21 year old 6th degree Blackbelt

[Daniel Sullivan]

The thing with Kendo, though, is that it is geared totally around keiko shiai, it'd be like training in BJJ without ever rolling, just drilling a couple of positions and locks. Yeah, you can learn a lot of Kendo without sparring, but that's not the same as training Kendo. Of course, we're up to a semantics game now... and it largely comes down to personal interpretation...

Except that kendo isn't geared totally around shiai. Some people who practice kendo never compete. Nor is keiko geared entirely around preparation for shiai.

Again, this is all hypothetical, but essentially, the element of sparring would be jigeiko, not shiai geiko. Ji geiko is free sparring where the student can practice techniques with an opponent in undirected practice with no pressure to win.

Why someone would be unwilling to participate in ji geiko, assuming that affording the bogu is not an issue, is what I would want to know. Is it a fear factor? Do they feel unready? Are they embarrassed? Do they have severe asthma and are under doctors orders not to do that sort of thing?

Delineating my students into 'he's doing kendo' and 'he's just practicing sword strokes' does not interest me. Within the art, everything is kendo. If you practice sword strokes at home to a youtube video, you're practicing sword strokes to a youtube video. If you are training at a club or under a sensei, or are practicing what you had learned when you did so at some point in the past, then you are doing kendo as far as I am concerned, regardless of how much of the system you have immersed yourself in.

 

[puunui]

Context, Glenn. Zenjael had said "what's the theory? Big words = smart?". I pointed out that he missed the detail of those big words needing to used correctly for it to equal smart (as an indicator of intelligence), using them incorrectly, as Alex has been doing, is an indicator of something else.

Even within that context, I still don't believe that using hundred dollar words = smart. If anything, it = insecurity and the need to appear smart. Same with using foreign words which people have to look up. I'm not into it.

It means explain why you think that, how you came to that conclusion, what exactly do you mean etc... you know, what you then proceed to do here. So I'm pretty sure you got that.

Gee, thanks. I think.

Okay, that's probably the main issue here. I'm taking the phrase "do karate/kendo/aikido" as inclusively referring to training in the art (meaning all it's key aspects, within it's particular context itself). In other words, for you to actually be "doing Kendo", you need to be training in all it's aspects, for you to be "doing karate" you need it's core (which is kata), etc.

You are using the phrase exclude people from the art, if they fail to train in what you believe are all its key aspects. That is what I mean by exclusive/inclusive. Your definition excludes people. My definition tries to include as many people as possible.

If you were training in a form of Americanised Karate/Kenpo which didn't feature solo kata, that's fine. But if you're going to make the assumption that that is the form being discussed (agreed, for the record), then you are also making the assumption that that form of kata is part of the syllabus of the hypothetical karate system being discussed... and, as a result, bringing in a system which doesn't use it isn't really relevant. The main thrust of Dancingalone's comment was to ask if you are really training in an art if you are cutting bits and pieces out of it.

There you go again, defining the term to your liking and then excluding others, which in this case are kenpo karate students, at least those who trained under Professor Chow. Professor Chow's karate did not have forms, and yet it is still called karate. Therefore, the practice of kata is not essential to "doing karate".

Love the passive aggressive attack, Glenn. That shows you to be a mature, upstanding member of the community here. But, now you've made your point that you have no idea of what I have or haven't done, you drop it? It's a bit old, and you really don't have anything to support it unless you have hidden cameras in my house... of course, that wouldn't help you much...

I figured you to be an apartment renter type, not living in a house. But no matter. I am pretty sure that you have watched more youtube videos than I have, because frankly, I don't really watch that many. I can go months without opening up youtube. You on the other hand liberally cite to many youtube videos in your posts. You even teach or instruct others on how to embed youtube video links into their MT posts. You have clearly cited to more youtube videos in the first three months of this year on MT than I have watched over the last year or more on youtube. There was one particular post that I remember seeing that you posted which had so many links I couldn't get through them all. Some were very long, others on topics which I did not have any interest in. For youtube, the ones that I do tend to watch are those that others have sent links to me, like the ones you link to. I'm just not that into youtube, unlike you, which you demonstrate in your posts. I don't need a video camera at your house. No one does.

With regards to Ueshiba, are you suggesting that just because you never saw him take a fall in the videos you saw (when he was presumably teaching or demonstrating) that wasn't part of his Aikido training? How about the guys he was throwing around, were they taking falls?

His partners were taking falls, but he hasn't. In fact, to use one of your debate tactics, I would say that there is no evidence that Ueshiba Sensei took falls for anyone during the last 40 or more years of his life. But if you wish to do a google or youtube search in an effort to prove me wrong, be my guest. In other words, "show your work".

Seriously flawed argument, Glenn.

You do it all the time, with your "there is no evidence" pitch.

Once more, the point is not that if you aren't doing sparring at that exact moment you aren't doing Kendo, it's that if you do no sparring at all, cut it completely out of the training, are you doing Kendo still then?

My answer (having studied kendo, have you?) as well as that answer of daniel (who teaches kendo) is yes. You say no, as shown below.

Provided they are training as the system dictates (kata for karate systems who utilise it... which is all the Okinawan and Japanese ones, sparring for Kendo, and falling for Aikido). They don't have to be doing those exact elements at any given time for it to be considered training in, or "doing" the art, but those aspects have to be present in their training overall.

This is a matter of opinion; there is no right or wrong answer.

Nope, depends on the system and it's teachings. Kata are far more universal than makiwara training. But if you train in a system which has a heavy emphasis on using makiwara, you're missing a vital piece of the system by not training in it, so potentially they would be excluded from really "doing" that system.

Is it? What karate style does not utilize the makiwara? Even Professor Chow used it. In fact, he was famous for it.

Seriously, Glenn, stop with the passive/aggressive digs, you're way off base (as has been explained to you), and frankly annoying.

It's not passive aggressive, but rather is an assessment of what you do. I can understand how you would be upset about it, especially if your perception of yourself is different from what others think.

Next, no, I'm not "exclusive" over your "inclusive" methodology. In fact, I'd probably see it the other way around.

Yes, actually you are exclusive. Your opinions on this particular subject is just one example of many you've put out there over the years. Nothing inherently wrong with being exclusive. It just is the way you think. A lot of people think in terms of exclusivity, kids cannot hold black belts, and so forth.

And as far as "unnecessary statements", well, no. Kata is the core of karate, it contains the art itself, all the actual lessons and concepts, tactics and strategies, angles, timing, distancing, and more. Without it, you really just have a bunch of disparate techniques, not karate (especially not a specific system of karate), so to say that you can train in such a system without it really does show the level of your understanding... and as such I stand by my comment.

You completely misunderstood what I meant by "unnecessary statements". Swing and a miss, Parker Sensei.

And I really think we've already established that you don't have the first clue about anything to do with Koryu training... not that that was what I was referring to in my earlier comments, or here.

I think we already discussed your propensity to veer off on tangents. And the only thing we have "established" is that koryo is not for me. With respect to you and koryo, I believe you have disclosed that you lead an unauthorized unrecognized "study group" but that you are attempting to maintain certain relationships in the hopes of one day being recognized. I think you also mentioned that you go see someone into another part of australia once a month or so for training. You also pretty much admitted that you don't have any Japanese ancestry, have never been to Japan and don't speak Japanese. One question though, do you have any teaching licenses for any of the koryu you study? I don't think so, which may or may not be the real source of your seemingly constant annoyance and frustrations, at least as your MT posts seem to indicate. Poor alex.

You really did miss the point, didn't you? Tell you what, you get one more go. See if you can follow it this time.

No actually I did not miss the point. And I would ask you to "stop with the passive/aggressive digs, you're way off base (as has been explained to you)", but I know you can't help yourself.

 

[puunui]

Except that kendo isn't geared totally around shiai. Some people who practice kendo never compete. Nor is keiko geared entirely around preparation for shiai.

Again, this is all hypothetical, but essentially, the element of sparring would be jigeiko, not shiai geiko. Ji geiko is free sparring where the student can practice techniques with an opponent in undirected practice with no pressure to win.

I caulk it up to the exclusive inclusive duality. You and I are trying to include people. Parker Sensei wants to exclude people. That in a nutshell is the issue. It might be a koryu thing. Koryu seems to be pretty exclusive, especially when it comes to teaching licenses and such. But arts such as aikido, kendo, karate and even taekwondo seem to be made for widespread distribution to anyone and everyone, the more the merrier. Not better or "wrong", simply different strokes for different folks.

 

[K-man]

[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]Speaking tongue and cheek is a bit different from calling BS. One is humor while the other is, regardless of how it is dressed up or worded, disrespectful to both the person who holds the grade and to the person who issued it. And with the general lack of information given at that point, I wasn't even going to attempt to seriously evaluate the person in question.[/COLOR]

This is possibly the case, although, at the time of posting that was not my intention. (I have a different sense of humour obviously.)

But, having said that, you are quite right. If I were to come across a 21 year old 6th Dan, I would be looking twice and if that person did not have the knowledge and understanding that I would expect from a 6th Dan, I would have very serious questions about the person you issued that rank.

[/COLOR]
Lots of kids train these days, some as young as three or four, which is how you get five year old black belts. But most of them don't stick with the art. They do it more as an afterschool activity. The ones who stay with it into their 'tween years are probably really into it. Those that continue into their teen years are, in my opinion, way beyond doing it as an afterschool activity. If they are still practicing into their early twenties, then you probably have a lifer.

Are they sixth dan material? Not my place to judge. While most teens and young adults are into the competitive elements of the art, there are some who really 'get' the non physical elements, so who's to say?

I think that 6th Dan requires a maturity that is just not possible at age 21. It goes way beyond technical ability.

Actually, I thought it would be interesting to discuss it with you and I was interested in your point of view. That, and since we were already engaging one another, I figured why not have a more in depth discussion. I do the same thing with Dancingalone all the time.

To my mind, there is an enormous difference between a child advancing through junior ranks and an adult. I have seen all sorts of methods employed to keep children at a rank appropriate for their age and ability, yet still impart to he child a recognition of the effort and dedication that the child has exhibited. This includes coloured belts that rival the colours of the rainbow, multiple tips and sometimes even an understanding that if you are an eight year old peewee black belt then you will be awarded 5th kyu as junior with a similar transition to senior ranks. If you are a senior black belt I feel you needs to be able to defend that rank physically, technically and mentally. I have seen a 13 year old pushed to obtain an adult black belt in an adult black belt grading and it made a mockery of the kumite part of that grading.

The progression through the ranks as a child is totally different to progression through the ranks as an adult. If someone with a rank of Shodan in my style of karate were to go to Okinawa and have daily hands on training with one of the top practitioners at the Jundokan and he was trained and tested to the appropriate level over a period of say four years and was graded to 6th Dan, then I would have no problem in accepting that. (I do have a huge problem with the guys that go to Okinawa or Japan and buy their next grade!)

