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

Civilian defence systems

Image
Introduction It was in the late '80s in South Africa where I first heard my teacher Lao Tze Bob Davies describe what he taught as a "civilian defence system". At the time I paid little attention. It seemed nothing more than another variant on the term "self-defence", perhaps with some extra resonance because of its contrast with the military training undertaken by conscripts in the apartheid regime's armed forces. However over the intervening years I have had occasion to consider this term in greater detail and I am finally starting to understand its import. I now see that the significance of "civilian defence system" is two-fold. It serves to distinguish what we do from military methodology; that much is clear. But it also serves to distinguish our methodology from sports. The dynamics of sport or military fighting disciplines are significantly different to those of civilian defence. These differences have nothing short of a profound effe...
Read more

"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

"Looking away from your opponent" in traditional forms

Image
The double punch of naihanchi by Choki Motobu In traditional forms-based martial arts, whether they be Okinawan, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Indonesian etc., there is an unspoken rule - a cardinal assumption - that your head should face your "imaginary opponent" at all times. And when you think about it, this seems to make sense. Almost every analysis (in karate called "bunkai") of traditional forms takes this into consideration. So, for example, the sideways punches of the karate kata naihanchi/naifunchin are interpreted in a variety of ways - but all of them are consistent with your opponent being generally to your side. Then along comes the odd form/kata where that rule is broken - for no immediately apparent purpose. The most obvious case I can think of in karate is in the goju ryu kata saifa (see the technique below). Higaonna sensei performing saifa kata This technique is commonly interpreted in a way that largely, if not completely, ignores th...
Read more