Fraud in Martial Arts Awareness Society

Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Discussion' started by Aegis, Aug 18, 2013.

  1. Aegis

    Aegis River Guardian Admin Supporter

    The "organisation" named in the title of this thread has been brought to my attention recently due to an article they wrote about an association I trained with for a number of years. As it happens, I still train with an offshoot of this organisation, so this article had a personal impact on me.

    I'd like to point out a few things I think this group has managed to get completely wrong, and am doing so here because in the comments section of the article in question they have threatened (and in fact carried out the threats) to ban and censor comments that disagree with them in the wrong way. As always, MAP will be open to comments from any side as long as they abide by our terms of service.

    This to me is wrong. Not completely wrong, but very wrong nevertheless. Martial arts refer to fighting methods. Originally these would largely have been specific to military forces, but self defence styles are and have always been martial arts as well. In other words, the correct definition is:

    Martial arts = {self defence systems; military arts; combat sports}

    It's been a while since I did set theory, but hopefully the gist is correct. A system is a martial art if it fulfils any of the above criteria in the curled braces. In other words, judo, jujutsu, kendo, karate, krav maga, savate, etc are all martial arts because they are ultimately about fighting. the specific focus of each system does not stop it from being a martial art.

    This definition strikes me as pure elitism, and it is nothing new. I have seen many people in the past stating that UFC competitions are dominated by the sportsmen rather than the martial artists, as though this semantic difference somehow made it better that these athletes are far better at fighting than anyone in the more traditional systems.

    Vaguely correct, but largely irrelevant. Especially as many traditional systems have adapted to modern realities of self defence while still being referred to almost unanimously as traditional.

    Not really. The best schools will not have kept their curriculum unchanged over the centuries, otherwise they would have been outclassed by schools which modernised. "Traditional" is an extremely subjective term in martial arts, however it might be proposed that traditional be defined as broadly analogous to "koryu" in Japanese martial arts, which would effectively mean any system founded before the Meiji Restoration. This would incidentally exclude judo, aikido, iaido, kendo, most styles of karate and most styles of kempo, which doesn't seem to fit with most definitions of "traditional" vs "modern". So perhaps a better definition is needed here, if the word is to be used in future as a means to denigrate.


    Any decent school of martial arts studied for anything other than pure historicity should do this.

    Interestingly this would include any new system regardless - and here's the interesting bit - of how effective it is. By this definition, Brazillian Jiu Jitsu would be a pseudo (fake) martial art because it's a modified version of the kodokan judo introduced to the Gracie family by Maeda.

    I'd love to see these guys target BJJ as their next investigation!

    Apparently amending martial arts is bad but amending definitions of words is fine. Fraud is the deliberate deception of individuals or groups for profit. It has to be deliberate and it has to be deception.

    The issue I have here is that if this very loose definition is accepted and the previous loose definition of fake martial arts is also accepted, it essentially means that any new martial art is fraudulent, and that is quite frankly a very foolish claim to make.

    And yet that's very much what the definitions about would imply...


    Agreed. I disagree with their selection methodology, however.


    Agree here too. Not all arts are worthwhile, much as not all opinions are worthwhile.

    I genuinely fail to see how this analogy is relevant at all when discussing frauds. The metaphor is designed to point out that the journey and the destination are not the same and that focusing on the wrong aspect of training can lead you to the wrong conclusion as to what the end result is supposed to be. This has next to no bearing on what is being discussed, and sounds more like someone trying to gain legitimacy by referencing something they haven't understood properly.


    Good conclusion.


    It's very much worth checking the background of your instructor to see what he has done before you start learning from him. Can't disagree here.


    Largely irrelevant, I have no idea why this list was deemed to be appropriate in the middle of this mission statement.

    Fair enough, this is a red flag that should put people on their toes, but there are a number of others out there. Soke was one of the most prevalent, but now there are a lot more which are becoming more and more common, so only including one warning sign is a little pointless.

    Again, I don't necessarily disagree with this, but it seems very disjointed from the rest of the text. If anything, the closeness of martial arts to cults should be dealt with in much more depth, with a lot more warning signs as to how to tell the difference between genuine traditional training and a cult based on those traditional trappings. If anything, this is actually a mark against seemingly-traditional systems, as ones where you treat your instructor as an equal are much less likely to lead to the imbalance of power that makes cults possible.

