Samuel Browning
07-11-2003, 05:01 PM
I'm thinking about writing a letter to Black Belt Magazine and seeing if they publish it, since we have less then 2,000 people on this website. I'm going to provide a rough text and keep editing it based on people's comments. If most people on this site can agree with what I say I would like to ask Phrost if I can send it in with my name and a Bullshido endorsement. (I wrote the rough draft of this letter with an example of what I would say with a Bullshido endorsement) Please tell me what you think.
"Seal Abuse"
It's a pleasant weekend and you open up your favorite martial arts magazine. Once again its cluttered with ads by various teachers claiming that they teach a super secret combat system used by the Seals, Special forces, or some highly regarded foreign military like the Israeli Army. "Study with us, buy our videotapes, become invincible" you've seen the pitch. What I'm going to say in this letter is not a surprise to people who has been around the martial arts block a couple times, but it will be news to those new to the arts.
Just because you read an ad in any martial arts magazine, does not mean its claims are true. Anyone can buy an ad making any claim without their assertions being fact checked. The biggest area of exaggeration currently seems to be in the area of special operations combatives. Lets see how this game is played in magazine ads, but additionally on dojo websites, and in-person sales pitches.
1) Instructor A, has a couple of Navy Seals take his classes over the years. He therefore tells people that he "teaches Navy Seals" implying some connection with this unit, when he only taught a couple people as individuals and was never hired by any team to provide instruction. He should have said that he has had a couple of these warriors as individual students. Or if the guy's small time he buys some Jerry Peterson Scars videotapes, assimulates the lessons and gets around trademark issues by saying on his school's website that he teaches "Navy Seal" without ever having a direct relationship with this military unit.
2) Instructor B provides a four hour free seminar to some special forces unit. He then claims that he teaches Special Forces hand to hand combat instead of admitting he ran a one time free program. Alternatively someone who teaches dependants and an occasional warrior at some army base gym puffs up their services to claim that they are the official instructor to the unit stationed at this base.
3) Some instructor who was once in a special forces unit claims they teach special forces combatives when they are simply teaching some form of martial art that was never adopted by their old unit, and their combat experiences were with a rifle, not with their fists. Alternately the instructor may teach a system that was used years ago by some military unit, but their ads imply by omission that this unit still uses this system when it has not done so in years. For example Jerry Peterson's Scars system is no longer officially used by the SEALs (and no, I don't know why) but one would never know this from the ads that he has run since the demise of this contract.
4) The instructor simply lies and makes up a connection. Alternately they make an assertion and refuse to provide details, "It's classified, I can't tell you anymore, but buy some of my videotapes anyway."
I belong to a martial arts webpage called www.bullshido.com devoted to discussing the martial arts. While our contributors have many different viewpoints the following are standards that we believe shold be adopted by those in the martial arts community to military and law enforcement agency training claims.
1) If you claim a special forces martial arts connection be willing and able to provide written proof. If the training is too secret to document then don't talk about it, or try to publicize this relationship in order to make money off of it.
2) Do not claim to be training a unit when you are just providing martial arts instruction to members of the unit who are training with you as individuals. As a martial arts instructor you should be experienced enough to know that when you tell your white belts/newbies that "you teach U.S. Navy Seals" you are implying that you have an official relationship with such a military unit. If you mention this, be honest enough to say that you are training them in a private capacity.
3) If you claim that you have provided such training to a unit have the commander write a letter documenting this matter and have it placed in a file where the unit's public affairs officer can answer any questions about whether such a relationship ever existed.
4) The letter should provide the following information, the unit trained, the length of training, (4 hours, six months, etc) whether the training was free or part of an official contract, whether the unit officially adopted your particular style and system, and the termination date of such services.
5) If you are marketing your "special forces" services it should be your burden to provide at least some proof that you are telling the truth. If you don't want to do so, don't advertise this connection.
Hopefully Blackbelt will publish this letter rather than enabling certain people to continue deceive the inexperienced or guilable.