Adult progression through demonstration of ability and understanding could also be accelerated. Someone with competencies in one style of karate transfering to another style might also progress at a more rapid rate than normal. Once again, I feel comfortable with that. 21 year old 6th Dan, I am most uncomfortable.
:asian:

 

[Kenlee25]

So basically, you're saying that its BS because he got there quicker than you did. No offense, but that really isn't a very good reason for calling BS sight unseen. Kind of like saying that you left the starting line first so that other faster guy has no business crossing the finish line before you.

Did you ever consider that maybe he trained twice as hard and was exceptionally interested in the art's philosophy and in learning the depth of the art? You'll call bs simply because he stared later in life than you did, even though by your own admission, you didn't test for several years??


Street fighting in no way justifies one's grade. Depending upon what you mean by 'street fighing,' that could indicate a lack of good judgement on the part of the person in question.

Regarding the age of the topic's subject, according to K-man, the age of the person in question was 29, not 21. I haven't had a chance to dig into it, but if that is the case, then that would certainly color the readers perception a bit differently.

I didn't mean it that way. By street fighting, I meant he has had to use TKD on the street. Most martial artists will never have to use their art. I'm not even sure if my actual master has had to use it.

and no I'm not mad. Yes he could have gone to more classes than I did, but even so, reaching 6th takes many years. I think a lot more years than someone can reach at 21 only starting at 15. That's just my belief however. I called BS because in TKD at least, it would take upwards of 3 - 4 years just to get to a third degree alone. Even when I was going twice a week testing whenever I could, I only made it to my 4th/6 testings in my second degree in about 3 or 4 years. I was basing the assumption off of my standards which I guess I should not do, sorry.

But you guys now say he's 29, so that sounds a lot better.

 

[Chris Parker]

Except that kendo isn't geared totally around shiai. Some people who practice kendo never compete. Nor is keiko geared entirely around preparation for shiai.

While agreeing that it's not centered entirely around competition (although that is the context of modern Kendo's development... pre-war, well, that's a different story...), I wasn't meaning to refer to competition. But the proper term escaped my mind for a moment.

With regard to keiko being geared entirely around preparation for shiai (that's practice being geared entirely around preparation for competition, for Glenn who doesn't like fancy foreign words...), I can think of a few aspects that aren't, but the overall aim is for application in shiai, whether or not that is realized by the practitioner themselves.

Again, this is all hypothetical, but essentially, the element of sparring would be jigeiko, not shiai geiko. Ji geiko is free sparring where the student can practice techniques with an opponent in undirected practice with no pressure to win.

Yeah, that's the term I was searching for... thanks! Now, with that in mind, if you never train in jigeiko, are you really doing Kendo (inclusive), or just bits of it, and missing one of the integral aspects that makes what you're doing actually Kendo in the first place? My take is the latter.

Why someone would be unwilling to participate in ji geiko, assuming that affording the bogu is not an issue, is what I would want to know. Is it a fear factor? Do they feel unready? Are they embarrassed? Do they have severe asthma and are under doctors orders not to do that sort of thing?

Yeah, I'd want to find out as well. It's kinda like going to swimming lessons and not wanting to get in the water. If there are doctors orders regarding their participation, honestly, I'd suggest to them that they can't do Kendo until such time that such problems are overcome.

Delineating my students into 'he's doing kendo' and 'he's just practicing sword strokes' does not interest me. Within the art, everything is kendo. If you practice sword strokes at home to a youtube video, you're practicing sword strokes to a youtube video. If you are training at a club or under a sensei, or are practicing what you had learned when you did so at some point in the past, then you are doing kendo as far as I am concerned, regardless of how much of the system you have immersed yourself in.

Here's where we're getting into some confusion. To stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in the club, then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet. Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring. However, if they don't spar because it's not part of the schools training methods, I'd say no-one in the club is doing Kendo, as they're missing a huge part of it.

Does this make sense now?

Right, Glenn. Honestly, son, I'm getting a little fed up with this.

Even within that context, I still don't believe that using hundred dollar words = smart. If anything, it = insecurity and the need to appear smart. Same with using foreign words which people have to look up. I'm not into it.

Then you really didn't get the context.

Alex has been using unusual and convoluted language, often incorrectly, and when questioned on it, gave his reasoning that it's because he's writing academic papers, and he's required to use such language. It was suggested to him that there is no real point in using "$10 words where a 10 cent one will work". His response was that he thought the term "$10 words" was a good one, and that the theory was that using big words = smart (in other words, in order to appear smart in his academic papers, and here as well, he is using more complex language). I pointed out that that would only work if the big words were used correctly, and that to use them incorrectly shows a lack of intelligence, while at the same time, a desire to be seen as intelligent.

You then turn up and try to argue against my comment by repeating the exact same thing that sparked the discussion in the first place, that $10 words aren't needed, which was never argued against by anyone but Alex in justifying his poor use of language.

And when it comes to certain specialist areas, particular jargon (in some cases such as martial arts, foreign terms) actually make for easier communication. If you don't like them, fine. But they do have quite a valid reason for being used.

Gee, thanks. I think.

That wasn't a compliment, Glenn. Mind you, it wasn't really an insult either.

You are using the phrase exclude people from the art, if they fail to train in what you believe are all its key aspects. That is what I mean by exclusive/inclusive. Your definition excludes people. My definition tries to include as many people as possible.

Firstly, I never used that phrase. Secondly, I'm not excluding anyone, I'm just looking to see whether or not they are actually part of it. If someone isn't training in an art, I'm not about to say they are. You seem to just need them to put on a uniform and pay their enrollment, I'm more concerned with what they're actually doing.

There you go again, defining the term to your liking and then excluding others, which in this case are kenpo karate students, at least those who trained under Professor Chow. Professor Chow's karate did not have forms, and yet it is still called karate. Therefore, the practice of kata is not essential to "doing karate".

Good god, Glenn, you know full well what the context of Dancingalone's comment was. "Doing karate" was not meant to infer such exceptions, it was to refer to the more "standard", or common form, meaning the Okinawan and Japanese forms. And I already dealt with the way such things would work for your exception, kata wouldn't be the defining aspect, but there would be others training methods that would be.

I figured you to be an apartment renter type, not living in a house. But no matter. I am pretty sure that you have watched more youtube videos than I have, because frankly, I don't really watch that many.

That's not your inference, though, Glenn. It's that all my information comes from you-tube, something that you have really no evidence for nor any basis for saying, other than your inaccurate perception and what you would class as circumstantial evidence. You see you-tube clips in some of my posts, so that must be where I got it from... no, Glenn. It isn't.

I can go months without opening up youtube. You on the other hand liberally cite to many youtube videos in your posts. You even teach or instruct others on how to embed youtube video links into their MT posts.

That's part of my role as a Mentor here, Glenn, helping people use the forum and it's software properly. There are a range of reasons that embedding is preferred, some of which I've given, some I haven't, as well as being a range of reasons that there are numerous sticky threads on how to embed videos. It's the preferred method here, coming from the top down. If you don't like it, or my showing people how to do it, talk to Bob.

You have clearly cited to more youtube videos in the first three months of this year on MT than I have watched over the last year or more on youtube. There was one particular post that I remember seeing that you posted which had so many links I couldn't get through them all. Some were very long, others on topics which I did not have any interest in. For youtube, the ones that I do tend to watch are those that others have sent links to me, like the ones you link to. I'm just not that into youtube, unlike you, which you demonstrate in your posts. I don't need a video camera at your house. No one does.

I have to say, what does this really have to do with anything? You don't watch a lot of things on you-tube, okay, so what? If you're not interested in some of the topic matter in some of the clips I link, don't watch them. I'm really not sure how on earth my utilising a common device, in a way that the forum software is specifically designed to take advantage of, in order to demonstrate my points where the written word can be fairly limiting, gets to the point where you're using it as some kind of attack on myself.

And you say I go off on tangents...

His partners were taking falls, but he hasn't. In fact, to use one of your debate tactics, I would say that there is no evidence that Ueshiba Sensei took falls for anyone during the last 40 or more years of his life. But if you wish to do a google or youtube search in an effort to prove me wrong, be my guest. In other words, "show your work".

You're kidding, right? Firstly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Secondly, when can you think of any teacher, when teaching or demonstrating the techniques, being the one receiving them in this way? So when you have only seen video of Ueshiba demonstrating, why would you think that that's all he did, or taught? And finally, if he, due to his position, didn't take falls (act as uke) for the last 40 years of his career, does that mean that falling was not part of his Aikido training? Or do you just like putting up non-arguments with no basis?

You do it all the time, with your "there is no evidence" pitch.

Citation, please. Relevant to your posting here.

My answer (having studied kendo, have you?) as well as that answer of daniel (who teaches kendo) is yes. You say no, as shown below.

Yeah, I say no. To take Alex as an example again, he posted a video of himself doing what he called "Mixed Martial Art sparring", and claimed that there was Wing Chun, Aikido, Judo, "Acujutsu" (sic), Isshin Ryu, Shotokan, Moo Duk Kwan, Muay Thai, Jiu-jitsu, and many more. When pressed, as no Wing Chun guys could see any, no Judo guys could see any, and so on, he claimed that using a vertical fist meant there was Wing Chun in there, a step to avoid a throw meant there was Judo, a swordhand meant there was Isshin Ryu, and so on. Now, if we are looking at these arts and saying that if only one or two parts are actually trained (ignoring the way that Alex did them being completely against the principles of each of those systems he thought he was using), are you actually doing Wing Chun just because you're using some of it's striking methods? Or do you need something more? Such as it's actual training methods?

It's the same here. If you're not training in the methods of the system itself, but more picking and choosing bits of it, then you're not doing the system, you're doing bits and pieces.

This is a matter of opinion; there is no right or wrong answer.

And I presented it as my opinion. But, for the record, it's the right one.

Is it? What karate style does not utilize the makiwara? Even Professor Chow used it. In fact, he was famous for it.

Makiwara wasn't a part of the karate system I trained in, nor is it that common in Japanese systems (some do use it quite a bit, others don't really use it at all, unless the student wants to). It's far more common in the Okinawan systems.

It's not passive aggressive, but rather is an assessment of what you do. I can understand how you would be upset about it, especially if your perception of yourself is different from what others think.

No, Glenn, it's not an assessment of what I do ("using google and youtube"), it's your incorrect take on things. And seriously, "my perception" of where I get my information from is not really up for debate against where others think I get it from. You have less than a leg to stand on there. So quit it.

Yes, actually you are exclusive. Your opinions on this particular subject is just one example of many you've put out there over the years. Nothing inherently wrong with being exclusive. It just is the way you think. A lot of people think in terms of exclusivity, kids cannot hold black belts, and so forth.

No, I don't exclude anyone, Glenn, I let them exclude themselves. But I'm not sure you'll get what I mean by that.

You completely misunderstood what I meant by "unnecessary statements". Swing and a miss, Parker Sensei.

Back to the usage of Japanese honorifics, Glenn? And I addressed every part of the comment you quoted, and don't feel that any part of it was unnecessary, as it all had a point to make. So unless you're doing what Alex does, and meaning things that aren't present in what you're writing, there's really no other way to take what you posted and quoted.

