Can there be a Universal Black Belt?

[lklawson]

Well, while this wasn't what I was attempting to communicate, I'll try to answer your questions.

Mr Lawson,

Sorry for the possible off topic question.

If a system does not have a ranking system, and no certification paperwork, and uses word of mouth and the instructor telling the student they are ready to teach, is this a self appointed rank?

I don't think so. A lot of it has to do with Social Context. For instance, in certain places in medieval Europe anyone could claim to be a Fight Master. Usually, their instructor(s) would decide when they were a Master and then they could go and try to drum up business, sometimes by teaching under/for/to local nobility. But the other "Fight Masters" were free to call BS and talk bad about them or challenge them. To a certain degree, "Rank Is In The Ring" sort of thing.

Also if others call you by a title based upon your skills demonstrated to them directly is that a self appointed rank or title as well?

I wouldn't say so. If you go by the title "Coach" because your students call you that, then, to them anyway, you're a coach. I know some folks who are (more or less) jokingly sometimes referred to as "Professor." It's an archaic term in modern martial English language context but meant more 100 years ago.

However, more to the point I was trying to make, closer to it anyway, a rank is really only applicable within a given system. A 2nd rank in Wondur Fu Lart is only a marker of skill within Wondur Fu Lart and has no bearing upon any other art, and even then only when conferred or confirmed by someone with appropriate standing within Wondur Fu Lart.

Sometimes skill just needs to be "recognized," I agree. That's why some arts, Judo for instance, have Batsugun.

I will further stipulate that this can be a difficulty for "new" or "reconstructed" martial arts (any of the medieval Longsword or Knightly arts, for instance) in which there is no "living lineage" holder to confer rank. In those cases it is generally accepted to "go slowly" and be very conservative about your claims. Still the point of rank is as a marker of skill and advancement within a given system so it can be important to have some sort of marker system even in a "new" or reconstructed art.

I have a short essay on the pros and cons of a ranking system. Advantages and Disadvantages of a Ranking System: http://www.facebook.com/pages/CBD-Western-Martial-Arts/147061672002258#!/notes/cbd-western-martial-arts/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-a-ranking-system/351121251587999

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Master Dan]

Well as for establishing a professional bench mark we now have Universities here in the US offering bachelor or master's degrees in Taekwondo and certainly KKW in its International Master's instructors license course and test is attempting to move all master practitioners globally to a standardized uniform level explaining that they percieve a move in the US to have goverment control over MA instruction in the future and this is the best way to prepare for that even stating several times over the last 3 years that no one will be able to recomend rank promotion with out possession of the Master Instructor License but while in writting on many occasions not enforceable at this time for alot of reasons.

But one universal black belt certification? No only a state or federal new regulation that would relate to MA commercial enterprizes and I think the korean's looking ahead as a business are trying to get infront of that California could be first in restrictions and new laws? but on size fits all would be like saying we will now have only one church in the US the church of MA??

 

[Chris Parker]

For anyone reading this, and I really am aiming this more at Jason than anyone else, settle in. This probably won't be a short one.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.

Its just an idea to talk about Chris, it does not give anyone any insightful idea about my experience or understanding. It is correct to doubt the idea and find it flawed, it is deeply over-reaching to make assumptions about the one who posed the hypothetical question based on the merits or lack concerning the question itself.

You don't like the idea. I got it. Thanks.

That's the second time in this thread you've tried to insinuate something about my intelligence, Jason. The first time was amusing, the second is downright desperate. Frankly, there is no attack you can make on my intelligence if you are using any of the evidence in this thread, where you have presented a completely, fatally flawed idea, and had it pulled apart, while not being able to support any part of it yourself. The implication here just shows that you have no argument, as you've resorted to ad hominem attacks (implying that my confidence in my presentation is more due to ignorance, the idea that I come across as certain as a sign of stupidity? Or that, because you've decided to come up with a desperately bizarre idea, with no basis in reality, and have no backup to the claims you've made, you must be more imaginative and have more understanding?... Seriously, Jason, look at the damn thread! Everyone here is in agreement with my take on things, so what does that tell you?).

