Standardized Martial Arts.

While discussing other topics, I was forced to do some research about Martial Arts, in general. I discovered, to my suprprise, that there is no standardized format to the teaching or learning of Martial Arts.

For instance, whether you get an M.S. in Math at Harvard or at Stanford or at Oxord or at the Sorbonne, basically, it has the same value as they all teach basically the same thing in more or less the same time. Everyone has to study real and imaginary numbers, statistics and probability and so on. This is not the case in MA.

I am not an expert in MA but common sense dictates that there can only be a limited number of physical skills necessary in any MA. A person has only a limited number of body parts and they all function in the same way, really, for everyone. While different MAs may focus on different things, why isn't there a place that allows one to learn the basics necessary to ANY martial art, the way one completes 12 years of school, to acquire the basic skills to study any discipline, in college? It seems to me that developing speed, power, agility/flexibility, and analytical skills would be the crucial skills required in any type of self-defense, physical or intellectual. Once one has these skills, it does not really matter what specific technique one uses to employ them.

For instance, if you have a graduate degree in math, you can be a math teacher, a philosopher, a computer programmer, etc. Each specific field would require an additional subset of skills but the basic math skills would be essential to all of them. So, again, my question is, why isn't there a standardized program that teaches such skills? At present, a black belt at one dojo may be completely meaningless at another. Having studied martial arts for 10 or 20 or 30 years is no indication of one's proficiency, as there are various types of MA and various types of teachers and dojos and so on. Such a situation would be unthinkable in almost any other field. For someone with a PhD in Physics at Yale, to be told that his degree is worthless in the Physics department at UCLA would be really strange!

Why isn't there some form of standardization equivalent (at least) to a high shool diploma or GED, in the martial arts?

Standardization within the martial arts??
HA, that will be the day.
How would they test for that? Based on what people know? Or what actualy works on a self defense basis? Should they pass more than one test, one based on knowledge of their art? One based on their fighting skills? It should cover all fighting ranges however.

I don't know...
I do think if they attempted to Standardize Martial Arts, it would bring even more controversy in some form or fashion.

Welcome to the conundrum that is the Martial Arts!!!
[IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG]

JohnL

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anpadh:

For instance, whether you get an M.S. in Math at Harvard or at Stanford or at Oxord or at the Sorbonne, basically, it has the same value as they all teach basically the same thing in more or less the same time. Everyone has to study real and imaginary numbers, statistics and probability and so on. This is not the case in MA.

[/QUOTE]

I beg to differ, if all would be of the same value, why would people prefer certain universities over others? Not just the students but in biz. you are more likely to get a job with Harvard, Oxford or Stanford Papers than with papers of some small university in New Mexico

Besides that, Martial Arts is a general term
Within styles, the standard is often there, everyone within the style knows what is required for a specific belt

Compare it to Psychology, there are different camps there

Math is an exact science, MA is not

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anpadh:

For instance, whether you get an M.S. in Math at Harvard or at Stanford or at Oxord or at the Sorbonne, basically, it has the same value as they all teach basically the same thing in more or less the same time. Everyone has to study real and imaginary numbers, statistics and probability and so on. This is not the case in MA.

I am not an expert in MA but common sense dictates that there can only be a limited number of physical skills necessary in any MA. A person has only a limited number of body parts and they all function in the same way, really, for everyone. While different MAs may focus on different things, why isn't there a place that allows one to learn the basics necessary to ANY martial art, the way one completes 12 years of school, to acquire the basic skills to study any discipline, in college? It seems to me that developing speed, power, agility/flexibility, and analytical skills would be the crucial skills required in any type of self-defense, physical or intellectual. Once one has these skills, it does not really matter what specific technique one uses to employ them.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with you, really. Bruce Lee even made the following quote;

"Unless there are human being with three arms and four legs, unless we have another group of being on earth that are structurally different from us, there can be no different style of fighting."

