effect to high colored belt rank, full membership, correspoding to the first couple of dan ranks, and then examiner certification, meaning that you are qualified (and required) to evaluate candidates for certification. PSIA has a very detailed syllabus, which changes over time to reflects improvements in ski technique made available by new ski technologies. Instructors are required to participate in a certain number workshops ever few years in order to keep themselves up to standard on what new technical and instructional methods have been discovered; there are liason groups with racing associations (since so much improvement is due to incorporating techniques pioneered by racers), with freestyle groups (same thing---mogul skiing has had a big impact on ski instruction) and so on. Ski hills are under a lot of pressure to maintain highly credentialed staff---instruction, particularly at the entry level, is one of their biggest sources of income---and they typically require their instructors to either have at least associate membership or to go up for testing for that when they've served an `apprenticeship' of a couple of seasons. Once you're an associate member, your hill will usually require you to go up for full as soon as you've put in the necessary years at the associate level. The testing, on both the technical and teaching end, is very demanding. The result is that ski instruction is very highly respected among the American skiing public, and the PSIA is very proactive in testing and refining both technical aspects and teaching methodology. There are no McDojs. in ski instruction, at least that I had heard of when I was involved in ski racing and teaching.

The PSIA model might be a starting place for a model of MA instruction along the same lines. While as I say I think EofK's ideas about quality control in the profession could be accomodated by something along these lines, w/o government regulation, in some countries, the government is the regulatory authority---I believe that's the case in France and Italy, though that might be a misimpression---in other places it isn't, but both models seem to work pretty well as long as the instructors demand the highest standards of themselves both in teaching and in technical knowledge. The important thing is that you can do it w/o making it a governmental function...

Just a thought...
 

SFC JeffJ

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
9,141
Reaction score
44
Folks---I don't think the idea of regulation necessarily requires government regulation. EofK's idea is that there should be some kind of quality control in the MAs, but we don't necessarily need goverment oversight. My take on EofK's suggestion is something like what happens in ski instruction. There is a national body, the Professional Ski Instructors Association, which issues certifications, and qualification is very demanding. There are several levels: a kind of associate membership, corresponding in effect to high colored belt rank, full membership, correspoding to the first couple of dan ranks, and then examiner certification, meaning that you are qualified (and required) to evaluate candidates for certification. PSIA has a very detailed syllabus, which changes over time to reflects improvements in ski technique made available by new ski technologies. Instructors are required to participate in a certain number workshops ever few years in order to keep themselves up to standard on what new technical and instructional methods have been discovered; there are liason groups with racing associations (since so much improvement is due to incorporating techniques pioneered by racers), with freestyle groups (same thing---mogul skiing has had a big impact on ski instruction) and so on. Ski hills are under a lot of pressure to maintain highly credentialed staff---instruction, particularly at the entry level, is one of their biggest sources of income---and they typically require their instructors to either have at least associate membership or to go up for testing for that when they've served an `apprenticeship' of a couple of seasons. Once you're an associate member, your hill will usually require you to go up for full as soon as you've put in the necessary years at the associate level. The testing, on both the technical and teaching end, is very demanding. The result is that ski instruction is very highly respected among the American skiing public, and the PSIA is very proactive in testing and refining both technical aspects and teaching methodology. There are no McDojs. in ski instruction, at least that I had heard of when I was involved in ski racing and teaching.

The PSIA model might be a starting place for a model of MA instruction along the same lines. While as I say I think EofK's ideas about quality control in the profession could be accomodated by something along these lines, w/o government regulation, in some countries, the government is the regulatory authority---I believe that's the case in France and Italy, though that might be a misimpression---in other places it isn't, but both models seem to work pretty well as long as the instructors demand the highest standards of themselves both in teaching and in technical knowledge. The important thing is that you can do it w/o making it a governmental function...

Just a thought...
Not a bad idea, pretty good one actually, but I don't see it happening. It'd be like herding cats with all the different organizations out there. Legit and otherwise.