Our insight into your experience is based in the fact that everything you've claimed should have told you instantly that there was no basis in it, that it wasn't even a discussion or debate, yet you've argued against that for the better part of close to a dozen pages. You have explicitly demonstrated a lack of understanding of even such a basic idea as different styles having different methods of punching (without even getting into the idea of systems that have no punching in them whatsoever). You have been provided with many, many opportunities to clarify your understanding, and have completely failed to do so at any time. You really can't blame anyone for thinking that there are major, and I mean major gaps in your understanding of a huge number of things. If you have a problem with that, look to the way you presented yourself and handled questions.

And it's not that I don't "like" the idea, it's that the idea, if it were a person, is a DOA. It never existed. It was flawed to the point of being unable to stand on any merits, it's own, or the frankly flawed attempts you gave to attempt to provide a connection between your "universal black belt" idea and basic university degrees. There was no idea there to like.

Ok,

I would like to SINCERELY thank everyone (including Chris) for the responses to this "idea." Mind you it was/is not something I had nor have I ever had it was something I heard discussed once and was curious to see how you all felt about it.

Can there be a Universal Black Belt? NO!!!!

I don't think a single person gave it a chance. WOW!

As I read through this and my efforts to fight for the idea it made me think of this clip and I am in tears laughing at work, hope you all enjoy it as much;

Sincerely thankful,

Jason Brinn

Hmm, before I get to the real issue here, who do you think you are in that clip? Cause, really, you're not looking like Ben Stiller from this end....

Right, to the point.

Are you seriously kidding me? Really? "Can there be a Universal Black Belt? NO!!!! I don't think a single person gave it a chance. WOW!" Really, Jason? Have you looked at why no-one gave it a chance? The idea is flawed from the outset, with absolutely no practical way it could possibly exist, and you're amazed no-one gave it a chance?!? Really?

Then we get this?

No. You were right then and you are right now. A Universal Black Belt if one could ever exist, which I don't personally believe it could, would have to do just what you say - create a new style in the end. Your reasoning is sound and your approach and remarks greatly appreciated. Thanks again!

The quote you took was me unsuccessfully trying to argue in favor of how the idea could be realized.

You personally don't think a Universal Black Belt could ever exist? What, now you don't? You've been arguing specifically that it not only could, it would fix the "classical mess" in martial arts... which is a mess, I might remind you, that simply doesn't exist outside of your head. Are you trying to suggest that you've known from the get-go how flawed the idea is? Seriously? I mean, let's go to the tape!

The OP:

I have talked about this subject many times with friends, some of which are considered legends in the Martial Arts community, and it seems most people think that there could be but politics will probably never allow for it.

What I mean by Universal Black Belt is really a universally agreed upon set of curriculum that should one learn and demonstrate they would be acknowledged worldwide as a "general Black Belt". After this people could have specialties in specific arts.

I am curious to read your responses.

Thank you,

Jason Brinn

"Legends" in the martial arts who have such a seriously flawed understanding of martial arts? And they're "legends"? Are you sure? These guys (and you) think that the reason that a universal set of basics that apply to all martial arts can't be set is due to politics? Not, I don't know, the vastly incongruent approaches and beliefs different martial arts have?

But to the point, this reads as you thinking that such incongruences don't exist, so your idea has merit. That, to begin with, is evidence of a lack of understanding immediately... that's not a problem, but the way you've taken the correction, by not listening to a single part of it, has lead to this thread. There is no merit, which is exactly the response you got (that you were curious to read).

Of course, that was followed by...

Seriously...?

College's and most areas, SCRATCH THAT, all areas of science operate in such a manner and yet they have much more defined, refined and professional industries supported by them.

People go to college and get some kind of generic initial degree, such as BA arts or BS in science and then within or after that study they go onto have some specialized field. This provides the entire community that participates some kind of point of balance throughout. Provided their are governing bodies to maintain the standard across all institutions then everyone can at least rest assured that the basics everyone teaches are sound and then they can choose to argue after that point if they need to.

Also, by having this kind of thing in place it allows for consistency, quality and progress. Wouldn't it be nice if every art had SOUND concepts of dealing with ground conflict, knife conflict, punching & Kicking, etc. Wouldn't this make us all better in the end?

And for those of you who might say but what if I don't agree with the "standard" teaching on punching & kicking? Fine, at least everyone knows you understand the basics that are agreed by the majority and are choosing to go your own way.

Is this really so offensive an idea?