"Why is that? Because we have 2 hands and 2 legs. The important thing is how can we use them to the maximum? In terms of paths (i.e., the geometry of your attacking limbs), they can be used in a straight line, curved line, up, round line. They might be slow but, depending on the circumstances, sometimes they may not be slow. And in terms of legs, you can kick up, straight -- same thing, right?"

"Physically then, you have to ask yourself "how can I become so very well coordinated? Well, that means you have to be an athlete; using jogging and all those basic ingredients, right?"


Martial arts IS a very broad, very general term. And while MA itself is not scientific, fighting however CAN BE. By being scientific I don't mean any more or any less predictable, but seriously, when you totally understand the way the human body works, and moves, you can then see an 'unpatternized pattern' in my opinion.

The basic ingredients mentioned above, such as flexibility, speed, power etc... are all VERY MUCH IMPORTANT TO THE MARTIAL ARTIST NO MATTER THEIR PERSONAL GOALS! Be it self defense, sport, money, etc...
And science has grasped hold of such things so that we now have a safer, more productive method of training these key ingredients.

I don't think we'll ever see martial arts standardized though, in order to do that, science would have to comb through each and every traditional princible (which is has done already for the most part) and throw out all the BS. And there would in fact be a lot of BS thrown out. Instead of evolving, traditionalist love living in the past.

I think what should be done, however, is have a standardized fitness and nutrition test for ALL MA instructors. So they can be onboard the scientific boat with the training aspect of their art. They will still teach their art, but the methods of training the skills would have to evolved into a much safer way.

It would still be up to the student to go out and search for themselves the answers of their questions.

Anpadh,
A meal at McDonald's can be enjoyable.
It is provided hot, fast and at a reasonable price.
Most people would not consider it art. The the franchise is successful primarily because of its "standardized" system.
As artists VanGogh and Rembrant both used brushes, pigment, and canvas. What they did with those tools was very different. Both are recognized as masters. They are recognized for their expression of their art, not their tools.

Speaking of McDonalds, a NUTRITION test for all MA instructors?? I doubt CHEFS have to pass that. I teach karate, not even holistic health, which is much less scientific than the karate!

Hello Anpadh:

No, in a word.

There is generic standardization, in the following sense. By the end of a certain period, marked by the granting of the dan ranking, (ie. the Shodan, the black belt), in those Japanese/Okinawan art forms... one has a solid, fundamental, and basic foundation of knowledge and the ability to express same according to the individual(s) who said you had attained the rank.

One is not ready to engage in the practice of teaching. That is a seperate skill.

When one learns a language, or a skill, cooking, gardening, driving... are we ready to instantly teach those skills? Of course not. If we do, shall we have the same ability that the person who does so for a living possesses? Can we teach adults? Can you teach young children? There are different methods, techniques one must ingrain to teach different groups. The only way that is effectively possible is via EXPERIENCE at doing so.

In this manner, a skilled person, a smart person will understand the craft they are offering others. Done almost any other manner, and the instruction is haphazard, short term, and often tragically poor quality.

Time is required to gain such skills. Experience is an excellent teacher...
I can teach you many things, but prefer you learn them from those who have decades of experience showing others this information, having explored it themselves. Can I learn from a child genius, certainly. Will I choose to, not likely.... If the learning is done rapidly... IMO-fwiw it cannot be done deeply enough to learn it well. Martial arts unlike academia cannot be purely a mental comprehension... it is a intimately physical study.

Perhaps one reason there is no standard, is because the study itself is almost purely individualized. However long it takes to absorb the information to attain that level of comprehension varies. What one does with these "tools" have many different avenues... many outlets. Because there are so many possible variables, how could a single standard be written for it? Why would/SHOULD I care what a stranger thought of my given abilities, skills? Nice if they acknowledge them, but very little if they think less of me, or do not agree.

Does this help? I am not sure I am being especially clear today...
Jeff

[This message has been edited by Ronin1966 (edited 07-28-2004).]

