Talk:ATA Martial Arts

Redirects

WTTW (this is pointing to an article on a television station) and WTTF don't go to anything realted to Taekwondo.RJFJR 19:45, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Should it be Taekwondo or Tae kwon do? The article uses one and the title uses the other. RJFJR 19:45, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Cannot copyright a martial art form?

How can you copyright a martial arts form? Exactly what law says I cannot watch someone do an ATA form and then mimic the movement in demonstration for others? The closest thing I can find is a copyright on choreography, but a (for example) ballet dance is substantially different from a martial arts pattern. Have they ever brought a successful copyright claim? Mbac 21:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, we need to bring the ATA image into this article. It has A(red) T(blu) A(red) with a white figure kicking through it. P

This reads like an ad.

This article is directly from the corporate website. Someone needs to clean this.

My experience with ATA

My background - My family has been involved with the ATA for several years. I am an instructor (part time) and a black belt.

As someone pointed out, the original article is the 'company line'. The ATA vigorously protects and promotes its intellectual property. The member schools and clubs (smaller, part-time schools) are really franchise operations, and that really captures the essence of my opinions of the ATA, both good and bad.

If I had more time (and skill) I would edit the article with a bit more balance. Lacking that, here are some quick notes.

Pros and cons:

Pro -

Standardized Content – 1000's of schools around the globe, and they all teach the same thing. Your martial arts training will not suffer if you need to change schools. One look at your belt and rank stripes, and your instructor will know exactly what material you are working on. And there are many schools - 3 or 4 in my small city alone.

Challenging Content – ATA rank requirements are more challenging than 'plain old' TKD. We had some non-ATA students transfer in, and they had a lot of catching up to do. Example – 'plain old' TKD white belt form has one hand technique, and no kicks. The ATA white belt for has 2 hand techniques and 2 kicks.

Complete Content – Programs for kids, adults, physically challenged people, with lesson plans, teaching strategies, weapons, etc.

Instructor Certification – Instructors must be trained as teachers, certified, and background checked, not just know the material. (When you walk into 'Joe's Karate Parlor Jujistu Emporium' how do you know what his qualifications are? A neat looking certificate from Grand Master FooFoo?) That said, some ATA instructors will still rip you off – make you sign long term contracts, or make you retest and repay testing fees at any opportunity.

Well Policed – At ATA events, like tournaments, there is no macho posturing and no fights – unlike some 'open' tournaments. Instructors or members that get in trouble with the law can loose rank and loose schools.

Safe – Equipment and rules for sparring are safer than Olympic style TKD, and you must attain a certain rank before you can spar, and up to that part, you must complete drills that prepare you for sparring, to teach control. I have a small child who is now sparring, and I feel completely at ease. Furthermore, if someone wants to transfer to Olympic style, they usually do very well because ATA rules are more challenging. Some ATA students have performed very well in Olympic style.

Con -

Copyrighted Material – If you leave the ATA, your cannot legally teach the forms, etc.

Equipment Monopoly – To attend or compete in an ATA event, you must wear an ATA provided uniform, ATA sparring equipment.

Some in the leadership are all about making money - There is always some new program or offering from headquarters that are new ways to take money from people.

Neither Pro nor Con -

Costs – Schools are allowed to basically charge what they want. It can be expensive, like other martial arts schools, or next to nothing. Instructors set their fees (with upper end limits set by the ATA). Testing and equipment fees are fixed from that ATA, and instructors are allowed to add a percentage on that and keep the difference. (I teach as part of an after-school program. I don't make a dime, I just like helping kids.)

My personal take on the ATA

I'm an ex-member of the American Taekwondo Association and been with them for ten years (since 1992, quit 2002) earning my first degree black belt in 1996, and 2nd degree with trainee instructor status in 1999.

In response to the previous posting by an "instructor," here's what I think:

Quote: "The ATA white belt for has 2 hand techniques and 2 kicks." NOT exactly true. There are five hand techniques to the white belt form: high block, low block, punch, side block, and knifehand. There are only two kicks: front kick and side kick.

Secondly, there is no true monopoly on uniform and sparring equipment. While many schools obey this monopoly uniform policy including letting children wear uniforms with the lettering on their back, other schools choose not to pay the monopoly and find more affordable options. I've visited a few of these ATA tournaments and people use whichever brand, as long as they have headgear, hand, and foot.