You think that such a baseless idea, which has no portion or degree of rational construct or realism in it's creation, is something that can be related to general college degrees? There is no correlation, but I'll get back to that. The point is more that, when you asked for responses, you got them, then came back with this? Again, evidence that you just don't get the differences between two martial systems, let alone the range and breadth of them.

In your opinion Chris, your OPINION. I have a good understanding bro.

It has always amazed me that some people in martial arts want to make things complicated, mystical or the like. So someone who studies complex sciences through the university process is actually studying something less complex as the martial arts, huh?

In the end we all may have different ways of doing things but we are all doing the same things - like this or not.

Punching Class 101 -
1. The basic concepts and physics of punching

So you have a bunch of well rounded Class 101s that make up the Black Belt, after that one could go onto;

Chinese Degree
Chinese Punching Class 201
1. Chinese methods and principles of punching
.....

Japanese Degree
Japanese Punching Class 201
1. Japanese methods and principles of punching
.....


We all have the same physical forms, move the same ways, are affected by the same physical laws. In the end our differences are really just on opinions of application. We could DEFINITELY teach and mandate what the basics are outside of opinions of application and at least know that people are getting the basics right.

Ah, I love this one... you start by saying you have a good understanding, then completely fly in the face of that claim with the rest of the post. Really?

I am not talking about changing the arts or their approach. I am talking about having basics that are known and agreed and a starting point for the arts.

And here we have a complete contradiction, which shows, again, a real lack of understanding...

Can't see the forest for the trees.

I am not suggesting Bruce would have agreed, I am not even saying I completely agree with Bruce. I am saying that by his quotes he seemed to believe there was a core essence to everything that could be taught. It seemed he believed that there was a basic set that we are somewhat limited to as members of the same species. I am of that belief and I also think we could teach these as a basis.

No, that is not what Bruce thought. He was more about getting a sense of what works for an individual, not an overall single skill set for all martial arts. Seriously missed the mark on that one.

Physics, as well as other disciplines, dictate the ways "we" punch not styles. You can flavor the water but in the end it is still H2O.

And, again, missed the point completely. In fact, you've gone completely in the wrong direction. It IS the style that dictates the way it punches, Jason. You say you have some understanding here? Seriously? Can you start to see why we doubt that?

Sure.

I believe that there is a core way of doing most things like punching and kicking. I believe this core way is in line with what is mandated by physics. I believe that different arts, styles and systems flavor that core one way or the other. I believe it would be great if everyone understood the core way clearly before they started training some flavor. Mind you, I think these basis could be learned relatively quickly, but would be great to know that everyone in the room understands what we can effectively demonstrate based on physics and not building fanciful ideas, arts, styles and systems on things they could never demonstrate realistically (but here again I was rooted in the idea that Martial Arts were for learning combative measures one might actually need to use one day).

So I've pointed out the lack of understanding demonstrated throughout this thread, but the flip side is that all of these posts show that you do believe that such a thing is possible, despite being repeatedly shown that it just isn't. So saying that you don't think it's possible now, what's with the continued arguing?

For example, this kind of training could prevent things like;

and what I see at most schools similar to this;

I have to ask, though, as you've never answered this particular question (or a multitude of others), what exactly do you see in the first clip that "needs preventing"? And are you in any way serious in stating that the second clip is something you see in schools? Even though it's a joke clip, and not actually based in any martial art schools at all? Because, combining this thread, your constant refusal to answer questions, your ignoring of the actual answers which told you why your idea was completely unfeasible, and so on, then posting these clips, you really are coming across as trolling.

Yes. That's the idea of a Universal curricula isn't it? That's not to say that one style or the other is wrong, its just a way to develop a basic set of techniques and to provide a good base to grow from.

But having a single way of doing things is saying that the others are wrong. I have a student who cross-trains in a Chinese system, and while some of the things she does are considered correct in her Choy Lay Fut classes, they are simply wrong in mine. So she needs to be corrected. How does a universal set of basics allow for that?

Huh? You have a single value approach to martial arts, which you have been unable to get past (your culture), and you feel justified in using this quote to show your superiority? Really? Hmm, you might want to revisit those ideas you have on intelligence you directed at me....

Rich,

I was just trying to say that even degrees of different disciplines share some core initial college work load for the most part, nothing more.

Except that the way that works has nothing to do with martial arts. You might as well be talking about learning languages, and saying that you can come up with a basic vocabulary, then later go on to use it to learn any other language... it just doesn't work, and your comparison is deeply flawed.