Jeff
 

Brian R. VanCise

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
27,758
Reaction score
1,520
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
This has already been tried with Napma and its related off shoots. Not a bad idea at all but the people at the top were and are more interested in making their money than in really regulating quality. That is at least my opinion based on first hand experience. They do and did however give out good information that is currently being used in many a McDojo! However quality was never really an issue with organizations like this.
 

exile

To him unconquered.
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
10,665
Reaction score
251
Location
Columbus, Ohio
Not a bad idea, pretty good one actually, but I don't see it happening. It'd be like herding cats with all the different organizations out there. Legit and otherwise.

Jeff

I know, it would probably be a harder sell in the MAs than in skiing, for historical reasons. But there are some interesting parallels. The first hot-shot ski instructors that the American public saw were Austrians, who left Europe, where they were regarded as one-step above agricultural laborers by the toney Eurogentry who took lessons at ritzy ski-hills, and came to the US where their standard of living shot way up and they were treated with deference and courted by major ski resorts (mostly in the east in those days).
They came in with serious attitude---in Austria we do it this way, and that's the only way to do it; then later, well, in France we do avalement and we've beaten you flat in competition for the last three years, so our way is better, blah blah blah. But of course, the racers do what works best, so a kind of international racing technique evolved and become the basis for everyone's story about the best way for you to turn those skis...

But yeah, there never were so many separate federations and associations and organization in the ski world as in the MA world. What the ski people in the US discovered---and the structure in Canada is similar, there is a private organization of professions, and the leadership in both outfits are some of the most dazzling skiers you can imagine---was that quality instuction was in everyone's interest. When people realized that PSIA or Canadian Ski Instructors Alliance certification was a take-to-the-bank guarantee that the person teaching you was not only a terrific skier but had been trained in the most effective methods of teaching skiing, the number of people who started getting into skiing via organized group or private lessons skyrocketted. If for no other reason than long-term self-interest, MA instructors and entrepreneurs could probably consider something similar. But as you say, probably won't happen. Too many egos, for one thing... herding cat, for sure.
 

Flying Crane

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
15,230
Reaction score
4,920
Location
San Francisco
The Scuba Diving industry is also self regulated. There are recognized certification agencies, all private, who give instruction. If you can't show that you have successfully passed instruction in one of these agencies, no reputable dive shop will fill your tanks, or take you out on a diving excursion in their boats.

There are problems in this approach, however. PADI (Professional Association of Diving Instructors) is the largest US based agency and does probably 80% or more of all diver certification in the US. There are a dozen or so other agencies that pick of the remaining 20%, including SSI, NAUI, YMCA, and some others that I have only vaguely heard of. So what happens is that the biggest agencies get the most recognition. If you have a PADI cert. card, you can show it anywhere in the world where you might want to dive, and it will be recognized and honored. If you show one of the smaller agencies, there are some places in the world that might not recognize and honor your cert. card. So if you spent a ton of money on a trip to some exotic location with the intention of doing a bunch of diving, then show up and flash your "XYZ" diver certification card, you just might get left on the docks when the boat leaves, and all the PADI people get to dive instead.

Now picture this same scenario in the Martial Arts. Every system would need to have its own Certifying Agency. Take a look at all the factions in Kenpo alone. Who thinks they could get a consensus on who gets to call the shots, and who gets to give out rank and tell everyone how things need to be done? How many splinter groups and spinoff groups exist? Do they suddenly become "illegitimate" if they don't come back into the fold of one of the bigger systems?

The difference in the Scuba Industry is that you can actually be prevented from diving, if you don't have the training. Like I said, no shop will fill your tanks or take you out. Buying your own air compressor and boat is expensive, so it's unlikely that someone would do this to simply do an end-run around the system, just so they can dive without being trained.

In the Martial Arts, nobody can stop you from practicing, or teaching. It just can't be done. I could teach someone in my living room, and nobody can tell me that I can't. I can practice all I want, and nobody can tell me I can't. The only thing that Regulating Bodies could do is perhaps prevent me from attending tournaments or seminars, or other events. If I am not interested in these things anyway, then it has no affect on what I do. I train, my teacher teaches me, I teach my students, it is all low-key, not in a commercial school, and nobody knows any better, and nobody can stop us. In short, if you don't submit to the will of the regulating body, there is nothing they can do to pull you into line. And personally, I think this is a good thing.