Edited by - on July 15 2003 22:57:28
Edited by - on July 16 2003 00:12:00
Edited by - on July 30 2003 21:14:45
Edited by - on July 30 2003 21:16:20
Edited by - on August 05 2003 22:05:14
Edited by - on August 05 2003 23:10:41
"Seal Abuse"
It's a pleasant weekend and you open up your favorite martial arts magazine. Once again its cluttered with ads by various teachers claiming that they teach a super secret combat system used by the Seals, Special forces, or some highly regarded foreign military like the Israeli Army. "Study with us, buy our videotapes, become invincible" you've seen the pitch. What I'm going to say in this letter is not a surprise to people who has been around the martial arts block a couple times, but it will be news to those new to the arts.
Just because you read an ad in any martial arts magazine, does not mean its claims are true. Anyone can buy an ad making any claim without their assertions being fact checked. The biggest area of exaggeration currently seems to be in the area of special operations combatives. Lets see how this game is played in magazine ads, but additionally on dojo websites, and in-person sales pitches.
1) Instructor A, has a couple of Navy Seals take his classes over the years. He therefore tells people that he "teaches Navy Seals" implying some connection with this unit, when he only taught a couple people as individuals and was never hired by any team to provide instruction. He should have said that he has had a couple of these warriors as individual students. Or if the guy's small time he buys some Jerry Peterson Scars videotapes, assimulates the lessons and gets around trademark issues by saying on his school's website that he teaches "Navy Seal" without ever having a direct relationship with this military unit.
2) Instructor B provides a four hour free seminar to some special forces unit. He then claims that he teaches Special Forces hand to hand combat instead of admitting he ran a one time free program. Alternatively someone who teaches dependants and an occasional warrior at some army base gym puffs up their services to claim that they are the official instructor to the unit stationed at this base.
3) Some instructor who was once in a special forces unit claims they teach special forces combatives when they are simply teaching some form of martial art that was never adopted by their old unit, and their combat experiences were with a rifle, not with their fists. Alternately the instructor may teach a system that was used years ago by some military unit, but their ads imply by omission that this unit still uses this system when it has not done so in years. For example Jerry Peterson's Scars system is no longer officially used by the SEALs (and no, I don't know why) but one would never know this from the ads that he has run since the demise of this contract.
4) The instructor simply lies and makes up a connection. Alternately they make an assertion and refuse to provide details, "It's classified, I can't tell you anymore, but buy some of my videotapes anyway."
I belong to a martial arts webpage called www.bullshido.com devoted to discussing the martial arts. While our contributors have many different viewpoints the following are standards that we believe shold be adopted by those in the martial arts community to military and law enforcement agency training claims.
1) If you claim a special forces martial arts connection be willing and able to provide written proof. If the training is too secret to document then don't talk about it, or try to publicize this relationship in order to make money off of it.
2) Do not claim to be training a unit when you are just providing martial arts instruction to members of the unit who are training with you as individuals. As a martial arts instructor you should be experienced enough to know that when you tell your white belts/newbies that "you teach U.S. Navy Seals" you are implying that you have an official relationship with such a military unit. If you mention this, be honest enough to say that you are training them in a private capacity.
3) If you claim that you have provided such training to a unit have the commander write a letter documenting this matter and have it placed in a file where the unit's public affairs officer can answer any questions about whether such a relationship ever existed.
4) The letter should provide the following information, the unit trained, the length of training, (4 hours, six months, etc) whether the training was free or part of an official contract, whether the unit officially adopted your particular style and system, and the termination date of such services.
5) If you are marketing your "special forces" services it should be your burden to provide at least some proof that you are telling the truth. If you don't want to do so, don't advertise this connection.
Hopefully Blackbelt will publish this letter rather than enabling certain people to continue deceive the inexperienced or guilable.
Edited by - on July 15 2003 22:57:28
Edited by - on July 16 2003 00:12:00
Edited by - on July 30 2003 21:14:45
Edited by - on July 30 2003 21:16:20
Edited by - on August 05 2003 22:05:14
Edited by - on August 05 2003 23:10:41
