2/12/2008 11:20am, #41Originally Posted by The Question
Locked, moved, hidden, or deleted thread would be a copout.
Discussion, contacting ATT, debating what constitutes Bullshido/McDojo isn't a copout.
I do kung fu or are you that retarded? Only person I know at top Team is Anthony and that is not in personal life. So, you fail right there. Oh and this is the second thread on ATT. Go look for the other one while you are running your mouth. Plus, make sure you note who brought it to the board.
Oh so what pray tell does your whiny ass want to do? Go burn the school down? Like I said when you come up with an Idea better than oldman's you can bitch. A copout is giving them a pass no one is doing that. You want dojo storming take your ass down there and tell them their program doesn't work.
My mission WTF, are you that much of a bitch? Do you know what investigates means or are you missing the point as usual?
2/12/2008 11:24am, #42
You obviously haven't been reading enough threads. We don't have a problem with McDojo practices as long as the buyer is aware of what they're getting. Gyms still have to make money.
Now, this particular program, however, concerns me. I still maintain that no one can gain enough of an understanding of foundational mma in 3 days plus some dvds to teach it at all. Hell, I've been doing it pretty intensely for a year and a half, and I wouldn't feel comfortable teaching. I guess you could say my stance is changing from my earlier thoughts of "It's ok as long as they're not trying to market it as fighter training." I'm now leaning towards this being all around bad no matter how you spin it.
It's one thing to try to make a buck off the current MMA craze. Totally understandable, even if you don't like the practice, but to tell people "Hey, you're qualified to teach intro to MMA now" after 3 days of seminars is just plain wrong.
2/12/2008 11:30am, #43Originally Posted by Wolf
Hopefully, it fizzles out like that or, through contact, it can be changed.
2/12/2008 11:41am, #44Originally Posted by It is Fake
2/12/2008 11:42am, #45
obviously the issue here is quality control. can the ATT establish a program that meets a certain quality standard and design an enforcement mechanism to ensure that the standards are met?
anytime a increase in volume is sought, quality inherently suffers. that's why you don't see a Mercedes Benz hood ornament (legally) on a Yugo.
ATT is making a big change in its business model by implementing this program. Let's hope they understand the consequences.
2/12/2008 11:59am, #46
Hmmmm.....I saw this a few months back but have not really heard anything about it at my school, not that I would, as the certification apparently comes straight from Coconut Creek.
IIF's analogy to Krav Maga is dead on. The ATA Krav Maga certification is not necessarily bullshido (although the individual instructor who gets certified could certainly take it down that path) but it is certainly McDojo'ish. Similarly, bullshido would be an instructor stating that he is "certified" to teach Krav Maga or that he holds a "ATT MMA Level I Certification" when he doesn't.
People in this thread, Question and Vince, may be confusing "bullshido" with "shitty martial arts or martial arts instruction". The former does not necessarily infer the latter.
Ashida Kim is bullshido because of the grossly over-exaggerated and blatantly false claims he has made; ATT has not made any fraudulent statements or promises, and the school can certainly back up and has demonstrated its credentials in the industry. From the emails between Oldman and the marketing company ATT hired it appears that he is getting honest, marketing tinged, answers to his questions. McDojo'esque YES, Bullshido NO.
My personal opinion is that I don't agree with it from a global perspective in the interest of NOT having MMA go the way of Krav Maga. However, if anyone being taught MMA by a Level I ATT Certified Instructor thinks they can bang, all they have to do is step in the ring/cage and quickly realize they need to go seek out more specialized training at an MMA academy, whether it is ATT or some other known MMA organization/team.
The bottom line is that my instructors are bad asses and have proven it on the world stage which is why I dedicate 1/3 of my life to this ****. If the higher ups in their organization, ATT, want to make an extra buck by capitalizing on the MMA phenomenon AND they do so without misrepresenting the product they are selling it to the American consumer, i.e., representing that a Level I Cert. makes you as qualified to coach MMA as Pat Miletich, than that it their business prerogative.
2/12/2008 12:04pm, #47
This is McDojoism. We've had many discussions arguing about what IS or ISN'T McDojoism, as many quality schools have McDojo warning flags, but aren't quite committing any wrong. This however is wrong. They are selling affiliate certifications for less than a weeks actual time spent training. Do people fail this course? Where are the standards?
There is a fine line between capitalism and greed. IMO this crosses it from the former to the latter.Knowing is not enough, you must apply...
...Willing is not enough you must do ~Bruce Lee
2/12/2008 12:05pm, #48
But (and bare in mind I train at an ATT affiliate too), do you honestly think that even ATT can give someone the ability to competently TEACH even an intro to MMA course after 3 days? That's the big issue here. Yes, they say "We're not giving you the ability to produce fighters," but they ARE saying "With this program you can competently teach the basics of MMA." I don't see that as possible.
2/12/2008 12:09pm, #49
Sure it's greed. You could also say that the demand for this type of training is high right now and that if ATT wants to risk diluting their brand to capture market share then that is their business.
I just can wait for the threads arguing over who has teh re41 ATT. (sarcasm)
2/12/2008 12:19pm, #50
to what degree or extent is ATT ensuring the Level 1 schools are not mispreprenting their affiliation or the value of the training?