My word have you missed the point of that quote...

And that one.

Seriously, Jason. There is nothing viable in your idea. If you really did have a clue about martial arts, you'd see that in a second. I really am thinking that you're only interested in trolling, as this entire thread reads that way.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Seriously, Jason. There is nothing viable in your idea. If you really did have a clue about martial arts, you'd see that in a second. I really am thinking that you're only interested in trolling, as this entire thread reads that way.

Chris, I'm pretty certain Jason isn't trolling. I believe his participation in this thread goes roughly as follows:
1) Posts poorly thought out idea for discussion
2) As criticisms start piling on, starts trying to defend and clarify his idea
3) Somewhere along the way, perhaps around the time of my first post, realizes his idea won't work and concedes the point
4) Criticisms continue to come in, feels defensive, tries to explain why he's not dumb or misinformed for having the idea in the first place. Sounds like he's still defending the original idea, but then clarifies that he's just trying to explain his original thought process. Lashes out at those who seem to be threatening his ego.

At this point, everyone (including Jason) agrees that the original idea is completely unworkable. The only real bone of contention is whether it indicates something bad about Jason that he would propose the idea in the first place without immediately realizing the flaws in his reasoning. Given that discussing martial arts is more interesting than discussing whether Jason understands the martial arts, I'd vote we give the guy a break and move on.

 

[jasonbrinn]

Chris,

I am trying hard to remember that I care about being nice more than being right but you sir make that very hard. Have you ever lived off of the computer? Are you real or a computer program?

I NEVER stated I was for the idea I just presented that idea for debate MATE! Have you ever heard of a debate before? No one was arguing for the idea so in the interest of getting past all the "no that will never happen" and similar remarks I started arguing for the idea in order to draw out some deeper reasons.

Somehow, as usual, you read into what I posted which was;

I have talked about this subject many times with friends, some of which are considered legends in the Martial Arts community, and it seems most people think that there could be but politics will probably never allow for it.

What I mean by Universal Black Belt is really a universally agreed upon set of curriculum that should one learn and demonstrate they would be acknowledged worldwide as a "general Black Belt". After this people could have specialties in specific arts.

I am curious to read your responses.

Thank you,

Jason Brinn

Now....where in there did I say anything other than 1) I heard people talking about this and 2) I am curious to hear what people on this forum think? Oh, that's right mate - I NEVER DID.

Dude, get over yourself. You have, and not just in this thread mind you, constantly attacked my knowledge of martial arts, my training and even my relationships with my teachers. Its no doubt that you are a smart fellow but maybe too smart for your own good. You think you know everything even things you could NEVER know about and you comment as if you are the last say on an issue or that everyone else should just stop cause how could they add anything of value after you have posted.

The way you post makes me sad. It makes me even more sad that you have some kind of role with this forum officially it seems. Don't get me wrong Chris, I have nothing against you personally and I even enjoy a lot of your comments. I think you probably mean well but at some point mate you might find that you are not the one looking down on everyone - even if you speak as if you are.

If you took 2 seconds to reflect - I was saying that I was the post and me arguing for it was like the crazy guy in the Ben Stiller clip, but how could you see that Chris when you are just waiting to pounce.

We FUNDAMENTALLY disagree on what the Martial Arts are about and what they are for. I believe that men created them for survival and to fight. I train them to survive and fight. My goals with any training come against that filter first and last.

I like to have debates with people to learn. Even if I agree with someone or their viewpoint there is often a lot to learn as to how they came to that belief or stance that is different from my own experience. There are places on the internet and they are not court rooms where people go to share and interact and they are called forums, welcome.

As for you slyly trying to poke at my martial arts training, background, experience, etc., etc.;

 

[Chris Parker]

Honestly, Tony, if we hadn't gone round with Jason on these types of things before, I'd be with you. However...

Chris,

I am trying hard to remember that I care about being nice more than being right but you sir make that very hard. Have you ever lived off of the computer? Are you real or a computer program?

Oh, very real. And I don't particularly care about being nice, when it all comes down to it. Then again, I don't particularly care about not being nice. I do, however, care about good information being presented, and bad information (or ideas) being questioned. And the complete avoidance of any answers from you in this thread (and others) doesn't really ingratiate your ideas to me, so I'm not really much disposed to be gentle too much.