The government definitely needs to stay out of martial arts regulation altogether. And I just don't see private regulatory agencies being able to do this instead. Like someone else said, it would be like herding cats. It just won't happen. I think we are better off without it. Sure, there are a lot of abuses that happen, but within regulatory agencies we would be bitching about all the corruption instead. Trading one evil for another. At least in the private, unregulated sector, I can walk away from anything that I am not happy with. I am not stuck doing what somebody else tells me I have to do.
 

Kacey

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
16,462
Reaction score
227
Location
Denver, CO
To go back to the original question - although some very good points have already been brought up.
Korea has government regulation of martial arts instruction. You can't just go to Korea and hang a shingle. You must be licensed. Today, you even need to have earned a degree in Martial Arts Education to even get a job.

To those who assumed EoK meant government control... well, based on this statement, I assume that's what is meant also. Is it? Because that makes a difference in the rest of the debate.

Great Britian requires those who would teach martial arts to meet certain criteria to open and run a program.

Examples, please? I have a student from Great Britain, who came from an unaffiliated class (formerly ITF, but hadn't been for at least 10 years when he joined me 2 years ago, with 18 years experience) - he has never mentioned anything like this, although, in all fairness, I've never asked. I'll see what he says about it.

We in the U.S. have long fought the intrusion of government regulation into the martial arts industry. But why? Who will it harm? Who will it benefit?

Again, this seems to indicate EoK is looking for government regulation. Please clarify.

To answer the question, however, it will hurt the smaller classes - often the less-expensive ones, run in recreation centers, schools, and YMCAs, and available to those with little or no money - which will be least able to afford even a nominal fee for registration, requiring an increase in rates, and thus making it harder for those with little money to attend at all. In addition, there are quite a few regulated industries in which the oversight is so minimal and infrequent that it is worse than none at all; the licensure gives people a false sense of security, while the time between inspections (often years) leaves people on their own to follow rules or not, as they choose. The day care industry comes immediately to mind, as does the meat-packing industry.

It will benefit classes who draw their members from those who place value on such licensure... a group that is, in my opinion, shrinking daily as we hear about more and more issues that are (or should be) closely regulated that nonetheless escape government oversight - Congressional pages and congresspersons, for example.

It seems to me, the only way many of the problems we all complain about within the Martial Arts community can only be resolved by outside intervention. After some 60 years, it seems obvious we, the grand community of various schools, organizations, arts, etcetera ad infinitum, have proven ourselves completely incapable of policing ourselves. Thus, it will have to come via some regulatory body. Every other commerical and professional industry has already submitted to such regulation. This one seems to have had a rather long run...perhaps...overdue....for regulation. Already we have seen regulation enforced in certain communities, and some states have take up the gauntlet with mixed results.

Regulation should occur within the organizations, certainly; my organizations require instructors to work out with senior instructors on a regular basis, and to have other instructors test their students, to help maintain standards, and to ensure that instructors continue to work out and improve their skills - both personal and instructional. However, even within TKD there is an incredible variance in requirements, technique, technical details, forms, and so on; trying to establish an overarching standard that applies to all will either be so broad as to be meaningless, or narrow enough to preclude instructors in some of the smaller organizations from being able to qualify unless they certify through a different set of requirements than those they were taught, train under, and teach - which is, I think, a key part of the problem. If you leave overseeing to organizations, then [SIZE=-1]who will guard the guardians? If you leave it outside organizations, then who will set the standards, and how? Will they be different for each organization? If so, set by whom? Overseen by whom? If not - how will you choose what to oversee, and what to leave out? Who decides? And how? By numbers, we come back to the problem with smaller organizations being overwhelmed by the requirements of larger ones; by organizations, we come back to only the organization being able to police itself - which is where we are now.[/SIZE]

Nonetheless....it will probably happen sooner or later.