    Pointless definition, really not sure why this pseudo-academic history lesson is in this article.

    I fully agree that video and online learning is more or less a complete waste of time. However, this rant seems to be referring to a very specific case that the author may have experienced in the past, while generalising it to all illegitimate martial artists, which I suspect was unintentional.


    The issue here is with the definitions above regarding unproven. Unproven appears to mean "non-traditional" under the original definitions, though some weight appears to be placed on competition (though such individuals from modern styles would not be allowed to call themselves martial artists under this group's definition, of course).


    Here's the point where I have a real problem with this group. This is a really good reason to go after genuinely fraudulent or over-ranked individuals making stuff up. However, reading through the article about my old organisation, NO reference is made to the actual efficacy of the techniques taught, the legal information that is taught as part of the supplementary learning (i.e. the concept of a proportionate response under law) or the fact that the organisation has no paid instructors and therefore only charges students enough to cover venue costs and insurance.

    First half of the paragraph is valid, second half is pointless analogy.

    I'm unsure of my judo history, but I certainly can't recall meeting any 4th dan 18 year olds. Maybe standards have improved since the old days.

    More or less. There are newer strategies for using the older techniques which ahve proved to be very effective in modern days. There are also new techniques for dealing with weapons that didn't exist when traditional martial arts were being gradually developed.

    I think this is one of the most idiotic comments in the entire article. If I learn two styles of japanese martial arts to high levels and choose to synthesise them into a single system, why would it be cultural theft to name the system in a way that acknowledges the culture that supplied the original techniques to me via whatever circuitous route they followed.

    By this definition, once you get a certain unique flair in another country for an art, it shouldn't retain the original name. Judo as taught around the world can be very different due to the different physiologies of various populations around the world. The way the Japanese do judo and karate is rather different to the way people in Russia, the UK and the USA train those arts, and this should "arguably" be considered enough of a distinction to make the use of the original name "cultural theft".

    In any case, a lot of the time an organisation develops a new identity by accident. It might be that a club is given a specific name when it first comes to a new location, then that location expands, forms a group and the group eventually becomes a style in and of itself. "Shotokan" karate would be a great example of this happening.

    As indicated above, I'd love to see the (anonymous) authors in this group taking on Brazillian Jiu Jitsu and calling them frauds and cultural thieves. Really, I'd love that.

    I believe Greco-Roman Wrestling is actually a modern reinterpretation of an ancient system. By all the above definitions, this is a non-traditional art developed by cultural thieves.

    People here will likely know that I trained with the Jitsu Foundation for quite a long time. This is an art that was founded in the UK by a Yorkshireman named Brian Graham, among whose teachers was a man called Matthew Komp. Before that, the history of the association is largely a mystery, as Brian was known for embellishing the trust somewhat when the mood took him.

    Matthew Komp has apparently received a 10th dan from someone this group doesn't like, which apparently by association means that the entire Jitsu Foundation is a) not a martial art (especially not jujutsu) and b) fraudulent. What they have utterly ignored are a few of the more salient facts, including:

    • Komp was a member of the WJJF and reached 8th dan with them. While they may not necessarily have the best reputation, they certainly don't hand out such high grades easily. Komp received his 8th dan in 1987 and his 10th dan in 2010, which is not an unreasonable level of progression. I have never met Matthew Komp or seen him train, however dismissing a style because he was involved peripherally as a founder seems over the top
    • Brian Graham founded the National Samurai Jiu Jitsu Association. Very cheesy name, and one I'd probably take exception to these days, but that name was for marketing purposes and it worked quite well. However, Graham was not the driving force behind the expansion of the association, as that would fall into Peter Farrar's hands. Farrar was one of Graham's senior students at the time, and under his direction the style shifted dramatically in focus away from Graham's original style and into something which looked rather different. In time, the Jitsu Foundation became the new name for the association, and a board of senior instructors was formed to oversee the development of the art.
    • During the expansion, many instructors were promoted who had previously trained in other systems. As such, techniques adapted even further to blend them with other knowledge coming in from various sources depending on what people had trained in. Even now it's possible to identify distinct methods of doing certain techniques which derived from different named individuals at some point in the style's past
    In short, the fact that Komp was one of Graham's instructors is almost entirely irrelevant because the style isn't even Graham's any more, let alone what Komp learned.