I think we already discussed your propensity to veer off on tangents.

Me, Glenn? Seriously? Shall I turn this into a discussion of where you got all your information from, as it seems to me that you have spent time socialising with people, but don't actually have any real personal accomplishments of your own to speak of? And your insistence that you have any understanding of anything to do with a wider range of martial arts shows that your only source of information is your own lack on knowledge and experience?

Drop the matter, Glenn. You don't have an arguement. Just like I haven't been there with you throughout your training life, you haven't been there during the last 3 decades with me, as I obtained (and continue to obtain) the information I have.

And the only thing we have "established" is that koryo is not for me.

Hmm, "koryo"? I kinda figured that'd be more for you than it would for me...

But if you meant "Koryu", well, we've established more than that... you continue to demonstrate (in conversations with others as well) that you have no clue about Koryu, you don't know what they're about, how they're trained, what they're like, how they're structured, or anything of the kind.

With respect to you and koryo, I believe you have disclosed that you lead an unauthorized unrecognized "study group" but that you are attempting to maintain certain relationships in the hopes of one day being recognized.

No, that's not really correct.

I think you also mentioned that you go see someone into another part of australia once a month or so for training.

That's completely incorrect.

You also pretty much admitted that you don't have any Japanese ancestry, have never been to Japan and don't speak Japanese.

Japanese ancestry? What on earth does that have to do with anything?

And I've never "admitted", confirmed, or denied any of the kind for all of the above. You've assumed, but that's about it.

One question though, do you have any teaching licenses for any of the koryu you study? I don't think so, which may or may not be the real source of your seemingly constant annoyance and frustrations, at least as your MT posts seem to indicate. Poor alex.

Wow, are you out of the ballpark here... holding or not holding teaching licences for my Koryu traditions would have no bearing on my posts, especially when it comes to people such as yourself, or Alex (or any others, really). It would only have relevance if we were discussing the specific Ryu I have experience with. You really aren't that good an armchair psychologist, Glenn.

No actually I did not miss the point. And I would ask you to "stop with the passive/aggressive digs, you're way off base (as has been explained to you)", but I know you can't help yourself.

No, you really did miss the point. Completely.

 

[K-man]

With all of that said, seeing as I started before him, have been training in the same art for longer than him yet STILL do not have a third degree....I CALL BS!

What we have established is that the OP's reference was Kyuzo Mifune, one of the world's best judo men, not TKD. He trained under the founder of Judo in Kano's dojo. Even among the best of the best at the time, he was the champion. In Judo, technical ability plays a huge part. They don't have to have an understanding of kata or bunkai as we do in karate and you do to a limited extent in TKD. In this example there was a misunderstanding regarding the age of the man. Knowing what we now know about the identity of the person, and the fact that he was actually a fair bit older, I have no problem with his being awarded 6th Dan.

My instructor herself is only a 7th degree, and the instructor's assistant is a third ( granted a time honored, very skilled, street fighting third ). How a mere student at 21 has reached 6th is beyond me...

Of course, he was no mere student.

I didn't mean it that way. By street fighting, I meant he has had to use TKD on the street. Most martial artists will never have to use their art. I'm not even sure if my actual master has had to use it.

Being able to use your MA to defend youself on the street is admirable but IMHO should play absolutely no part in your grade.

and no I'm not mad. Yes he could have gone to more classes than I did, but even so, reaching 6th takes many years. I think a lot more years than someone can reach at 21 only starting at 15. That's just my belief however. I called BS because in TKD at least, it would take upwards of 3 - 4 years just to get to a third degree alone. Even when I was going twice a week testing whenever I could, I only made it to my 4th/6 testings in my second degree in about 3 or 4 years. I was basing the assumption off of my standards which I guess I should not do, sorry.

This all happened 100 years ago, about 50 years before TKD was even born. I doubt that they even called them classes in those days. Regardless, Mifune was promoted rapidly but I doubt any of us here on MT would put ourselves remotely near his level, regardless of our style of MA.

But you guys now say he's 29, so that sounds a lot better.

Cheers! :asian:

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I didn't mean it that way. By street fighting, I meant he has had to use TKD on the street. Most martial artists will never have to use their art. I'm not even sure if my actual master has had to use it.

Or your actual master uses it every day. Not all elements of taekwondo are physical, after all. Using the non physical elements to live one's life is actually practicing at a higher level than that of using the physical skills. I said this over on your 'is sparring essential thread' and I will say it here: the benefits of sparring and of practicing a martial art in general are the cultivation of one's spirit. If you cultivate that, the rest falls into place.

and no I'm not mad. Yes he could have gone to more classes than I did, but even so, reaching 6th takes many years. I think a lot more years than someone can reach at 21 only starting at 15. That's just my belief however. I called BS because in TKD at least, it would take upwards of 3 - 4 years just to get to a third degree alone. Even when I was going twice a week testing whenever I could, I only made it to my 4th/6 testings in my second degree in about 3 or 4 years. I was basing the assumption off of my standards which I guess I should not do, sorry.

Mad never entered the picture; only calling BS. My point really was that each person's progress will be different based on the peculiarities of their lives. Some people have the time and inclination to show up for class five days a week. Some may have the inclination, but not the time.

Also, different arts have different time in grade requirements. BJJ, from what I understand, has rougly a ten year period from beginner to first dan. Time enough to reach fourth dan in most arts.

But you guys now say he's 29, so that sounds a lot better.

K-Man says he is, and I'm inclined to believe him. I haven't been concerned enough to fact check it.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

While agreeing that it's not centered entirely around competition (although that is the context of modern Kendo's development... pre-war, well, that's a different story...), I wasn't meaning to refer to competition. But the proper term escaped my mind for a moment.

With regard to keiko being geared entirely around preparation for shiai (that's practice being geared entirely around preparation for competition, for Glenn who doesn't like fancy foreign words...), I can think of a few aspects that aren't, but the overall aim is for application in shiai, whether or not that is realized by the practitioner themselves.

Yeah, that's the term I was searching for... thanks! Now, with that in mind, if you never train in jigeiko, are you really doing Kendo (inclusive), or just bits of it, and missing one of the integral aspects that makes what you're doing actually Kendo in the first place? My take is the latter.

Well, you don't train in jigeiko; you participate in it in order to try out the things that you have been training without the pressure of winning or losing. Jigeiko is simply undirected practice. But it is still just practice. Shiai geiko is training for shiai. Essentially a scrimmage.

I don't see very many circumstances where Dancingalone's query (kendo without sparring) could realistically occur. I had mentioned some possibilities in a previous post; unable to afford bogu, medical condition, or some mental block, be it fear, embarrassment, or something else.
As I had said before; people who don't want to or can't spar are generally put off by kendo anyway.

Yeah, I'd want to find out as well. It's kinda like going to swimming lessons and not wanting to get in the water. If there are doctors orders regarding their participation, honestly, I'd suggest to them that they can't do Kendo until such time that such problems are overcome.

I disagree. It would be more like showing up at the pool with the swim team, doing all of the drills and exercises, but never wanting to swim laps with the other swimmer.

The reason that I would want to find out is not so that I can get them sparring, but because I'd like to try to help them overcome the obstacle so that they can live a better life, as such obstacles likely affect more than just kendo practice. Getting them sparring is a fringe bennefit.

Here's where we're getting into some confusion. To stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in the club, then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet. Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring.

The bolded pretty much sums up my opinion. If it takes them twenty years to get up to sparring, or if they die before they get up to sparring, they've still been doing kendo.

If they quit before they get up to sparring, then they were still doing kendo, but didn't get that far.

However, if they don't spar because it's not part of the schools training methods, I'd say no-one in the club is doing Kendo, as they're missing a huge part of it.

Not ZNKR kendo. I'm not sure if there's sparring in Shin kendo, for example.

Does this make sense now?

Sure. It made sense before. And it isn't so much that I agree or disagree with you, but that I'm looking at it from a different perspective.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I caulk it up to the exclusive inclusive duality. You and I are trying to include people. Parker Sensei wants to exclude people. That in a nutshell is the issue. It might be a koryu thing. Koryu seems to be pretty exclusive, especially when it comes to teaching licenses and such. But arts such as aikido, kendo, karate and even taekwondo seem to be made for widespread distribution to anyone and everyone, the more the merrier. Not better or "wrong", simply different strokes for different folks.

I chalk it up to how people classify things. Some people tend to compartmentalize things in very specific ways. These are the people that I want running the book store and the library. These are the people that I want doing scientific work and historical studies. There is definitely a need for that type of categorization. People who categorize like that tend do so in all areas. I know, because I am one of them. It made me the best parts guy at the auto parts store when I worked there. In that business, it's either the correct part or it isn't.

I had to work to remove that mentality from parts of my life where it either wasn't necessary or where it created barriers to healthy interraction with other people.

RE. Koryu: From my limited time in a Koryu, I haven't found it to be exclusionary. Personally, I think that the nature of a koryu makes it less appealing to a wider audience without actively excluding anyone.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

In Judo, technical ability plays a huge part. They don't have to have an understanding of kata or bunkai as we do in karate and you do to a limited extent in TKD.

I almost never hear bunkai (bunhae) mentioned in taekwondo discussion. I know that the KKW textbook has some for each form and from what I have gathered, Chang Hon TKD has it, though how developed it is I don't know. The subject pops up once in a blue moon, but it definitely is not anywhere near as prominent as it is in karate styles.

 

[puunui]

With regard to keiko being geared entirely around preparation for shiai (that's practice being geared entirely around preparation for competition, for Glenn who doesn't like fancy foreign words...)

Parker Sensei, what about keiko shiai? What does that mean? And it's not that I don't like "fancy foreign words", I just think that we shouldn't be using them if we can avoid it because they serve to exclude others from following the discussion.

Yeah, I'd want to find out as well. It's kinda like going to swimming lessons and not wanting to get in the water.

Or it's like taking swimming lessons, and never entering swimming contests. You're still swimming.

Here's where we're getting into some confusion. To stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in the club, then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet. Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring. However, if they don't spar because it's not part of the schools training methods, I'd say no-one in the club is doing Kendo, as they're missing a huge part of it.

You just conceded the point of the discussion.

Right, Glenn. Honestly, son, I'm getting a little fed up with this.

Parker Sensei, you tend to get fed up, frustrated and mad a lot, not just at me, but a lot of posters on MT and other forums as well.

Then you really didn't get the context.

I don't care about the context.

Alex has been using unusual and convoluted language, often incorrectly, and when questioned on it, gave his reasoning that it's because he's writing academic papers, and he's required to use such language. It was suggested to him that there is no real point in using "$10 words where a 10 cent one will work". His response was that he thought the term "$10 words" was a good one, and that the theory was that using big words = smart (in other words, in order to appear smart in his academic papers, and here as well, he is using more complex language). I pointed out that that would only work if the big words were used correctly, and that to use them incorrectly shows a lack of intelligence, while at the same time, a desire to be seen as intelligent.

You then turn up and try to argue against my comment by repeating the exact same thing that sparked the discussion in the first place, that $10 words aren't needed, which was never argued against by anyone but Alex in justifying his poor use of language.

