Government regulation of martial arts


After 28 years of continuous training in the traditional martial arts I get quite annoyed when someone compares me to a bloke who started up his own school after training for less than a year (sometimes in some made up drivel). We in Australia share the "McDojo" trend - there a number of different kinds - that allow people to teach after only a trivial amount of training.

On the other hand, would I support some sort of government intervention/registration in relation to martial arts? No way!

Since I have worked in government law (specifically in the area of legislation) since 1990, I feel I am qualified to make this assessment of the regulation of martial arts: it cannot work.

Who would decide who is a "legitimate" martial artist and who is not? You and I might have an idea (and have substantially the same opinion), but would you trust some government appointed committee? The very bloke who comes to your door to “sell” you martial arts after 12 months training might be chairman! He might say that you and I are the charlatans...

Copyright © 2008 Dejan Djurdjevic

Comments

  1. AnonymousMay 17, 2008 at 2:28 AM

    :O...

    These points you bring up Dan-dono are truly terrifying indeed.

    I imagine a disciple of a Mr. J or Mr. S would be able to wrangle a position of such power and prestige.

    What a landscape to imagine...0_0

    But, having said that surely government committees are made up of the leaders in their field? To suggest otherwise... Surely you jest.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ymar SakarDecember 3, 2012 at 4:18 AM

    Since McDojos would make the most money vs private guys teaching 5 quality super elite students, I don't think the good ones will have enough dollar signs to buy enough political clout to "set the rules" so to speak. Also even now people operating under federation rules don't get to do what they want to do. Meaning, the federation overlapping their small dojo actually gets them to lower standards, in order to fit a "unified scale". This is true in the ATA, but also in South Korea, where the ATA instructors came from. And that's not the only place either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan DjurdjevicDecember 3, 2012 at 8:45 AM

      Yes Ymar, the McDojos would have considerable clout.

      Delete
  3. Ymar SakarDecember 3, 2012 at 4:22 AM

    Many people propagate martial arts as a sort of one size fits all thing, like a mass produced black belt factory which already exists in large numbers in the modern world. Even the ones against McDojos, aren't aware of what their own ideas concerning "credentials" are based upon more and more.

    The idea of art, as in creative individual expression without limit, is a foreign concept. The larger the group, the smaller the creative freedom to do what you want to do, because there will always be more and more people telling you that you can't do it because, Xhe, or Zhe, or Yshe would be "inconvenienced".



    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Combat tai chi"? Seriously?

Image
Back in about 2009 I was talking to a friend of mine who does krav maga, telling him I was off to Taiwan to train in combat taijiquan (tai chi). He laughed. "Combat tai chi? Isn't that an oxymoron?" I can see why he thought that. Because when you look at the soft, slow art of taijiquan, adding the descriptor "combat" does seem to be a contradiction in terms. In fact, the idea of it being used for fighting can appear  ludicrously funny . And to be frank, in the case of most taiji practitioners - including many who profess "fighting skill" on the interwebs   - it almost certainly is. [In the case of the preceding link, note the string attacks against zombie opponents - more on that later!] By now, I doubt there is anyone in the martial arts who hasn't heard of the debacle that constituted the recent fight between MMA fighter Xu Xiadong and self-described Yang style taijiquan "master" Wei Lei. Xu beat Wei senseless in under 10
Read more

Understanding the internal arts

Image
More about the “soft” arts of China and the nature of “qi” In my article “ Internal vs. external martial arts ” I explain that the term “internal” is a reference to neijiaquan ("internal method fist") – a group of martial arts in China comprising taijiquan, baguazhang and xingyiquan, as well as some related arts and offshoots (eg. liu he ba fa and yi quan). These are easily identifiable arts with a very specific set of techniques based on common principles. The internal arts are commonly distinguished from other arts (named waijiaquan or “external method fist”). Many argue that this distinction arises because the former rely on “qi” (“ki” in Japanese) – a term literally meaning “breath” and often used to describe a metaphysical “energy”. Accordingly the term “internal” is often mistakenly seen as a reference to the “cultivation of qi internally”. In fact the word is just a reference to “inner family” in much the same way as some schools use the term “inner circle”: so ne
Read more

Karate punches vs. boxing punches

Image
Introduction In my article “ Kime: the soul of the karate punch ” I described the essential feature of the karate punch as being “focus” – ie. a combination of minimal deceleration before impact and optimum distancing – usually performed in karate with a straight thrust . Many have, and will continue to, argue that this straight thrust is less powerful than a boxer’s follow-through punches. This is true. But to understand why this does not necessarily mean that the former is less effective we’ll have to examine punching methods – what someone I know calls “delivery systems” – in greater detail. To the extent that karate punching is “less powerful”, I will then go on to examine why this is a tactical choice rather than a necessary failing. Categorising punches In a very general sense karate punches can be divided into 2 kinds: straight line and curved. In boxing, punches can be divided into 2 different categories that overlap with the karate ones, namely: 1. jabs (ie. punches which
Read more