    The association makes no claim to be traditional, though I will admit this is something that needs work for individual clubs. The only excuse I can give here is that a lot of the history of the style is hearsay because of the confusion regarding Graham's training history and Komp's history before that. Certain half-truths and misinterpretations became common "wisdom" over the years, and unfortunately such stories have a habit of becoming accepted as truth by those who put together the websites (mostly university students who have had little exposure to the history of the style and most instructors simply don't care about it). This is an issue that likely needs to be addressed in an ongoing fashion, however it is not fraud, just misguided.


    At no point has any of the actual training methodology been discussed in their incredibly negative review of this style. Nor have the testing requirements to achieve instructor grade in the style. Apparently such issues are not important to the authors as long as the art they train in is "traditional".



    Anyway, I've probably ranted enough here, but I'd like to summarise.


    It's good to teach people to be sceptical of instructor claims. Really, I can't agree with this more. However, if you're judging an art solely on connections to traditional schools without reference to what they have done since, you are entirely missing the point when it comes to the development of martial arts over time. As long as the change is for a good reason, change is not bad and it certainly doesn't stop a system from being a martial art.


    References:
    Fraud In Martial Arts Awareness Society

    Their Review of the Jitsu Foundation (also saved in full for future reference in case they backtrack at some point in future)
     
  2. Mitch

    Mitch Lord Mitch of MAP Admin

    Was karate used in war or militaries?

    Mitch
     
  3. Aegis

    Aegis River Guardian Admin Supporter

    Not that I can recall from history. I believe it has always been a self defence system first and more recently a combat sport on top of that.
     
  4. Mitch

    Mitch Lord Mitch of MAP Admin

    A civilian system most importantly, though I'm happy to be corrected :)

    Mitch
     
  5. Wildlings

    Wildlings Baguette Jouster

    I'd read Freud in martial arts :bang: I need to sleep, damn.

    Anyway I don't see the whole point in groups like this. This idea of a crusade for defending true martial arts, reminds me of 12-year-old wanna-be metalheads :bang:
    All those definitions! I find 'em totally useless, they are naturally not objective: I do X for competition, Jack does it for self defence and Jessica for the traditions and personal growth, what is X now? A martial defence sport? :confused:

    Back to topic, there's no doubt that martial arts today are soooo different from what they were. Not all people are into them for the same reason, some do it for sport, some for defence, and others just to exercise while lookin' cool in a gi. That's why it's good to have such a variety of styles to choose from - if I just want to have some training and fun, I won't need full contact Kyokushin, maybe competing in Taekwondo will serve me better.

    That's why I won't buy this "let's save martial arts" thing. Better to let everybody choose the gym that suits them better - everybody will assess it depending on their needs. Not everyone needs learning perfect techniques and effective defence methods.

    If this group wants to do something really useful, they'd be better off explaining beginners how to find the right gym according to their needs. Saying (unjustified?) crap of other gyms doesn't sound that good.

    Third point, people claiming to be grand masters and stuff. I really don't get why they're bothering with them. World is full of charlatans, just leave them alone and laugh at them. But maybe it's just me.

    And the video courses...I don't know who would ever believe that anyway. They stink like scam, period. But again, some articles on "How to properly learn martial arts 101" would have done the job.

    Hope what I wrote made sense somehow :D
     
  6. aaradia

    aaradia Choy Li Fut and Yang Tai Chi Chuan Student Moderator Supporter

    *Yawn* Yet another organization setting out to be the judge and jury of other organizations?

    Some people worry far too much about other peoples training, rather than focusing on their own.

    Having general information out there about how to pick a good school and what to avoid is a good thing. It already exists in abundance. Books have this information. Most MA forums have articles to help people out. All is well and good with this.

    But when a group of MAists set themsleves up as the arbitrators and judges of other orgainizations, I think that is carrying it too far.

    Let the buyer beware. If they choose to join a cruddy organization, it is on them. They are adults, who can think for themselves (or for their kids that they sign up.)

    Add to that that a lot of people start passing judgement who may not be qualified to speak with such authority on such a matter.

    Add to that that the motivation sometimes is to put down a school competing for business in the same area.

    Add to that stupid personal politics, lineage wars, style vs style wars being involved in such critiques.