I have seen this many times as Black Belts from different styles step on the mat in a BJJ or Judo class.

Same thing with skilled grapplers putting on the gloves for the first time to box.

Nice to be functional in all areas even if you have a favorite. This is rarely addressed in Traditional MA.

Toudiyana, you are focusing on the prestige value of different names. What I am saying is that you learn basically the same thing from various institutions that grant the same degree. You don't learn Quantum Physics or Platonic philosophy in Kindergarten. All KG classes teach students the same basic set of skills. Similarly all students in a particular discipline learn the same basic set of skills. Moreover, even math is not an exat science when you study it at extremely advanced levels. And even when you get a Psychology degree, there is a certain consenus as to what constitutes a psychology degree. You can't study geography and say you have a degree in psychology.

Oldman, even in an art form there are certain basic skills. If you want to paint, for instance, you have to know that there are only a few primary colors and other colors can be created by mixing these primary colors. You have to know when and how to use various types of brushes and canvases and so on. Van Gogh worked in a style known as Impressionism. He had a very pecific technique that can be and has been reproduced. Van Gogh's skill, of course, cannot be reproduced.

Ronin, you talk about a solid, fundamental and basic foundation of knowledge. I am asking for a clarification of exactly that. What constitutes "a solid, fundamental and basic foundation of knowledge'? Knowing a variety of kicks and punches? Breaking bricks? Telekinesis? Gymnastics?

Andpath,

There are very few techniques that are done the same way across styles. Some techniques even have variations within a style. While the application may look similar, and the end result is the same, the actual technique can vary wildly.

For example, I did TKD for a few years, the twisting motion in the front punch was continous from start to finish. I now practice Wado, and we apply the twist at the last second. The list of differences go on and on.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anpadh:
Toudiyana, you are focusing on the prestige value of different names. What I am saying is that you learn basically the same thing from various institutions that grant the same degree. You don't learn Quantum Physics or Platonic philosophy in Kindergarten. All KG classes teach students the same basic set of skills. Similarly all students in a particular discipline learn the same basic set of skills. Moreover, even math is not an exat science when you study it at extremely advanced levels. And even when you get a Psychology degree, there is a certain consenus as to what constitutes a psychology degree. You can't study geography and say you have a degree in psychology.

[/QUOTE]

I know this is prestige but the reason why they are so prestigious is because they deliver on their peomise, why else would a company prefer people from those institutes, if not because they think they will get better worth for their money
How does an institute get Prestige value on their name to begin with?

Allso you actually pointed out why there is no standard in MA, they all vary but even then there is some standardisation

For instance within our (dutch) Nationall Karate Assoc, the BB exams are as standardised as possible
All have to do Oi(jun)Zuki, Gyaku zuki, Mae geri, Mawashi Geri, yoko geri (sokuto), Ushiro geri, several blocks etc etc
the difference lies in the way they perform the techniques as well as in the renraku waza ( combination techniques)forms and (yakusoku) Kumite

within Judo, there is standardisation as withing a lot of arts
You use the term Martial arts, but that would be equal to saying Sports, you don't expect to have standardisation between 2 different sports, even if they look somewhat simular like Rugby or American Football

Don't know if you want to standardize MA - that's how TKD came about. It would be nice to say a BB is a BB, that this 6th degree must be of near equal ability with that one. But that'll never happen.

Besides, standardization stifles creativity.

Toudiyana,

How a certain institution gains prestige is a very complex question and has nothing to do with standardizing Martial Arts. For instance, certain schools gain prestige because all of their graduates get good jobs. Others gain prestige because they employ only certain types of teachers (Nobel Prize winners, disciples of a certain person, etc.) or because they are funded by certain types of people/institutiions. You are still missing my main point, which is that all academic degrees of the same level indicate that the students have all learned basically the same things. A BS in Biology indicates that the person has studied biology, not astrophysics. Moreover, he should know more than a high-school student but less than someone who has a PhD in the subject. There may be individual exceptions to the rule, but that IS the general rule.