And when it comes to certain specialist areas, particular jargon (in some cases such as martial arts, foreign terms) actually make for easier communication. If you don't like them, fine. But they do have quite a valid reason for being used.

Whatever.

That wasn't a compliment, Glenn. Mind you, it wasn't really an insult either.

ok.

Firstly, I never used that phrase. Secondly, I'm not excluding anyone, I'm just looking to see whether or not they are actually part of it. If someone isn't training in an art, I'm not about to say they are. You seem to just need them to put on a uniform and pay their enrollment, I'm more concerned with what they're actually doing.

I'm more concerned with including everyone, or, not excluding someone because they fail to live up to my own arbitrary narrow definition of what is or isn't "doing" whatever martial art.

Good god, Glenn, you know full well what the context of Dancingalone's comment was. "Doing karate" was not meant to infer such exceptions, it was to refer to the more "standard", or common form, meaning the Okinawan and Japanese forms. And I already dealt with the way such things would work for your exception, kata wouldn't be the defining aspect, but there would be others training methods that would be.

Kenpo karate is not an exception. But thank you Parker Sensei, I will use your quote above when you bring up exceptions to the general rule type points I bring up in the future.

That's not your inference, though, Glenn. It's that all my information comes from you-tube, something that you have really no evidence for nor any basis for saying, other than your inaccurate perception and what you would class as circumstantial evidence. You see you-tube clips in some of my posts, so that must be where I got it from... no, Glenn. It isn't.

Not "all". I do believe you engage in at least some actual physical practice and training so there is that. But you obviously rely on google and youtube much more than I do, that is clear, much more than others as well.

That's part of my role as a Mentor here, Glenn, helping people use the forum and it's software properly. There are a range of reasons that embedding is preferred, some of which I've given, some I haven't, as well as being a range of reasons that there are numerous sticky threads on how to embed videos. It's the preferred method here, coming from the top down. If you don't like it, or my showing people how to do it, talk to Bob.

As you would say, "you completely missed the point on that one". I don't care about your mentoring duties. I brought up the fact that you teach others how to embed their posts with youtube links as further evidence of your familiarity with, and use of, youtube.

I have to say, what does this really have to do with anything? You don't watch a lot of things on you-tube, okay, so what? If you're not interested in some of the topic matter in some of the clips I link, don't watch them. I'm really not sure how on earth my utilising a common device, in a way that the forum software is specifically designed to take advantage of, in order to demonstrate my points where the written word can be fairly limiting, gets to the point where you're using it as some kind of attack on myself.

it goes to my earlier comment that you probably have watched more youtube video of Ueshiba Sensei than I have. You wanted to know I could possibly know that, without having a video camera in your house. So that is my explanation. Now you ask what does this really have to do with anything. I am just "showing my work", like you requested.

You're kidding, right? Firstly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Secondly, when can you think of any teacher, when teaching or demonstrating the techniques, being the one receiving them in this way? So when you have only seen video of Ueshiba demonstrating, why would you think that that's all he did, or taught? And finally, if he, due to his position, didn't take falls (act as uke) for the last 40 years of his career, does that mean that falling was not part of his Aikido training? Or do you just like putting up non-arguments with no basis?

Thank you Parker Sensei. More rebuttal quotes for me to use when you bring out your "there is no evidence" for this or that when responding to one of my posts. Forgive me if I quote the above in response to you.

Citation, please. Relevant to your posting here.

Here's one from the post you just wrote:

That's not your inference, though, Glenn. It's that all my information comes from you-tube, something that you have really no evidence for nor any basis for saying, other than your inaccurate perception and what you would class as circumstantial evidence. You see you-tube clips in some of my posts, so that must be where I got it from... no, Glenn. It isn't.

Yeah, I say no. To take Alex as an example again, he posted a video of himself doing what he called "Mixed Martial Art sparring", and claimed that there was Wing Chun, Aikido, Judo, "Acujutsu" (sic), Isshin Ryu, Shotokan, Moo Duk Kwan, Muay Thai, Jiu-jitsu, and many more. When pressed, as no Wing Chun guys could see any, no Judo guys could see any, and so on, he claimed that using a vertical fist meant there was Wing Chun in there, a step to avoid a throw meant there was Judo, a swordhand meant there was Isshin Ryu, and so on. Now, if we are looking at these arts and saying that if only one or two parts are actually trained (ignoring the way that Alex did them being completely against the principles of each of those systems he thought he was using), are you actually doing Wing Chun just because you're using some of it's striking methods? Or do you need something more? Such as it's actual training methods?
It's the same here. If you're not training in the methods of the system itself, but more picking and choosing bits of it, then you're not doing the system, you're doing bits and pieces.

That's your opinion. No problem.

And I presented it as my opinion. But, for the record, it's the right one.

If you do say so yourself.

Makiwara wasn't a part of the karate system I trained in, nor is it that common in Japanese systems (some do use it quite a bit, others don't really use it at all, unless the student wants to). It's far more common in the Okinawan systems.

Then according to dancingalone's teachers (from Okinawa) as well as Chung Do Kwan founder GM LEE Won Kuk (who studied in Japan), you didn't do karate. According to them, no makiwara, no karate.

No, Glenn, it's not an assessment of what I do ("using google and youtube"), it's your incorrect take on things. And seriously, "my perception" of where I get my information from is not really up for debate against where others think I get it from. You have less than a leg to stand on there. So quit it.

You quit it. And you really don't like people knowing what you do, do you Parker Sensei? Again, it isn't a big secret, in spite of your denials to the contrary.

No, I don't exclude anyone, Glenn, I let them exclude themselves. But I'm not sure you'll get what I mean by that.

Correction. You set up the narrow definition and when people don't measure up to your narrow definition, in your opinion, they end up "excluding themselves", again in your opinion.

Back to the usage of Japanese honorifics, Glenn?

Parker Sensei, if you wish me to address you by your screenname, then you should at least have the courtesy to address me by mine.

And I addressed every part of the comment you quoted, and don't feel that any part of it was unnecessary, as it all had a point to make. So unless you're doing what Alex does, and meaning things that aren't present in what you're writing, there's really no other way to take what you posted and quoted.

Ok, whatever.

Me, Glenn? Seriously? Shall I turn this into a discussion of where you got all your information from, as it seems to me that you have spent time socialising with people, but don't actually have any real personal accomplishments of your own to speak of? And your insistence that you have any understanding of anything to do with a wider range of martial arts shows that your only source of information is your own lack on knowledge and experience?

If you say so. I will say that I have "socialized" with many seniors, in the form of lessons, in an effort to build relationships with those seniors and teachers. It's the way knowledge is passed on, through social interaction. This is a different sort of learning, than say, reading webpages and watching youtube videos. I will say that the thing I notice about your postings on various subjects is that it seems very impersonal. You can go on and on about this or that in a sort of cold academic fashion, but a lot of times it does not translate as coming from personal training or experience. I and I believe others would enjoy your posts more if you did interject yourself a little more, instead of it reading like it came from a dry historical webpage.

Drop the matter, Glenn. You don't have an arguement. Just like I haven't been there with you throughout your training life, you haven't been there during the last 3 decades with me, as I obtained (and continue to obtain) the information I have.

You drop the matter Parker Sensei. Again, people are entitled to their opinions. You obviously liberally exercise this when you give opinions about me and everyone else out there. Funny how when it is directed towards you, you get all upset. Do as I say, not as I do seems to be your motto, Parker Sensei.

Hmm, "koryo"? I kinda figured that'd be more for you than it would for me...

what can I say, typo.

But if you meant "Koryu", well, we've established more than that... you continue to demonstrate (in conversations with others as well) that you have no clue about Koryu, you don't know what they're about, how they're trained, what they're like, how they're structured, or anything of the kind. No, that's not really correct. That's completely incorrect.

I'll go look up your posts where you said those things. Or maybe your situation has changed since then. If so, good for you. In my opinion, you need a good teacher to guide you.

Japanese ancestry? What on earth does that have to do with anything?

With ancestry comes the culture attached to that ancestry. mastercole for example is of scottish ancestry, and he has a much better understanding of scottish culture and ways than I do, mainly because it is part of how he was raised.

And I've never "admitted", confirmed, or denied any of the kind for all of the above. You've assumed, but that's about it.

You didn't deny it either, and you still don't. And in my business, failure to answer a request for admission means that the request is deemed to be admitted. I'll give you credit though, at least you try not to lie, like some other people would, at least in this situation, so there is hope. If you had visited Japan, for example, no doubt you would have made mention of that in your posts. It is a much different experience to read about Musashi's wooden sword and view it on a webpage than it is to actually travel to Japan and see it for yourself. You kind of remind me of the movie Good Will Hunting, where you can tell us all about the Sistine Chapel, when it was built, and all of that, but you don't know what it smells like.

Wow, are you out of the ballpark here... holding or not holding teaching licences for my Koryu traditions would have no bearing on my posts, especially when it comes to people such as yourself, or Alex (or any others, really). It would only have relevance if we were discussing the specific Ryu I have experience with.

Ok, so no teaching licenses either. 30 years and only a Ninjutsu 3rd Dan to show for it. That says a lot.

You really aren't that good an armchair psychologist, Glenn.

Don't need to be Parker Sensei.

No, you really did miss the point. Completely.

I don't know about that, since you were the one who conceded the point of this whole discussion, at least to daniel.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi Daniel,

Well, you don't train in jigeiko; you participate in it in order to try out the things that you have been training without the pressure of winning or losing. Jigeiko is simply undirected practice. But it is still just practice. Shiai geiko is training for shiai. Essentially a scrimmage.

Yeah, I'd still call that training, though. Just a different form of training.

I don't see very many circumstances where Dancingalone's query (kendo without sparring) could realistically occur. I had mentioned some possibilities in a previous post; unable to afford bogu, medical condition, or some mental block, be it fear, embarrassment, or something else.
As I had said before; people who don't want to or can't spar are generally put off by kendo anyway.

Agreed, but that was kinda the point, really. Without sparring, it's not Kendo.

I disagree. It would be more like showing up at the pool with the swim team, doing all of the drills and exercises, but never wanting to swim laps with the other swimmer.

No, I'd put that as doing the sparring, but not competition.

The reason that I would want to find out is not so that I can get them sparring, but because I'd like to try to help them overcome the obstacle so that they can live a better life, as such obstacles likely affect more than just kendo practice. Getting them sparring is a fringe bennefit.

Yeah, I'd be of the same mind. But I'd still say that if they can't participate in the essential methods of Kendo, then Kendo wouldn't be part of them moving to a better life, at least not in the short term.

The bolded pretty much sums up my opinion. If it takes them twenty years to get up to sparring, or if they die before they get up to sparring, they've still been doing kendo.

If they quit before they get up to sparring, then they were still doing kendo, but didn't get that far.

Well, I don't know if I'd be generous enough to give them 20 years, but essentially, yeah. And it comes down to the school and what the training involves, more than an individual's particular practice at any one moment.