Why? I mean this in all seriousness - you have made this statement unsupported, and I would like to know your reasons.

Thus, it is incumbent upon us to think now about what criteria should be applied, how it should be applied, and who should apply it.

This is only true if one accepts your previous statement as true.

I would like posters in this thread to take up this discussion and list specifics they believe should be addressed. Rather than just post the usual rhetoric railing against regulation....please accept the challenge of trying to come up with an actual solution instead of just complaining about it. It is easy to sit back an criticize. It takes greater application of cognitive skill and character to offer a viable plan. Debating the pros and cons is quite acceptable, but please don't let it degridate into a pitched battle of words about how something won't work. At least explain in detail why.

JH

It is easy to state a problem, give a position, and sit back without stating your reasons, and then not accept the statements of others who do the same - which is, in my opinion, what you've just done. Please hold yourself to the same standard you are asking of the rest of us; otherwise, you lose your option to complain when we don't.
 

exile

To him unconquered.
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
10,665
Reaction score
251
Location
Columbus, Ohio
The Scuba Diving industry is also self regulated. There are recognized certification agencies, all private, who give instruction. If you can't show that you have successfully passed instruction in one of these agencies, no reputable dive shop will fill your tanks, or take you out on a diving excursion in their boats.

There are problems in this approach, however. PADI (Professional Association of Diving Instructors) is the largest US based agency and does probably 80% or more of all diver certification in the US. There are a dozen or so other agencies that pick of the remaining 20%, including SSI, NAUI, YMCA, and some others that I have only vaguely heard of. So what happens is that the biggest agencies get the most recognition. If you have a PADI cert. card, you can show it anywhere in the world where you might want to dive, and it will be recognized and honored. If you show one of the smaller agencies, there are some places in the world that might not recognize and honor your cert. card. So if you spent a ton of money on a trip to some exotic location with the intention of doing a bunch of diving, then show up and flash your "XYZ" diver certification card, you just might get left on the docks when the boat leaves, and all the PADI people get to dive instead.

Ah, that's a real difference with the skiiers (at least when we're talking country-internal). It's just one big tent. That wasn't always the case. Way back when, Stein Erickson had a national network of ski schools, and they had their own training and certification programs. But when the PSIA came in, Erickson's network kind of faded away after a while. SE-certified instructors realized that to be mobile---and mobility is a big fact of life in the semi-nomadic world of ski-instruction---they needed the full PSIA cert. So then they would go apprentice at a PSIA hill, and get absorbed into that setup.

Now picture this same scenario in the Martial Arts. Every system would need to have its own Certifying Agency. Take a look at all the factions in Kenpo alone. Who thinks they could get a consensus on who gets to call the shots, and who gets to give out rank and tell everyone how things need to be done? How many splinter groups and spinoff groups exist? Do they suddenly become "illegitimate" if they don't come back into the fold of one of the bigger systems?

I know, the mind recoils in horror at all the bloodletting that would be going on. I can imagine something similar in TKD, with the WTF, ITF and ATA all going at it. In a sense, you could say, well, what that shows is that the instructional federation should be syle-neutral---but yeah, how likely is that? It could happen, but only if there were some kind of crisis that forced the various approaches to unite for the sake of survival. My impression is that something like this did happen, roughly, in the ski industry in the USA, and that's what provided the impetus for the formation of the PSIA.

The difference in the Scuba Industry is that you can actually be prevented from diving, if you don't have the training. Like I said, no shop will fill your tanks or take you out. Buying your own air compressor and boat is expensive, so it's unlikely that someone would do this to simply do an end-run around the system, just so they can dive without being trained.

In the Martial Arts, nobody can stop you from practicing, or teaching. It just can't be done. I could teach someone in my living room, and nobody can tell me that I can't. I can practice all I want, and nobody can tell me I can't. The only thing that Regulating Bodies could do is perhaps prevent me from attending tournaments or seminars, or other events. If I am not interested in these things anyway, then it has no affect on what I do. I train, my teacher teaches me, I teach my students, it is all low-key, not in a commercial school, and nobody knows any better, and nobody can stop us. In short, if you don't submit to the will of the regulating body, there is nothing they can do to pull you into line. And personally, I think this is a good thing.