Some other thoughts: I feel that the ATA is just like many other schools to be like a "McDojo" or what I call, a black belt factory. It's easy in the start, but as the ranks get higher, people (especially parents) spend more money investing in something that I feel has no real use in the real world (like who kicks above the waist and especially the head in a real fight?).

Also, why break boards? If you want a reference, watch the first season of the Showtime program called "Penn and Teller B.S." It's just science people!

Lastly... parents, don't bring your children to tournaments around the country to become "World Champion." They should be in school getting a real education with a real degree that is useful in the REAL world. Would you really put the words "World Champion" in your job resume? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akit (talk • contribs)

Maybe some people enjoy it? Are you so against participation in other sports? Baseball, football etcetera are no more useful than what they teach. kaiti-sicle 05:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Songahm Taekwondo" section

This section needs some work in a different direction than it is presently heading. I see this section as being more about the philosophy behind Songahm Taekwondo, the Songahm Star, etc. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what it should be about? I am a trainee instructor in ATA and that's what Songahm is based on. That section could be expanded on the differences between the Songahm forms and WTF forms, for example, however, the philosophy is a very important part of Songahm Taekwondo. Just personal opinion, however. Other thoughts?? Progdrummer17 17:37, 12 February 2007

That seems to be where I'm thinking. What makes Songahm Taekwondo "Songahm"? What makes it so? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Songahm basically describes the style of taekwondo developed by Eternal Grand Master H.U. Lee and his brothers. Songahm simply means "Pine Tree Temple". Songahm is important to put in this article because it describes the style of taekwondo taught by the ATA, and the ATA, along with its sister organizations (STF, WTTU, etc.), are the only organizations that teach in the Songahm style. So, everything about ATA defines Songahm taekwondo, and vice versa. You probably wouldn't have a wikipedia article about Songahm Taekwondo itself, so that information must be contained here. However, if I have the time, I'll add more information about ATA itself to the current article. Progdrummer17 23:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, The translation "Pine Tree Temple" describes how each belt rank, and respective poom-sae (form), represents a stage in the growth of a pine tree from a tiny seed. For example, white belt represents a lone seed without experience, orange belt represents the beginning of a day as the sun rises, etc. Progdrummer17 23:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sparring segments, board breaks

It seems we need more information on these two elements of a student's training. Perhaps we could bundle this with one-steps? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Korean Taekwondo Council?

I've never heard of such a phenomenon. Anyone care to explain?? Also, at the 2007 Spring Nationals Tournament in Las Vegas, there was a flag on the wall near the other organizations called the "Asian Traditional Taekwondo Union", different from the WTTU. Anyone care to explain that one??? Progdrummer17 13:26, 06 April 2007 (UTC)

Three links come up on Google for "Korean Taekwondo Council". There's Wikipedia, Harman's ATA, and a Yahoo listing that ultimately lists a Karate for Kids school. No mention from ATA itself, and no good third-party mentions. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

4th and 5th Degree Testings

This is more for personal information, rather than necessarily to put on the page, but my instructors and I would like to know:

1. Is it true that you have to be a certain age to test for 4th degree black belt? And does anyone know if that age is 17, 18, or something different?

2. Is it true that to test for 5th degree, you must be a school owner who tests at least a certain number of students every 8 week testing cycle? If so, does anyone know what that number might be? Also, does that number increase for each subsequent rank (6th, 7th, 8th?)

Thanks for the help. Progdrummer17 02:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms Section

Someone keeps deleting the criticisms section outright. Please state what your objection to it is. If It is simply unbalanced, then please make an effort to balance it rather than delete it. There's nothing wrong with having a criticism section per se. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: Deletion of an entire section is not a minor edit. Do not mislabel it as such. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 17:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, to get things started, the last sentence in the second paragraph of the Criticisms section is WP:POV and at the very least needs to be rewritten to adhere to WP:NPOV. The first sentence in said paragraph is unsupported and needs a citation. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 17:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