Let's take it back to the original quote itself:

Can you do karate without kata? Can you do kendo without sparring? Can you do aikido without falling?Specific martial arts have immutable parts to them. We can choose to focus on certain aspects to the possible exclusion of the others for periods of time, and that can be a good thing occasionally. However, this can't stand permanently. If you train karate without kata, arguably you're not doing karate. You're doing something else, no matter how much it can resemble karate.

As you can see, Dancingalone was saying that the overall training experience needs to include certain traits, or hallmarks, what he called "immutable parts". The comment was made that you can focus on some (even to the exclusion of those immutable aspects, such as sparring/kata/falling in the examples), but the art, if such things are never part of the training, isn't that art.

Not ZNKR kendo. I'm not sure if there's sparring in Shin kendo, for example.

Hmm, if you mean Shinkendo, then honestly that's rather irrelevant. It's not Shin Kendo (新剣道 - "New Kendo"), it's Shinken Do (真剣道 - "True Sword Way"), and has no relation to Kendo (ZNKR) at all.

Sure. It made sense before. And it isn't so much that I agree or disagree with you, but that I'm looking at it from a different perspective.

Honestly, Daniel, it's looked like you missed the actual comment that was being made... it hasn't ever been about a single students training in the moment, it's about what the training (overall) is made up of. So while you've had a different perspective, it wasn't really anything to do with the actual comment or point. Which is what I've been trying to clear up.

Glenn, I'm getting rather fed up with this. You're a grown man, and a lawyer no less. Grow up.

Parker Sensei, what about keiko shiai? What does that mean? And it's not that I don't like "fancy foreign words", I just think that we shouldn't be using them if we can avoid it because they serve to exclude others from following the discussion.

Well, take that as evidence I don't use google to get my information from, Glenn. If it was, I would have simply looked up the term I'd forgotten (jigeiko, for the record, supplied by Daniel).

Or it's like taking swimming lessons, and never entering swimming contests. You're still swimming.

No, that's the exact opposite of the point... by not having sparring in the training, it's not Kendo, the same way that not getting in the water, even if you practice the strokes on the ground, is not swimming. Try to keep up.

You just conceded the point of the discussion.

You don't really read any of this, do you? You just look for things to argue. Go back through my posts, starting with Dancingalone's initial comment, and see if I've changed what I've said. My point has consistently been referring to the overall training methods, and I've consistently pointed out the difference between looking at that, and and the way you and Daniel have taken it as referring to the exact moments in time when a student is engaged in something else (that is also part of the training).

Parker Sensei, you tend to get fed up, frustrated and mad a lot, not just at me, but a lot of posters on MT and other forums as well.

Oh, but there's a special place for you, Glenn...

I don't care about the context.

I suggest caring, it makes your arguments have some weight... at the moment, you're sadly lacking in many regards.

Whatever.



ok.

Witty.

I'm more concerned with including everyone, or, not excluding someone because they fail to live up to my own arbitrary narrow definition of what is or isn't "doing" whatever martial art.

Glenn, frankly, you're being an idiot. If someone is training in a Kendo school, but what the school teaches isn't Kendo, that's hardly applying an "arbitrary narrow definition".

Kenpo karate is not an exception. But thank you Parker Sensei, I will use your quote above when you bring up exceptions to the general rule type points I bring up in the future.

Yes it is, Glenn. And again, if you're going to use that quote (go ahead, by the way), make sure you look to the context. I use exceptions to go against specific comments that are applied as hard and fast rules, so I accept that they exist. In fact, I accepted Chow's Kenpo Karate as an exception, and agreed that the hard and fast rule of "no kata" wouldn't apply there... so I don't really see how you're taking any of this as showing any inconsistencies in my comments.

Not "all". I do believe you engage in at least some actual physical practice and training so there is that. But you obviously rely on google and youtube much more than I do, that is clear, much more than others as well.

No, Glenn, what is clear and displayed is that I have a greater tendency to find supporting material, or demonstrative material for my arguments, not that that is where I source them from. But I've told you that before, and you responded like a despondent child being told that they're wrong.

As you would say, "you completely missed the point on that one". I don't care about your mentoring duties. I brought up the fact that you teach others how to embed their posts with youtube links as further evidence of your familiarity with, and use of, youtube.

No, Glenn, that shows my familiarity with the software of the forum here. The only thing you need to know about you-tube software is where the URL is so you can copy it.

it goes to my earlier comment that you probably have watched more youtube video of Ueshiba Sensei than I have. You wanted to know I could possibly know that, without having a video camera in your house. So that is my explanation. Now you ask what does this really have to do with anything. I am just "showing my work", like you requested.

Yeah, I probably have. Not that that means that's where my information comes from, Glenn. This isn't you showing your work, it's you making accusations which have no real evidence. One more time, you have the option of apologising, or not. But stop it. The next one gets reported.

Thank you Parker Sensei. More rebuttal quotes for me to use when you bring out your "there is no evidence" for this or that when responding to one of my posts. Forgive me if I quote the above in response to you.

Good luck keeping it in context, Glenn. And I note you didn't answer one of the questions in there? Hmm.

Here's one from the post you just wrote:

How do you gain employment as a lawyer with your lack of ability to discern an argument, Glenn? That quote is not relevant to the context I asked for, nor does it fit with the request for citation. You commented that I argue by saying "there is no evidence", in response to me pointing out that your argument was "seriously flawed". In fact, you said "You do it all the time with your "there is no evidence" argument". I asked for a citation of when I'd given a flawed argument by saying that there was a lack of evidence to support a statement, and you come back with a quote from myself about my own situation, and how your lack of knowledge of what I'm doing lends itself to your flawed take on things? Firstly, if we take this as a courtroom setting, I'm providing a statement on myself, which would be considered first-hand information, and can be taken as evidence. It's being presented to counter claims made on circumstantial evidence, not first hand, second hand, even third hand. Assumptions based on circumstantial evidence.

Seriously, if this is any indication of your skills as a lawyer, I'm not sure you chose the right profession. Politician, I could see.

That's your opinion. No problem.

Where would you draw the line, Glenn? Is someone a Kendo practitioner when they've paid membership? When they've got a uniform? When they've attained their first rank?

Or is it when they've taken a beginners course?

Or a trial class?

Or called to ask about it?

My point is that there is a point, a moment when you go from not being a practitioner to someone who is a practitioner. Now, that can change from system to system (I know of some systems where you're not considered an actual practitioner/member until first dan, for instance), and school to school, but there is a distinction between practitioners and non. I'm putting forth that there is that distinction, and I really don't see how that can be argued against, so honestly, I'd say no, not opinion there. Observation.

If you do say so yourself.

Yeah, that's opinion. And I do say so myself.

Then according to dancingalone's teachers (from Okinawa) as well as Chung Do Kwan founder GM LEE Won Kuk (who studied in Japan), you didn't do karate. According to them, no makiwara, no karate.

And if I was training in those systems, they'd be right. Kinda the point, Glenn.

You quit it. And you really don't like people knowing what you do, do you Parker Sensei? Again, it isn't a big secret, in spite of your denials to the contrary.

You made an accusation, you were corrected, and you have continued to bring it up in a number of other threads, making the same accusation over and over. I'm correcting you when you do, and I'm getting sick of it. But as long as you keep making baseless accusations, I'll keep correcting you, and, as I said, the next time I'm reporting you for it. So the person who would need to stop is you. Grow up and stop acting like a child whose been told to sit in the corner.

Correction. You set up the narrow definition and when people don't measure up to your narrow definition, in your opinion, they end up "excluding themselves", again in your opinion.

Believe me, son, I'm hardly using "narrow" definitions here, nor am I looking for people to measure up to anything. In fact, it's pretty simple, if they're training in karate, then they're training in karate. But for it to be karate, it needs to be karate. Same with Kendo, same with Aikido, and so on and so forth.

Parker Sensei, if you wish me to address you by your screenname, then you should at least have the courtesy to address me by mine.

No, I'm asking you to refer to me by my actual name, Glenn, not a false Japanese honorific that I've never used in my life, nor do I intend to ever use, as a way of getting under my skin. I use your real name to show that I'm talking directly to you, person to person. After all, it was you that invited me to investigate who you were and find your actual name in a rather misguided argument about koryu.

Ok, whatever.

What I love about dealing with lawyers is the well crafted arguments that they present, stimulating the intellect, challenging perceptions and ideals, and leading to growth on both sides. Well, most of the time...

If you say so. I will say that I have "socialized" with many seniors, in the form of lessons, in an effort to build relationships with those seniors and teachers. It's the way knowledge is passed on, through social interaction. This is a different sort of learning, than say, reading webpages and watching youtube videos. I will say that the thing I notice about your postings on various subjects is that it seems very impersonal. You can go on and on about this or that in a sort of cold academic fashion, but a lot of times it does not translate as coming from personal training or experience. I and I believe others would enjoy your posts more if you did interject yourself a little more, instead of it reading like it came from a dry historical webpage.

Good god, Glenn, you mean your information has come to you the exact same way I described the way I've gotten mine!

Let's take Hontai Yoshin Ryu as an example. The majority of my information in that Ryu comes from attending seminars with the Head Instructor in Melbourne, having long conversations with him, training and discussing with one of his students, and training in related lines. This is then topped up with reading material. In fact, if you were to look over my posting history, you'd find that, for probably 90% of the systems I talk about, I either have experience in them, or I have friends who teach or train in them. And that list is pretty damn long... and that's where my information comes from.

My postings being impersonal is more to do with my style of writing, which comes from the position of our organisation against the larger Ninjutsu organisations. I try to keep things to facts as much as possible, and objective observation. Your posting seems to be more about boasting about your name-dropping, with little of real value behind them. Personally, I'd prefer to post something with more information, which can be verified easily, than just talk about other people and try to leech off their achievements.

You drop the matter Parker Sensei. Again, people are entitled to their opinions. You obviously liberally exercise this when you give opinions about me and everyone else out there. Funny how when it is directed towards you, you get all upset. Do as I say, not as I do seems to be your motto, Parker Sensei.

Frankly, Glenn, I see no support for your comment here. With regards to yourself, I have not proffered any opinion other than some hypothetical ones earlier in this thread, any other opinions that I have offered for other members have only been on what has been presented at the time. You have not offered any opinion of myself, you have made accusations. You have not been able to back them up, you have not retracted them, and you have continued to repeat them. Again, it is up to you to stop.

what can I say, typo.

Yep... and the same one just after it.

I'll go look up your posts where you said those things. Or maybe your situation has changed since then. If so, good for you. In my opinion, you need a good teacher to guide you.

You really have no idea what my guidance is like in these areas, Glenn. In my opinion, you need to realize when you're talking out of your depth. But that doesn't seem to be your style.

With ancestry comes the culture attached to that ancestry. mastercole for example is of scottish ancestry, and he has a much better understanding of scottish culture and ways than I do, mainly because it is part of how he was raised.