Ironfoot, I must disagree with you when you say that standardization stifles creativity. It is only when one has a standard to measure oneself against that one knows the extent of one's own creativity. For instance, you may think you have invented a great new technique in painting, not realizing that you are simply employing the Impressionist technique. You need to KNOW what the standard way of doing something is, before you can be creative and do it in a new way.

Canuck,

Thank you for helping me make my point! I agree that the same result can be achieved in, as you put it, wildly differing ways. So, if one had knowledge of, say, the 100 different ways of delivering a punch, a certain style of MA may require that you learn 20 of them. Another style may require you to learn 15 or 25 or whatever. However, once a system standardizes the number and types of punches, kicks, etc. to be learned, then one should be able to go to any dojo in the world and learn essentially the same things, if studying that system. As always, of course, the quality of schools, teachers, and students, will vary. Still, it helps to know what the standard is, so that a person has a fairly accurate idea of his/her own skill-level in a certain style of MA.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anpadh:
Canuck,

Thank you for helping me make my point! I agree that the same result can be achieved in, as you put it, wildly differing ways. So, if one had knowledge of, say, the 100 different ways of delivering a punch, a certain style of MA may require that you learn 20 of them. Another style may require you to learn 15 or 25 or whatever. However, once a system standardizes the number and types of punches, kicks, etc. to be learned, then one should be able to go to any dojo in the world and learn essentially the same things, if studying that system. As always, of course, the quality of schools, teachers, and students, will vary. Still, it helps to know what the standard is, so that a person has a fairly accurate idea of his/her own skill-level in a certain style of MA.[/QUOTE]


The fact is that this is already the case for most styles
In Wado Karate, we know what is the standard for a certain belt, in Kyokushin, the same
Within the style most is standardised already

If not for the lower grades than at least for the grades like Black belt

I don't think there is a problem there, the problem arrises when laypeople think BB can be compared between styles/arts

Essentially correct. Within a style, techniques are standard. Grading requirements are prety standard. Different associations of the same style may have slighly different requirement for a certain belt, but if you are a BB in a style, your body of knowledge will be the same as other BB in that style.

I do Wado, I do not expectto walk into a TKD dojang and know their techniques, I will know the techniques in any other Wado dojo.

I dno't think that anybody will argue that there is, and needs to be standardization, within a style. Your original post implied the need for standards ACROSS styles. Will not, can not, happen.

[This message has been edited by CanuckMA (edited 08-04-2004).]

Anpadh, I agree with you up to a point. When teenagers come onto this forum and say they want to create a new "style" combining various MA systems, I cringe because they don't even half-understand any of them. You can combine all the systems you want in your own fighting repitoire, but don't presume that you've invented a new "style".

But Shimabuku KNEW goju-ryu and shorin-ryu before inventing isshinryu. All the great masters we recognize today KNEW existing systems and thankfully created something else.

Standardization is fine within a system up to a point. Without any creativity all we could hope for would be to pass along 99.9% of what we were taught, and as generations went on we'd have one very weak style.

Besides, how old ARE these styles?? Isshinryu is only 50, Shotokan 82 and TKD 58, regardless of how old they profess to be.
Sure, their bases may be centuries old, but someone got creative! And these styles can still be improved on.

Little correction Shotokan is NOT 82 years old, 1922 was the introduction of karate not the founding of Shotokan that was 1935, well actually that was the opening of the dojo with that name
The style itself was shaped by the son of Funakoshi so the style is actually younger than Wado ( is it obvious I'm a wado person?)

Some of you have implied that there is already standardization within a style. However, while you may personally feel so, there is no such agreement. While I can take a BS or a BA degree from any major university, anywhere in the world and be recognized for that level of knowledge, in any similar institution, that is not the case in the martial arts.