    Add to that competing philosophies about MA's. (MMA vs TMA blah blah blah)

    You can't trust these critiques at face value. One has to do the research by checking out an organization for themselves. One shouldn't let an organization make the decision for them. That is just being lazy.

    Aegis, my personal opinion is not to get dragged into defending your organization from such nonsense. don't let them drag you down. Let the quality of your organization stand on its own merits. Smart people will figure it out for themselves.

    .
     
  7. Guitar Nado

    Guitar Nado Valued Member

    I think the news that Krav Maga is a traditional martial art would come as news to about everyone I encountered in the year or so I was learning it. Plus IMHO, a lot of it is kickboxing striking, and JJJ based self defense moves - so has a pretty fair amount of asian influence as well...
     
  8. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member


    Incorrect, IMO, and that goes for applying it to koryu too.


    I'm all for shining a torch on the frauds of the martial arts world but they don't seem to be doing it the right way.

    If you are going to call someone a fraud then make sure you are actually addressing what they are doing and not creating convenient definitions to fit your agenda.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2013
  9. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member

    Only had a quick skim.

    In that article the comment about shu ha ri is a little off, IMO, and in the comments section the talk about romanization is a bit much really.

    Nothing to get wound up about really and not automatically an indication of fraud just because an older version of Hepburn is being used. I know we all jump on it but I've seen Japanese people use what I assume was Nihon-shiki but that wouldn't mean we should call into question the validity of what was written, not based just on that.

    If we want to get picky then it's Jūdō, Jūjutsu and Koryū, which were absent from that article.


    Wonder if they'll change that. :D
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2013
  10. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member

    Can I also add that if you are going to set up such a page then it's probably best to keep clear of insulting nicknames like in that list.

    Yeah they pop up on line but if you want to look serious and professional then keep it out of this sort of thing.
     
  11. Wildlings

    Wildlings Baguette Jouster

    Oh! Exactly what I meant too, yet in a coherent, non - sleep-deprived-after-drinking-all-the-beer fashion :D
     
  12. Van Zandt

    Van Zandt Mr. High Kick

    I always LOL when I read statements from people saying 'martial arts' are used in war. Mostly because martial arts are not used in war - rockets, grenades and bullets are. And because those who claim they do a "real" martial art (i.e. used in war) have never been in a war themselves. Hell, most would probably fill their underpants and cry for mommy. And please don't bring up the "my art was used on a battlefield in 16th century Japan" argument. Because then you're just a historical re-enactment enthusiast.
     
  13. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    Made me laugh though. Scamurai is a new favourite. :)
     
  14. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member

    Incorrect.

    Well the last bit.

    Historical reenactment is just that, it's reenactment of events via scripted activities.

    Classical martial arts are not that, the are combative systems, those practicing them do not reenact historical events but study the strategies, teachings and techniques of certain "schools" from various periods, these have been passed on in a continuous line of transmission from one headmaster to the next, with that you have not only the physical techniques and teachings enshrined in kata but also oral teachings and documentation dating back some time.

    Those can cover anything from battlefield techniques, systems geared towards personal development and even body guarding.

    They are alive traditions like many MA but with a high importance placed on maintaining the integrity of the school and the lessons laid down by the founder.

    Just because you are studying techniques or strategies intended to be used in a close protection role in feudal Japan doesn't mean the techniques are of no use or the skills not transferable and it doesn't mean it's some form of historical role play.

    It's a big difference.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2013
  15. Van Zandt

    Van Zandt Mr. High Kick

    I know. I was being an ass.

    Well, the last bit.
     
  16. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member

    LMAO!

    Oh.



    :D
     
  17. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    The whole thing just felt badly written. People like that (who then also delete comments that disagree with them) are only out to soothe their own fragile egos to give themselves justification for being terrible people by pretending they're right. The kind of people who need to spend less time pretending to channel bullshido and more time focusing on what they need to be doing with their lives.
     
  18. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member

    It makes you appreciate just how good a job Bullshido does.
     
  19. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    Funnily enough I had never heard of Bullshido until I came on this forum - just like me not knowing about Iain Abernethy. Now I've seen them them, I'm wondering how the hell I went for the past five years without ever knowing them :eek:
     
  20. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    When it comes to unmasking fraudsters, I think MAP has a very good track record.
     

Share This Page