Again, Glenn, you're being an idiot. Your comments (both here and previously) about Japanese heritage in regard to learning or training in Koryu are so out of whack with reality that it's laughable. All it tells me is that you don't have a clue about anything you're talking about. But, for the record, there are quite a number of people who will argue with you, quite vehemently in many cases (such as Ellis Amdur, Meik Skoss, Dianne Skoss, Steve Delaney, Scott Halls, Phil Relnick, Pascal Krieger, Wayne Muramoto [yep, he's going to argue that Japanese ancestry wasn't really a boon for him as well], Ron Beaubien, Rennis Butchner, Russ Ebert, and many, many, many others who are far more informed than you are in every regard here).

You didn't deny it either, and you still don't. And in my business, failure to answer a request for admission means that the request is deemed to be admitted. I'll give you credit though, at least you try not to lie, like some other people would, at least in this situation, so there is hope. If you had visited Japan, for example, no doubt you would have made mention of that in your posts. It is a much different experience to read about Musashi's wooden sword and view it on a webpage than it is to actually travel to Japan and see it for yourself. You kind of remind me of the movie Good Will Hunting, where you can tell us all about the Sistine Chapel, when it was built, and all of that, but you don't know what it smells like.

Frankly Glenn, I don't see the point in providing you with any answers with the way you ask for them.

Ok, so no teaching licenses either. 30 years and only a Ninjutsu 3rd Dan to show for it. That says a lot.

Only in it's context will it say anything, Glenn. And you don't get that context, despite it being explained to you before.

Don't need to be Parker Sensei.

And yet you try...

I don't know about that, since you were the one who conceded the point of this whole discussion, at least to daniel.

Glenn, go back and re-read it, then try again. But drop the false honorifics and accusations, if you had an argument they'd make you look petty, without one they make you look desperate.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Yeah, I'd be of the same mind. But I'd still say that if they can't participate in the essential methods of Kendo, then Kendo wouldn't be part of them moving to a better life, at least not in the short term.

I wouldn't mind discussing this further. Perhaps in another thread.

Well, I don't know if I'd be generous enough to give them 20 years, but essentially, yeah. And it comes down to the school and what the training involves, more than an individual's particular practice at any one moment.

If someone wants to support my club for twenty years and isn't disruptive to the class, I'd give them a hundred years. I'd think it really weird, but I'd be happy have them.

Hmm, if you mean Shinkendo, then honestly that's rather irrelevant. It's not Shin Kendo (新剣道 - "New Kendo"), it's Shinken Do (真剣道 - "True Sword Way"), and has no relation to Kendo (ZNKR) at all.

I know the kanji and what it means. Obata's website just writes it out as shinkendo. And yes, it is totally unrelated to ZNKR kendo, which was my point; see below for the rest.

Honestly, Daniel, it's looked like you missed the actual comment that was being made... it hasn't ever been about a single students training in the moment, it's about what the training (overall) is made up of. So while you've had a different perspective, it wasn't really anything to do with the actual comment or point. Which is what I've been trying to clear up.

I'm not really sure that Dancingalone's comment was meant in that way and not with regards to the single student (he would have to clarify that), but I can respond to that as well.

So looking at it from the other direction, if the overall training of the art excludes a mainstay practice of the art, is it really the art in question? In terms of the big picture, maybe; depends on the curcumstance. Regarding the kanji 新剣道, 'new kendo', if someone were to actually call their kendo that and set up a curriculum where wooden swords and dulled practice swords were used and called it that, then it would be 'kendo' (way of the sword) only in the generic sense, but not ZNKR kendo. It wouldn't necesarilly be bad or devoid of merit; it might be great and have lots of merit. But it would be a different art.

If you're running a taekwondo club and training students for shihap kyorugi only, and elminating pumse, you're a competition club. Yes, I'd still consider it taekwondo. If you run a club that focuses entirely on do, pumse and application, with no shihap kyorugi, then yes, you're still teaching taekwondo.

I won't speak for aikido, but given the quanitity of karate ryu, if you ran a competition sport karate school that only trained for tournament fighting, then in my opinion, you're running a sport karate school. It may be sport karate, but it is still karate. Just don't claim to be any particular ryu.

 

[jks9199]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Jim Sheeran
jks9199
MT Assistant Administrator

 

[puunui]

Agreed, but that was kinda the point, really. Without sparring, it's not Kendo.

That is not what Daniel said, and that isn't what you said either.

To stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in the club, then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet. Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring.

As you can see, Dancingalone was saying that the overall training experience needs to include certain traits, or hallmarks, what he called "immutable parts". The comment was made that you can focus on some (even to the exclusion of those immutable aspects, such as sparring/kata/falling in the examples), but the art, if such things are never part of the training, isn't that art.

If you go with dancingalone's standard, then you weren't doing karate if your training did not include makiwara training.

Honestly, Daniel, it's looked like you missed the actual comment that was being made... it hasn't ever been about a single students training in the moment, it's about what the training (overall) is made up of. So while you've had a different perspective, it wasn't really anything to do with the actual comment or point. Which is what I've been trying to clear up.

That conflicts with your earlier statement:

To stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in the club, then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet. Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring.

moving on:

Well, take that as evidence I don't use google to get my information from, Glenn. If it was, I would have simply looked up the term I'd forgotten (jigeiko, for the record, supplied by Daniel).

But Parker Sensei, now you are under the gun about using google, so I think that from now on you will be more careful with doing that, reflexively going to google, or youtube for that matter.

No, that's the exact opposite of the point... by not having sparring in the training, it's not Kendo, the same way that not getting in the water, even if you practice the strokes on the ground, is not swimming. Try to keep up.

Again, that isn't what you said earlier:

To stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in the club, then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet. Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring.

Go back through my posts, starting with Dancingalone's initial comment, and see if I've changed what I've said. My point has consistently been referring to the overall training methods, and I've consistently pointed out the difference between looking at that, and and the way you and Daniel have taken it as referring to the exact moments in time when a student is engaged in something else (that is also part of the training).

Contrast that with this comment from you:

To stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in the club, then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet. Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring.

I use exceptions to go against specific comments that are applied as hard and fast rules, so I accept that they exist. In fact, I accepted Chow's Kenpo Karate as an exception, and agreed that the hard and fast rule of "no kata" wouldn't apply there... so I don't really see how you're taking any of this as showing any inconsistencies in my comments.

How about this statement by you. Is this an exception as well?

To stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in the club, then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet. Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring.

Having wrote that, I don't see what this further discussion is accomplishing, since you have already conceded the point of the discussion between yourself, daniel and I.

No, Glenn, what is clear and displayed is that I have a greater tendency to find supporting material, or demonstrative material for my arguments, not that that is where I source them from.

If you say so.

No, Glenn, that shows my familiarity with the software of the forum here. The only thing you need to know about you-tube software is where the URL is so you can copy it.

That is another example of attempting to narrowly define something. Why would you know how to do that, embed posts with youtube links, if that isn't something that you do all the time, as evidenced by your posts?

Yeah, I probably have [watched more youtube videos on Ueshiba Sensei than you have]. Not that that means that's where my information comes from, Glenn. This isn't you showing your work, it's you making accusations which have no real evidence. One more time, you have the option of apologising, or not. But stop it. The next one gets reported.

Apologize for what? Report what? You just admitted that you "probably have" watched more youtube videos of Ueshiba Sensei than I have.

And I note you didn't answer one of the questions in there? Hmm.

You don't answer a lot of my questions. keiko shiai for example. I just move on when you do that.

How do you gain employment as a lawyer with your lack of ability to discern an argument, Glenn? That quote is not relevant to the context I asked for, nor does it fit with the request for citation. You commented that I argue by saying "there is no evidence", in response to me pointing out that your argument was "seriously flawed". In fact, you said "You do it all the time with your "there is no evidence" argument". I asked for a citation of when I'd given a flawed argument by saying that there was a lack of evidence to support a statement, and you come back with a quote from myself about my own situation, and how your lack of knowledge of what I'm doing lends itself to your flawed take on things? Firstly, if we take this as a courtroom setting, I'm providing a statement on myself, which would be considered first-hand information, and can be taken as evidence. It's being presented to counter claims made on circumstantial evidence, not first hand, second hand, even third hand. Assumptions based on circumstantial evidence. Seriously, if this is any indication of your skills as a lawyer, I'm not sure you chose the right profession. Politician, I could see.

This is a perfect example of me not really caring what your opinion about me is. In fact, if this one case goes how we think it will go, it might be time to retire. Again.

Where would you draw the line, Glenn? Is someone a Kendo practitioner when they've paid membership? When they've got a uniform? When they've attained their first rank? Or is it when they've taken a beginners course? Or a trial class? Or called to ask about it?

I would draw the line where the student is actually training in any aspect of the martial art. For beginners, I would limit it to actual physical training. I wouldn't consider reading up on kendo on the internet or watching kendo videos on youtube as "doing kendo" for example, especially if the person has had no physical training in kendo. However, reading up on kendo online or watching youtube videos could be considered "doing kendo" for an advanced practitioner who is studying up on his opponents prior to a tournament. But for beginners, then if they are learning how to fold their hakama, do suburi, etc., anything but don't spar, then they are doing kendo. And you agree with me.

To stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in the club, then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet. Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring.

My point is that there is a point, a moment when you go from not being a practitioner to someone who is a practitioner. Now, that can change from system to system (I know of some systems where you're not considered an actual practitioner/member until first dan, for instance), and school to school, but there is a distinction between practitioners and non. I'm putting forth that there is that distinction, and I really don't see how that can be argued against, so honestly, I'd say no, not opinion there. Observation.

The issue with that is, who decided you were the one to determine who is or isn't "doing" a particular martial art? It really is your opinion only, and there is no right or wrong answer.

And if I was training in those systems, they'd be right. Kinda the point, Glenn.

There are no qualification on the part of the opinion givers that their position was based on their art or system only. If you don't do makiwara training, you aren't doing karate. And since your karate training did not include makiwara training, then you were not doing karate either.

You made an accusation, you were corrected, and you have continued to bring it up in a number of other threads, making the same accusation over and over. I'm correcting you when you do, and I'm getting sick of it. But as long as you keep making baseless accusations, I'll keep correcting you, and, as I said, the next time I'm reporting you for it. So the person who would need to stop is you. Grow up and stop acting like a child whose been told to sit in the corner.

You must have be confused with one of your students, who listen and do whatever you say. Sorry, but I'm not one of them.

Believe me, son, I'm hardly using "narrow" definitions here, nor am I looking for people to measure up to anything. In fact, it's pretty simple, if they're training in karate, then they're training in karate. But for it to be karate, it needs to be karate. Same with Kendo, same with Aikido, and so on and so forth.

Funny how you refer to me as "son", when I am older than you are. Are you in the habit of doing that? As for the rest of your comment, that pretty much get nullified by your earlier comment.

To stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in the club, then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet. Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring.

No, I'm asking you to refer to me by my actual name, Glenn, not a false Japanese honorific that I've never used in my life, nor do I intend to ever use, as a way of getting under my skin.

