'Lo all! I started this separate thread to discuss this specific topic without hijacking the thread which spawned it. (Which seems pretty well hijacked already.) Anyway - I know we're pretty much all way way too familiar with those individuals who claim grossly overblown titles and ranks in their - usually invented - art. Personally; this drives me totally bonkers because to me; all it is is cheap marketing and ego-stroking destroying an otherwise beautiful and fascinating study. It says to me that the person that claims the title of Soke Ur Haid in the 'ancient and deadly' art of Pee-Tsa-Do: 1) wants the ego boost and 'power' associated with high rank; and has neither the patience nor diligence to study for 60-odd years, and 2) as a direct result of 1); will most likely not have the technical or theoretical background (to say nothing about simple experience) required for such a rank. As a result; his art - whatever it is - is likely to be inferior to traditional arts in many ways. I know people are likely to howl when I use the term 'inferior'. Well; howl away, IMO. What makes Aikido such a great art? Exactly the same thing IMO that makes Karate what is is; and Kung-fu, and Tai Chi, Judo, etc. ad nauseam. These arts are great because they evolved. They were created - often with the strong underpinnings of older styles; as aikido did. They were created by practicioners of enormous skill and experience who took what they learned and developed it in a way that best suited their needs and desires. They taught these skills; further refining their art in the crucible of instruction. Over time; their students taught others in turn; putting their own spin on things. The arts evolved, developed tradition, became stronger. Now compare that with Guru Rama Lama Ding Dong over there. This dude basically decided he was totally hot...er...potatoes.. and decided to start his own style. Well; good, IMO - if I condemned that; I'd be condemning myself (not that I don't do that regularly anyway). If someone believes he has something worth teaching and has the need to do so outside his current system; well and good if what he teaches bears not only scrutiny but challenge. The scientific method applies in MA and SD arts. But that's the difference - the place where claiming high rank shows the flaw. Does someone under the age of 75 who claims 10th dan (barring direct heredity) have the necessary maturity and wisdom to keep a beginner's mind all his life? I doubt it - in fact; I'll lay a paycheck on my answer of 'no'. (Side note: Ever notice that all these 10th dans seem to be around my age - late 30's-late 40's? Hmmm - the old clock's goin' tick, tick, tick...) Thus the inferiority. Aikido - for example - was created by Ueshiba M. and is now directed by his grandson; who presides over the enormous wealth of experience, discipline and resouces of the aikido world. Besides the aforementioned benefits of tradition and knowledge; that also provides legitimacy and authority along a clearly-defined line from the lowest student to the Doshu himself. The self-proclaimed 10th Dan OTOH has only his own resources and experiences - and those are generally far too narrow and limited to even consider founding a new martial art. Tell you something though - it's tempting. When I developed and started teaching Great Wave; I thought - briefly - about awarding myself a 10th dan. After all; I'd created my own style, right? Hey; I'm teaching it to others - who might open their own dojos, right? I could be my own Founder! I actually toyed with those childish thought for a while - for about the time between one beer and the next. Just having them; and facing them, was a real eye-opener. It made me stop and look hard at what I was teaching and I realized that yes; what I was teaching worked. It worked great on the mat and experience has shown it works great in real life as well. That is; it worked well for me. How well does it work when someone is not a 6'4", 215lb. ex-Infantryman with a bad attitude? The answer was - I don't know. And that's when the other questions start coming in: What if I'm wrong? What if I'm missing something? What if my teaching gets a student killed? The thought terrifies me - hence my own path. No matter how long I do this; no matter how hard I study or how good I get; I'll never know enough to be a good MAist. Hopefully I'll get good enough to iron some of the bugs out though. Seems to me that anyone who claims high rank without the requisite time and energy is missing that crucial underpinning of humility - for lack of a better word - that stops him from thinking too highly of himself. Thus, ultimately, we come to the final question: should a student go train under Grandmaster Fred Kerfuffle? IMO, no. Conditionally. If one is a skilled matial artist; with honest confidence in ones skills; I'd say go for it - there may be something you can learn. But if one is a newcomer; unsure of the arts and onesself; no way. If the man is dishonest with himself; he'll be dishonest with others. If his style is incomplete; his teaching will be incomplete. Better to find a legitimate dojo; one without the glitz and glamour of a self-styled superstar. In the end; you'll learn more - and probably pay a lot less over time as well. Cheers!
You put your finger on it! WE all need insurance to train and instruct. Litigation is a major indistry here in the UK as well as elsewhere. The way things are going, nobody will find an insurer due to the idiots who populate the McDojo sector of our market. Establishing a nationally recognised qualification to instruct in the UK was a very good move, irrespective of the MA involved, as one could equate it to instruction in other fields. The UK system of NVQ's is a very appropriate tool to establish whether an instructor has a set of skills which deserve recognition. In Aikido, unfortunately, the BAB got hold of this system and IMHO alienated many good instructors who did not wish to bow to their whims. If only we could freeze out the charlatans through a formal process we could eliminate so much of the discussion on forums like this. WE discuss two issues which are not inseparable: Is a style or a particular MA effective? Is a dojo or instructor just a con artist seeking to fleece his students? If we can establish that an instructor is good at what he does, there is still no guarantee that the art he teaches is effective, but at least we remove the McDojo argument from the equation. The Sokeship stuff currently alerts us to the likely conclusion that the instructor is as bad as it gets.