A certain instructor may give you a first degree black belt in TKD, but another instructor, even in the same city, may decide to drop you down by one belt or more, and telling him that you have a BB already is no use, even when it is easily verifiable, with a single local phone call. Now, YOU may feel that your knowledge adn skill-level is the same as any other BB in TKD, but does every TKD dojo-owner and instructor NECESSARILY agree with you?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Toudiyama:
Little correction Shotokan is NOT 82 years old, 1922 was the introduction of karate not the founding of Shotokan that was 1935, well actually that was the opening of the dojo with that name
The style itself was shaped by the son of Funakoshi so the style is actually younger than Wado ( is it obvious I'm a wado person?)[/QUOTE]

An interesting thought, but if you take it to it's logical conclusion, every style is shaped by the last person to teach it.

therefore no style is more than about 5 minutes old.

JohnL

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnL:
An interesting thought, but if you take it to it's logical conclusion, every style is shaped by the last person to teach it.

therefore no style is more than about 5 minutes old.

JohnL

[/QUOTE]


The son of Funakoshi is the one responsible for the stylespecifics of Shotokan, deep routed stances and large movements
The Karate of Funakoshi Sr looked much more like Wado, he didn't introduce his own style, he passed on Okinawa Karate

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anpadh:
Some of you have implied that there is already standardization within a style. However, while you may personally feel so, there is no such agreement. While I can take a BS or a BA degree from any major university, anywhere in the world and be recognized for that level of knowledge, in any similar institution, that is not the case in the martial arts.[/QUOTE]

Any Wado dojo I will enter will acknowledge my black belt
Why do you say that within the style there is no such agreement?

[QUOTE]
A certain instructor may give you a first degree black belt in TKD, but another instructor, even in the same city, may decide to drop you down by one belt or more, and telling him that you have a BB already is no use, even when it is easily verifiable, with a single local phone call. Now, YOU may feel that your knowledge adn skill-level is the same as any other BB in TKD, but does every TKD dojo-owner and instructor NECESSARILY agree with you?[/QUOTE]

The problem isn't MA it is people venturing out on their own starting McDojos
Everyone is free to teach as far as the state is concerned
I could watch some tapes and then call my self master 7th degree black belt, start my own org and still call it TKD

This is something that is more likely to happen in the US than in Europe
In Europe most countries have governing bodies and usualy only one per MArtial art ( per country of course but also european)
1 TKD assoc, 1 karate ASooc, 1 judo assoc
etc etc
In the Us you have many ( heck even boxing isn't unified)

I never have demoted anyone that came from anothe school, not even if the style was different
Heck neiter was I ever asked to take of my black belt even when I started another style, I chose not to wear it myself
Also at BB level everything is done by the governing assoc not the schools or teachers themself

Do you realy think that a Black Belt Kyokushin karate from Australia won't be recognized in the US?

Standardisation is there, it's just that in the US a lot of people choose not to adhere to it

The part that is missing in the US is standardisation of teaching, but any atempt to get that has failed upto now because all want to set the standard not follow someone else's

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Toudiyama:
The part that is missing in the US is standardisation of teaching, but any atempt to get that has failed upto now because all want to set the standard not follow someone else's

[/QUOTE]

Toudiyana,

I agree with you that teaching is not standardized, and that is exactly my point. It is irrelevant that some instructor(s) is/are good enough to ecognize your degree and your hard work. The point remains, however, that he/she is not REQUIRED to do so. The issue here is not merely one of internal standards within a dojo, but of recognition between dojos. Regardless of how exacting or lax standards are, within an insitution, the fact is that everyone can be required to maintain certain minimum standards, just as schools and colleges in all other fields maintain minimum standards for their teachers and students.