Parker Sensei, there is a kajukenbo co-founder that refers to me as "shihan", even though I have never used that title in my life, nor to I intend to ever use that title. It doesn't get under my skin and I certain don't get mad at him about it. Maybe you would have a different reaction to that.

I use your real name to show that I'm talking directly to you, person to person. After all, it was you that invited me to investigate who you were and find your actual name in a rather misguided argument about koryu.

You have been referring to me by my first name even before that koryu discussion, so that does not help or support you. But if you choose to address me by anything other than my screenname, then I will continue to do the same for you. You are in control on that one, Parker Sensei.

What I love about dealing with lawyers is the well crafted arguments that they present, stimulating the intellect, challenging perceptions and ideals, and leading to growth on both sides. Well, most of the time...

What I love about lawyers is that they go to an approved specialized graduate level school and have to pass a somewhat rigorous examination before they can enter their chosen profession. Contrast that to those who do not have not undergone such training and certification and instead choose to defend or advocate for themselves using tactics that they have witnessed on tv, the internet or youtube. The court ends up having to make allowances for this non-lawyer, and the pro se (unrepresented) party ends up losing. Badly.

Let's take Hontai Yoshin Ryu as an example. The majority of my information in that Ryu comes from attending seminars with the Head Instructor in Melbourne, having long conversations with him, training and discussing with one of his students, and training in related lines. This is then topped up with reading material. In fact, if you were to look over my posting history, you'd find that, for probably 90% of the systems I talk about, I either have experience in them, or I have friends who teach or train in them. And that list is pretty damn long... and that's where my information comes from.

The exception does not disprove the rule. Or should I yank out your exact quote?

My postings being impersonal is more to do with my style of writing, which comes from the position of our organisation against the larger Ninjutsu organisations. I try to keep things to facts as much as possible, and objective observation. Your posting seems to be more about boasting about your name-dropping, with little of real value behind them. Personally, I'd prefer to post something with more information, which can be verified easily, than just talk about other people and try to leech off their achievements.

You're entitled to your opinion (if that is truly your opinion), and I am entitled to not care about what your opinion is.

Frankly, Glenn, I see no support for your comment here.

Is that similar to having "no evidence"?

With regards to yourself, I have not proffered any opinion other than some hypothetical ones earlier in this thread, any other opinions that I have offered for other members have only been on what has been presented at the time. You have not offered any opinion of myself, you have made accusations. You have not been able to back them up, you have not retracted them, and you have continued to repeat them. Again, it is up to you to stop.

That's your opinion.

You really have no idea what my guidance is like in these areas, Glenn. In my opinion, you need to realize when you're talking out of your depth. But that doesn't seem to be your style.

Again you are entitled to your opinion Parker Sensei.

Again, Glenn, you're being an idiot. Your comments (both here and previously) about Japanese heritage in regard to learning or training in Koryu are so out of whack with reality that it's laughable. All it tells me is that you don't have a clue about anything you're talking about. But, for the record, there are quite a number of people who will argue with you, quite vehemently in many cases (such as Ellis Amdur, Meik Skoss, Dianne Skoss, Steve Delaney, Scott Halls, Phil Relnick, Pascal Krieger, Wayne Muramoto [yep, he's going to argue that Japanese ancestry wasn't really a boon for him as well], Ron Beaubien, Rennis Butchner, Russ Ebert, and many, many, many others who are far more informed than you are in every regard here).

Do you know any of those people personally, and that is what they told you personally, or did you read their opinions somewhere on the internet? And which opinion are you talking about? I don't think I ever said that you had to be Japanese to study koryu. What I said was that having Japanese ancestry and by extension growing up with japanese culture would certainly help one in one's studies of japanese martial arts, by having a head start on understanding japanese culture and behavior. Do they all disagree with that? Or is there something else that you have in your head that is causing confusion?

Frankly Glenn, I don't see the point in providing you with any answers with the way you ask for them.

No problem. Don't answer if you don't want to.

Glenn, go back and re-read it, then try again. But drop the false honorifics and accusations, if you had an argument they'd make you look petty, without one they make you look desperate.

Parker Sensei, I don't think anyone here is looking desperate, except maybe you, since you seem to desperately wish for me to refer to you as Parker Sensei. And like I said earlier, if you wish me to address you by your MT screenname, then all you have to do is address me by mine. In fact, you addressing me by my first name just might be some sort of MT violation on the disclosure of personal information.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I always hear people talk about the McDojo fad etc. I just came across a young man who started at the age of 13 and after 9 years of study was promoted to 6th degree blackbelt.

What are your thoughts on this? Legitimate? McDojo?

What factors would make it acceptable? Would it matter if the young man practiced REALLY hard and quickly grapsed the concepts?

So, about that OP, are there any systems that currently exist where a 21 year old could be a 6th dan?

 

[Chris Parker]

Happy one first!

I wouldn't mind discussing this further. Perhaps in another thread.

Sure, go for it!

If someone wants to support my club for twenty years and isn't disruptive to the class, I'd give them a hundred years. I'd think it really weird, but I'd be happy have them.

Ha, fair enough! I'd personally be trying to suggest to them that perhaps their time may be better spent elsewhere (for their benefit more than the schools, really), but that's me. Just a different approach.

I know the kanji and what it means. Obata's website just writes it out as shinkendo. And yes, it is totally unrelated to ZNKR kendo, which was my point; see below for the rest.

Hmm, you lost me. If you were aware that Shinkendo had no relation to the art of Kendo, other than some naming similarities, why was it brought into the discussion? I honestly don't see the relevance.

I'm not really sure that Dancingalone's comment was meant in that way and not with regards to the single student (he would have to clarify that), but I can respond to that as well.

Re-reading Dancingalone's statement, I can't see how he could have meant something else, really. It reads to me as a rhetorical comment basically asking if you can be said to be training in a particular art if you are missing key, integral parts of what that training needs to contain (sparring for Kendo, kata for Karate, falling/ukemi for Aikido). The use of the word "you" was an argumentative construct for the rhetoric, not asking a specific person about a real situation, as the construct was creating a situation that was not realistic (in the main - some Americanized forms of karate are exceptions for the kata section, as established).

So looking at it from the other direction, if the overall training of the art excludes a mainstay practice of the art, is it really the art in question?

I think that's what Dancingalone was asking in the first place, really.

In terms of the big picture, maybe; depends on the curcumstance. Regarding the kanji 新剣道, 'new kendo', if someone were to actually call their kendo that and set up a curriculum where wooden swords and dulled practice swords were used and called it that, then it would be 'kendo' (way of the sword) only in the generic sense, but not ZNKR kendo. It wouldn't necesarilly be bad or devoid of merit; it might be great and have lots of merit. But it would be a different art.

But the term Kendo, taken in the context, is specific to ZNKR Kendo, not a hypothetical construct designed to get around the question in the first place. And the argument isn't whether or not sparring in Kendo is good, bad, devoid of merit, highly valuable, or anything of the kind, it's that it's a required part of Kendo training.

If you're running a taekwondo club and training students for shihap kyorugi only, and elminating pumse, you're a competition club. Yes, I'd still consider it taekwondo. If you run a club that focuses entirely on do, pumse and application, with no shihap kyorugi, then yes, you're still teaching taekwondo.

Hmm, I'd put them down as very limited forms of TKD myself, and by extension, not really TKD (in the complete sense) at all. But I'd class the second form as much more complete than the first.

I won't speak for aikido, but given the quanitity of karate ryu, if you ran a competition sport karate school that only trained for tournament fighting, then in my opinion, you're running a sport karate school. It may be sport karate, but it is still karate. Just don't claim to be any particular ryu.

The idea of it not being a particular Ryu I don't think really comes into it. If you're just learning a range of kicks and strikes, and then sparring, without the kata that teaches the heart of karate, the purpose and reason of all the individual techniques, then I'd say it's not karate. It's karate derived, yeah. But it's not really karate.

Less happy one now.

Look, Glenn, all your post here tells me is that you haven't understood what I said, as your use of my comment is universally wrong. Let's start with that quote (that you used, what, 7 times? And never once actually got what was being said? Hmm...).

Here's where we're getting into some confusion. To stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in the club, then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet. Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring. However, if they don't spar because it's not part of the schools training methods, I'd say no-one in the club is doing Kendo, as they're missing a huge part of it.

Read the damn quote, Glenn. The entire sentence of relevance is "if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a solid grounding in the basics, BUT SPARRING IS PART OF WHAT GOES ON IN THE CLUB, then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've gotten up to the sparring yet".

Again, the criteria is that sparring is part of the training, not that every instant of training needs to be sparring, and nothing else is Kendo. I really don't see how I can say it any clearer, but you seem to have completely missed the point of my comments, and reposted it over and over again, even though it actually doesn't support a single contention you are making.

Seriously, you're a lawyer? Then let's begin the cross examination, shall we?

That is not what Daniel said, and that isn't what you said either.

Er, yes it is what I said, Glenn. Re-read the quote you put up, it's there right before your highlighted snippet: "if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a solid grounding in the basics, BUT SPARRING IS PART OF WHAT GOES ON IN THE CLUB, then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've gotten up to the sparring yet".

If you go with dancingalone's standard, then you weren't doing karate if your training did not include makiwara training.

You're like a tiny little dog with a big bone, way too big for you to handle, but refusing to let go, aren't you? I've already said that, in that system, that would be correct. But that wasn't my system. And if you don't understand that, you don't have a clue about anything else being said here.

That conflicts with your earlier statement:

You can't tell the difference between extending the hypothetical already put forth and saying that it is about an actual individual? You really can't see what's being said there? Really?

In short, no it doesn't.

moving on:

But Parker Sensei, now you are under the gun about using google, so I think that from now on you will be more careful with doing that, reflexively going to google, or youtube for that matter.

Little dog with a big bone again, Glenn. I don't "reflexively go to google", or youtube, and you have yet to supply evidence or retract your accusations. I've attained my knowledge and understanding over some 3 decades, Glenn, having you belittle it the way you have been is frankly damn insulting. And yes, it's now being reported for harassment (along with the other traits you're showing).

Again, that isn't what you said earlier:

Again, read the quote. It is what I said earlier.

Contrast that with this comment from you:

Have you even read what I wrote, Glenn? Or are you just wanting to argue without merit as you've been schooled a little more than you wanted to in recent times by me?

How about this statement by you. Is this an exception as well?

What? Is my statement that sparring is required to be part of the training in Kendo an exception to my statement that sparring is required to be part of the training in Kendo? Seriously, read the damn post.

Having wrote that, I don't see what this further discussion is accomplishing, since you have already conceded the point of the discussion between yourself, daniel and I.

No, Glenn, you haven't read what I wrote properly. There has been no "conceding" of any point the way you're thinking. Seriously, you're the kid running behind everyone else thinking you're actually winning...

If you say so.

You have no evidence to the contrary, you have nothing but snide, sarcastic, smarmy comments, and accusations with no basis whatsoever. So yes, I do say so. Now drop it, as you have nothing to support you.

That is another example of attempting to narrowly define something. Why would you know how to do that, embed posts with youtube links, if that isn't something that you do all the time, as evidenced by your posts?