See Also Section

I re-added links to the Wikipedia articles on McDojo and Bullshido. They are there to enlighten readers on what these terms mean, so that they can decide for themselves if the terms apply to the ATA or not. Personally, I earned a 1st degree Black Belt from the ATA in 1997. I have a few criticisms of it, but overall my experience was positive. I think more people should learn martial arts and ATA schools are on average decent places to do this. You largely get out of them what you put into them effort-wise. The people who earn 1st degree Black Belts in two years are the ones who display talent, dedication, and hard work. Those who don't display these traits take longer or never reach black belt. Some schools may be better, some may be worse. There are many franchises and independent schools much like it in terms of how belts are given out. There's no reason for some martial artists who don't attend this kind of school to be snobbish toward it. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you, but McDojo is linked above, thus removed. Bullshido I consider a bit of a stretch. I was in the ATA from 1989-1992, and I wouldn't describe it as Bullshido. Additionally, Bullshido is listed in the first section of McDojo. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I'm in agreement with their removal then. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 03:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I fortunately can say I have been with the ATA some 15 years now and it is a good tning. Some things are not perfect, what is. I find it interesting that if you go to any of the other martial arts styles on wiki there is no mention of McDojo or any criticisms. Just and observation! User:Tkdkidick 10:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps more of them should, but the lack isn't grounds for removing the criticism section here. Also, the ATA is not just a martial arts style, it is a franchised organization. The criticisms may not be applicable to all ATA schools, but they may be applicable to varying degrees to a significant number of them. I don't know. What I do know is if you follow those references, you'll find a number of critics. Now, it is a legitimate question to ask whether online forums are a reliable enough source to be used on Wikipedia. Any thoughts on this? Geoffrey Allan Plauche 17:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually ATA is NOT a franchised business. That's why it is an association, associated through the style of Songahm. I think a lot of the forums are I hate to say "bitch" forums in general. Not necessarily ATA related but just, why charge "X", why have this many belts or classes. That kind of thing. Online forums are just that people stating there beliefs. No data to back their statements up. From what I have heard. Now if you had an accredited report from some where stating some of these issues. OK, however the terms McDojo is inflammatory to any style or business. I had never even heard the term until I found wiki. I have a friend in another style and he has some of the same issues that ATA parents have. Traveling a lot that stuff. It does come down to the kids and he does it for them. They know no difference. tojac 17:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe not strictly franchised like a fast food chain, but correct me if I am wrong: Don't instructors of ATA schools have to be trained and certified or something? There is a central authority that governs instructor training, establishes rules, sells equipment, and so forth. There is standardization by a central authority. That's not simply a bunch of independent schools who all happen to be teaching the same style of martial arts. In any case, that is all beside the point. The question is: do the references cited for the criticisms meet Wikipedia verifiability standards (WP:Verify)? It would appear that online discussion forums do not. Any objections to this assessment? Geoffrey Allan Plauche 19:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct. ATA instructors must be certified to teach. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. Even as an associated part of the ATA you can utilize the copyrighted material and not use the ATA name. You do have that choice. However the regions govern themselves. So the seniors "watch" over the certification process for their particular region. Just like any other organization it does fall back on ATA as they are the ones that grant the actually certification. So I would guess. And NO ATA does not sell equipment of any sort. There are a couple of martial arts suppliers you can by from. However World Martial Arts is the only one permitted to use the ATA trade mark, once again, as far as I know. The fact that you say they is a standardization is almost funny, ITF and WTF are so poorly governed it is not even funny. Have you ever tried to get a hold of someone at there headquarters, good luck with that. As Far as I know ATA is the only one that even has standardization. I have been to two different ITF schools in the same town and been taught different material, or altered material. How is that?

As far as the assessment I would guess that les then lets say 2 1/2 % could be called McDojo's. They have some 1500 associated schools/clubs thru out North America. I have only heard complaints on a few. How many have been sited by the BBB? That would be a good source to back this up? I mean If I thought there was an issue I would report it. But is that an issue you can take up with them, I am not sure.tojac 20:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All right, so the ATA doesn't sell equipment itself; it licenses the right to sell equipment with the ATA name to another company. This is quibbling over relatively minor details. As for standardization, you'll notice I only said the ATA was standardized. I said nothing about ITF or WTF. So I don't see what is funny. Now, if you step back from your knee-jerk reactionary defensive mode for a second, why don't you address the issue about Wikipedia references that I raised in my previous post? In case you haven't noticed (and it seems that somehow you haven't), I think my interpretation is favorable to your complaints. To repeat: Anybody have any objections to my interpretion of WP:Verify in relation to the quality of the references provided for the criticisms section? Geoffrey Allan Plauche 23:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)