In the Netherlands we have a system where the goverment recognises 1 assoc per sport as the official assoc, they can get grants and so on
To get this status they need a proper training program for the teachers
The Judo assoc (JBN) has it, the Karate assoc (KBN) has it, the TKD assoc (TBN) has it
One assoc that incorporates many asian MA FOG) has it too

So in my country we have standardisation in some MA especially for the trainers
I had to do 2 courses, 1 for assistant teacher 1 for teacher, it took me around 4 years in all

Judo has 3 courses, TKD 2 like Karate (WKF)

On the other hand most contactsport do not have it ( excluded boxing) as good as these 3 but still have teachers courses
I did 2 of those for Savate Instructor/teacher B and A but these were for people already teaching in another art

Heck even for recreational Sports leader ( for the games during camps and so on) I was properly trained by the Catholic sport assoc ( not a catholic though)

Toudiyama - sounds like a pretty good system. Too late to happen here in the US, though. The political infighting would be just too great.

My sensei doesn't even belong to ANY organization, and I was given my first membership in one just months ago. When asked about the validity of my rank, my answer is:
What does someone behind a desk in Okinawa know about me? I was given this rank by some people I have great respect for. Is the certificate what makes me a yondan or is it the knowledge and earned respect? I know there are Mafioso/Yakuza/outlaw bikers/(fill in your own organization here - try to find a POSITIVE model). Do THEY have certificates?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anpadh:
Toudiyana,

I agree with you that teaching is not standardized, and that is exactly my point. It is irrelevant that some instructor(s) is/are good enough to ecognize your degree and your hard work. The point remains, however, that he/she is not REQUIRED to do so. The issue here is not merely one of internal standards within a dojo, but of recognition between dojos. Regardless of how exacting or lax standards are, within an insitution, the fact is that everyone can be required to maintain certain minimum standards, just as schools and colleges in all other fields maintain minimum standards for their teachers and students.[/QUOTE]


Not alltogether true. Fully private schools, those that receive no gov't funding, are not required to adhere to any standards. That a common basic curriculum is taught is more a function that those schools' graduates will eventually integrate into mainstream educational system.

Remember that MA is still a hobby. There are many different ways of teaching, and many different ways of learning.

I think there is a kind of standard in BB within an Art, well within TMA, not one that sez what techniques but the one that sez you are ready to start learning because you understand the principles
That is why it is so much easier to crosstrain or switch once you are a BB
That is the reason why most TMA demand a minimum years of training and a minimum age( Maybe TKD excluded)
No matter how few techniques one has to know for Shodan, it should show in the way a person moves that he or she is a yudansha
Just spar for a couple of minutes and you can see if someone is around BB level or not
( I say around because I've had a few students that didn't want to go for BB)
And since most Budoka do not practice Martial ARTS but Martial WAYS, a BB doesn't neccesarely say anything about fighting skills

Canuck,

I agree that there are many different ways of teaching and learning ANYTHING. And, of course, anything may be a hobby. The study of painting or poetry may be a hobby to someone, but you can still get an MFA in Painting and MA in Literature.

Also, I think, someone brought up the question of the value of a degree. A degree, in itself, has no value. However, it IS a good INDICATOR of achievement, and, moer importantly, it is an official document. Personally, for instance, I would much rather be taken care of by a doctor who knew what he was doing, but did not have a degree rather than one who finally got a degree after failing his exams six times. Still, you would not be able to get employment in a hospital if you did not have a medical degree, regardless of the fact that you may know more about medicine than the doctors with the degrees.

But the degree, or BB, does not infer a standardized style of teaching.

Instructors teach MA the way they feel most comfortable. SOme will only teach certain techs at certain levels. Some will teach all, but only test the reqs at grading. It depends on the instructor, and the make up of the class. At the end, when you get your BB, you know all the techs, same as the BB from the SAME style who comes from a different school.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CanuckMA:
But the degree, or BB, does not infer a standardized style of teaching.
I am talking about there being a standard document, based on standards within a certain MA, that OFFICIALLY says that, for instance, a TKD BB is the same anywhere in the world, regardless of the teacher's style or the student's style or Cameron Diaz's style.