The directive to embed rather than link, and to guide other members to do the same, came from Bob Hubbard, Glenn. It is not evidence of anything you're trying to make it out to be whatsoever, and the idea of needing an intimate knowledge of the software is frankly laughable.

And how the hell is my saying that the only software knowledge needed from youtube is to be able to copy and paste the URL me "narrowly defining" anything? That comment (well, let's face it, accusation) is just bizarre...

Apologize for what? Report what? You just admitted that you "probably have" watched more youtube videos of Ueshiba Sensei than I have.

Harassment, Glenn. Constant accusation here and on other threads, usage of names that are not my screen name, nor my real name, in an attempt to upset and infuriate me. Whether or not I've watched more clips of Ueshiba is not relevant, nor does it support your claims that youtube is where my information comes from. You're grasping at straws, and I'm sick of it.

You don't answer a lot of my questions. keiko shiai for example. I just move on when you do that.

That was answered. You probably just missed it, as it didn't let you argue anymore.

This is a perfect example of me not really caring what your opinion about me is. In fact, if this one case goes how we think it will go, it might be time to retire. Again.

Ah, the thing with comments like that, Glenn, is that they really don't impress me. Be a decent person, capable of intelligent debate, and I might be impressed. But this? Sorry, nope.

I would draw the line where the student is actually training in any aspect of the martial art. For beginners, I would limit it to actual physical training. I wouldn't consider reading up on kendo on the internet or watching kendo videos on youtube as "doing kendo" for example, especially if the person has had no physical training in kendo. However, reading up on kendo online or watching youtube videos could be considered "doing kendo" for an advanced practitioner who is studying up on his opponents prior to a tournament. But for beginners, then if they are learning how to fold their hakama, do suburi, etc., anything but don't spar, then they are doing kendo. And you agree with me.

I agree with that, provided that sparring is part of the overall training. Again, read the quote. But then again, you don't care about context, do you? Pity, as not caring about context means that you're arguing irrelevant arguments, and not understanding the ones put to you. I really hoped you had more to offer than this, you know. You could have had value.

The issue with that is, who decided you were the one to determine who is or isn't "doing" a particular martial art? It really is your opinion only, and there is no right or wrong answer.

For crying out loud, Glenn, where do I state that I am deciding anything of the kind? I'm saying that such a distinction exists, and even give examples which make it plainly obvious that it changes from art to art, from system to system, and from school to school. Really, if you're going to argue, at least try to read what is written.

There are no qualification on the part of the opinion givers that their position was based on their art or system only. If you don't do makiwara training, you aren't doing karate. And since your karate training did not include makiwara training, then you were not doing karate either.

Context, Glenn, context.

Oh, right. You don't care about that.

You must have be confused with one of your students, who listen and do whatever you say. Sorry, but I'm not one of them.

Glenn, if you were one of my students, and acting like you are here, you'd be pulled aside and have pointed out just how bad an ambassador you were being... I'm not asking you to do what I say, I'm saying that your behaviour is taking you in a direction that you can avoid. Sad that you don't seem to care how bad you look.

Funny how you refer to me as "son", when I am older than you are. Are you in the habit of doing that? As for the rest of your comment, that pretty much get nullified by your earlier comment.

I refer to you as "son" because you're acting like a spoiled, petulant child. And read the damn quote, it doesn't say what you're trying to make it say.

Parker Sensei, there is a kajukenbo co-founder that refers to me as "shihan", even though I have never used that title in my life, nor to I intend to ever use that title. It doesn't get under my skin and I certain don't get mad at him about it. Maybe you would have a different reaction to that.

Except that the context and intent is very different between the two examples, Glenn. And I'd like to think that if you asked them to stop, as you didn't like it for whatever reason, you'd expect them to stop as a basic courtesy, and they would. Again, sad that you can't see such behaviour as even being decent.

You have been referring to me by my first name even before that koryu discussion, so that does not help or support you. But if you choose to address me by anything other than my screenname, then I will continue to do the same for you. You are in control on that one, Parker Sensei.

That's your argument? You're not addressing the reason I use your name, the difference between using someone's real name and using a created name designed to aggravate and upset?

What I love about lawyers is that they go to an approved specialized graduate level school and have to pass a somewhat rigorous examination before they can enter their chosen profession. Contrast that to those who do not have not undergone such training and certification and instead choose to defend or advocate for themselves using tactics that they have witnessed on tv, the internet or youtube. The court ends up having to make allowances for this non-lawyer, and the pro se (unrepresented) party ends up losing. Badly.

Well, I suppose it's just a pity for you, then, that this isn't a court of law (most of what you've said would be removed simply for being irrelevant, though), and that there really is no reason to make any allowances for your lack of argument.

The exception does not disprove the rule. Or should I yank out your exact quote?

That's not an exception, though, it's an example. Surely you understand the difference, yeah?

And please try to only use my quotes when you understand the context, Glenn.

You're entitled to your opinion (if that is truly your opinion), and I am entitled to not care about what your opinion is.

Then why are you continuing with this? Why, if you don't care about my opinion, are you constantly baiting me with such harassing posts and flawed arguments?

Is that similar to having "no evidence"?

No. It's a statement of observable fact.

That's your opinion.

No, it's not. That's, again, kinda the point. As well as being evidenced by the, you know, words I wrote...

Again you are entitled to your opinion Parker Sensei.

Yes, but the difference between mine and yours is that mine is informed, and yours is not. Something to remember.

Do you know any of those people personally, and that is what they told you personally, or did you read their opinions somewhere on the internet? And which opinion are you talking about? I don't think I ever said that you had to be Japanese to study koryu. What I said was that having Japanese ancestry and by extension growing up with japanese culture would certainly help one in one's studies of japanese martial arts, by having a head start on understanding japanese culture and behavior. Do they all disagree with that? Or is there something else that you have in your head that is causing confusion?

Yes, a number of them are friends of mine with whom I converse semi-regularly.

Yes, a lot of my information comes directly from them in personal conversations. Then again, a lot comes in other ways.

You stated that, if "the real traditions were being followed (I and my student) wouldn't be allowed to train in Koryu, but you would be required to". You have also made comments that your Japanese ancestry makes you a better candidate for learning Koryu, and more.

Yes, they disagree with you. For the same reasons that I, Paul (pgsmith), and others have pointed out to you.

No problem. Don't answer if you don't want to.

You haven't really given much reason to, you know.

Parker Sensei, I don't think anyone here is looking desperate, except maybe you, since you seem to desperately wish for me to refer to you as Parker Sensei. And like I said earlier, if you wish me to address you by your MT screenname, then all you have to do is address me by mine. In fact, you addressing me by my first name just might be some sort of MT violation on the disclosure of personal information.

No, it's not when you tell people to look you up. And addressing people by their real names isn't against any rules, however harassing posting styles by constantly using terms considered unwanted to refer to a member is considered harassment. So you know, on the topic of your actual name, that's covered in the rules this way:

2.14 Use of Handles, Aliases and Pseudonyms

MartialTalk allows its members to post under an alias, or handle, rather than their own name.

Use of a handle is optional, and doing so is not a guarantee of true anonymity as many factors can be involved to “out” your true identity.

Any handle must conform to acceptable board content policies and may not be offensive, insulting, and profane or otherwise unwelcome.

Your username, regardless if it is an alias or your own name, is not “private”.

You have a tendancy to stay just within the rules with your posting, Glenn, avoiding profanity, and putting things in forms that can be taken a few different ways (such as trying to appear respectful while knowing full well how I'm taking the term you're using for me). Of course, you've been requested to stop it, you've been told it's not desired, and you've persisted. So while the words aren't against the rules, your lack of action when the issue is pointed out has revealed what your intent really is. And, in that fashion, it's now reported.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Ha, fair enough! I'd personally be trying to suggest to them that perhaps their time may be better spent elsewhere (for their benefit more than the schools, really), but that's me. Just a different approach.

Whether or not the time is better spent elsewhere is something that I would definitely cover with the student so that their decision to stay or not is an informed one.

But some people stay in an art that isn't the best fit because they like the environment, or perhaps the school that teaches a more fitting art is not a good fit for the student for whatever reason.

Re-reading Dancingalone's statement, I can't see how he could have meant something else, really. It reads to me as a rhetorical comment basically asking if you can be said to be training in a particular art if you are missing key, integral parts of what that training needs to contain (sparring for Kendo, kata for Karate, falling/ukemi for Aikido). The use of the word "you" was an argumentative construct for the rhetoric, not asking a specific person about a real situation, as the construct was creating a situation that was not realistic (in the main - some Americanized forms of karate are exceptions for the kata section, as established).

'Can you do X without Y?' is a different question in my mind than 'Does X cease to be X if Y is subtracted?'

Regardless, I think our discussion has covered both meanings.

I think that's what Dancingalone was asking in the first place, really.

Again, he would have to clarify that, but regardless, I think we've covered all bases.

But the term Kendo, taken in the context, is specific to ZNKR Kendo, not a hypothetical construct designed to get around the question in the first place. And the argument isn't whether or not sparring in Kendo is good, bad, devoid of merit, highly valuable, or anything of the kind, it's that it's a required part of Kendo training.

Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that some enterprising entrepreneur wouldn't do it.

As I said, they could call it 'kendo' if they wanted, but it would only be so in the most generic sense, and it would definitely be a different art than what is accepted as kendo, regardless of what they call it.

I don't know if any other Japanese sword arts use or have used the term kendo to describe what they do; I thought that I had read somewhere that the term 'judo' had been used prior to Kano's establishment of judo, but I am not certain enough of that to put it forth as factual, and I have never heard of it being done with kendo.

Hmm, I'd put them down as very limited forms of TKD myself, and by extension, not really TKD (in the complete sense) at all. But I'd class the second form as much more complete than the first.

I think that ATC's club is a competition team and does not work at all with pumse (ATC, if my recollection of a conversation we had like three years ago is faulty, please correct me! ). If that is the case, he'd have to tell you more about the specifics. As for all pumse and application but no sparring, that is what many of these 'on the street/for the street/we're a martial art not a martial sport' schools do. I'm not critical of them; they meet the needs of a certain demographic/customer and usually have good retention rates. If its not what the way you want to learn taekwondo, look at other schools. There are certainly enough taekwondo schools that that should be an option.

And yes, I would still consider both to be taekwondo without any other pressing reasons to say otherwise.

The idea of it not being a particular Ryu I don't think really comes into it. If you're just learning a range of kicks and strikes, and then sparring, without the kata that teaches the heart of karate, the purpose and reason of all the individual techniques, then I'd say it's not karate. It's karate derived, yeah. But it's not really karate.

I'll leave that to a karateka to tackle.

 

[MJS]

Folks,

I believe the forum rules state that harassment and 'hot pursuit' ie: following people from forum to forum with the sole purpose of harassment, are all against the forum rules. Its fine to disagree with someone, but if you're going to start name calling and saying things for the sole purpose of insulting them, that is also against the rules.

Lets keep things civil please.

MJS
MT Asst. Admin