The government definitely needs to stay out of martial arts regulation altogether. And I just don't see private regulatory agencies being able to do this instead. Like someone else said, it would be like herding cats. It just won't happen. I think we are better off without it. Sure, there are a lot of abuses that happen, but within regulatory agencies we would be bitching about all the corruption instead. Trading one evil for another. At least in the private, unregulated sector, I can walk away from anything that I am not happy with. I am not stuck doing what somebody else tells me I have to do.

I think the fragmentation in the MAs is so great that just the practical problems alone are probably too great to overcome, even with a private, non-sectarian MA analogue to the PSIA or, to a somewhat lesser extent, to the PADA. Not that it hasn't happened on a small scale in the past---the WTF in effects represents a local version of that, with the separate Kwans giving up their autonomy and becoming components of a larger certifying structure. And it's funny, at least some of us spend a fair amount of time moaning about how we wish the old fragmented Kwan system was back in place... look how many TKDists want you to know that they're this Kwan or that Kwan, even though those Kwans really don't have any kind of separate institutional identity for the most part anymore, within TKD, at least... yeah, maybe we want to keep the diversity of the current setup and take the bad with the good... ??
 

Flying Crane

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
15,230
Reaction score
4,920
Location
San Francisco
OK, I've got a few more thoughts on this...

Getting back to the Scuba Diving example. Part of the reason the government has not jumped in to regulate scuba diving is because of the success that the industry has in self-regulation. Education programs in scuba are quite good regardless of the certifying agency, and the sport has a track record with a low rate of injury. So the government has been content to stay on the sidelines.

I don't know that the martial arts in general has a large number of real injuries. Sure, bumps and bruises and the like, stuff that you can expect when practicing a contact, combat art definitely occur, but how many people end up in the hospital, with life-threatening injuries that they get from daily training? Probably not very many, and this helps keep the government at bay.

To anyone who thinks it is somehow inevitable that the government will get involved, I would ask why do you think this? If they don't have a reason to get involved, such as excessive injuries, then they won't.

Remember lessons from history: what did the Okinawans do when the Japanese invaded? They took their training underground, and even got innovative and developed weaponry like the sai, nunchaku, and tonfa.

In Brazil, the government is trying to gain regulatory control over Capoeira. Most capoeiristas are not jumping on the bandwagon. It is clear to them that they would just be fighting with a corrupt beurocracy if it happened. This very idea runs so strongly against the very traditions that capoeira is a part of, that it just makes no sense. The art was developed by the slaves, the lowest on the social ladder, they were even under the ladder, the downtrodden and powerless. They developed the art as a means to fight back. It was underground for a long time. To think that the government could control it is simply silly.

Remember another thing: Regulation most certainly means Standardization. Creativity and innovation will be crushed. One of the things that makes the martial arts so wonderful and rich is the huge variety of different arts. And within the same art, we encounter creativity and innovation by those who are free thinkers. If Regulatory Agencies came into power, whether private or government, this creativity and innovation will be supressed. What would end up being taught would certainly be a watered down, junky version of limited value.

Just think about Modern Wushu. This was created by the Communist Chinese governent in the 1950s, as a "national" art and sport, and the traditional fighting arts were suppressed for a long time. Sure, it can be spectacular, but its value as a martial art is really limited. The focus has changed, to be performance and competition, and flash. Impressive as an athletic endeavor, but unimpressive as a martial art. Thankfully the traditional fighting arts did go underground and were preserved, but those who did this were taking a big risk in disobeying the government.

So if Martial Arts in the US become regulated, the real stuff will just go underground and be done behind closed doors. No matter what Standardized crap is taught in a formal school, the really good stuff will be taught and practiced by a select few in the background, when nobody is looking. The real arts would survive, but they would have to go back into hiding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Discussions

Top