I NEVER stated I was for the idea I just presented that idea for debate MATE! Have you ever heard of a debate before? No one was arguing for the idea so in the interest of getting past all the "no that will never happen" and similar remarks I started arguing for the idea in order to draw out some deeper reasons.

Somehow, as usual, you read into what I posted which was;

I have talked about this subject many times with friends, some of which are considered legends in the Martial Arts community, and it seems most people think that there could be but politics will probably never allow for it.

What I mean by Universal Black Belt is really a universally agreed upon set of curriculum that should one learn and demonstrate they would be acknowledged worldwide as a "general Black Belt". After this people could have specialties in specific arts.

I am curious to read your responses.

Thank you,

Jason Brinn

Now....where in there did I say anything other than 1) I heard people talking about this and 2) I am curious to hear what people on this forum think? Oh, that's right mate - I NEVER DID.

Well, firstly, you didn't say that you'd heard people talking about it, you said you'd discussed it "many times with friends, some of which are considered legends in the Martial Arts community", then continued to imply that it was an accepted and common idea which many agreed on. That's actually quite a different thing to "hearing people talking about this", when you get down to it, as it puts the origin of the idea with you.

Next, you never stated that you were for the idea? Are you seriously kidding here? You never stated you were for the idea? Really? Are you sure about that?

Also, by having this kind of thing in place it allows for consistency, quality and progress. Wouldn't it be nice if every art had SOUND concepts of dealing with ground conflict, knife conflict, punching & Kicking, etc. Wouldn't this make us all better in the end?

And for those of you who might say but what if I don't agree with the "standard" teaching on punching & kicking? Fine, at least everyone knows you understand the basics that are agreed by the majority and are choosing to go your own way.

In your opinion Chris, your OPINION. I have a good understanding bro.

It has always amazed me that some people in martial arts want to make things complicated, mystical or the like. So someone who studies complex sciences through the university process is actually studying something less complex as the martial arts, huh?

In the end we all may have different ways of doing things but we are all doing the same things - like this or not.

Punching Class 101 -
1. The basic concepts and physics of punching

So you have a bunch of well rounded Class 101s that make up the Black Belt, after that one could go onto;

Chinese Degree
Chinese Punching Class 201
1. Chinese methods and principles of punching
.....

Japanese Degree
Japanese Punching Class 201
1. Japanese methods and principles of punching
.....


We all have the same physical forms, move the same ways, are affected by the same physical laws. In the end our differences are really just on opinions of application. We could DEFINITELY teach and mandate what the basics are outside of opinions of application and at least know that people are getting the basics right.

I am not talking about changing the arts or their approach. I am talking about having basics that are known and agreed and a starting point for the arts.

I can say that I have had Duncan Leung, Jow Lewis, etc. teach me punching and it was always the same except for how it was applied (surface, angle, power).

.........

I understand why people on the outside look in skeptically when there isn't even basic levels of consistency.

I believe there is a remedy for this, albeit I am alone in my ideas about how (not the first time - certainly won't be the last).

I too have studied all 3, including others, and I feel at the core there is little difference. Not that I care about standing alone as I am fully prepared to stand up, for and by my own ideas but I am not exactly alone in this idea either.

Can't see the forest for the trees.

I am not suggesting Bruce would have agreed, I am not even saying I completely agree with Bruce. I am saying that by his quotes he seemed to believe there was a core essence to everything that could be taught. It seemed he believed that there was a basic set that we are somewhat limited to as members of the same species. I am of that belief and I also think we could teach these as a basis.

Physics, as well as other disciplines, dictate the ways "we" punch not styles. You can flavor the water but in the end it is still H2O.

Sure.

I believe that there is a core way of doing most things like punching and kicking. I believe this core way is in line with what is mandated by physics. I believe that different arts, styles and systems flavor that core one way or the other. I believe it would be great if everyone understood the core way clearly before they started training some flavor. Mind you, I think these basis could be learned relatively quickly, but would be great to know that everyone in the room understands what we can effectively demonstrate based on physics and not building fanciful ideas, arts, styles and systems on things they could never demonstrate realistically (but here again I was rooted in the idea that Martial Arts were for learning combative measures one might actually need to use one day).

For example, this kind of training could prevent things like;

and what I see at most schools similar to this;

While talking with the group of "legends" the idea that each respective Master would give the absolute minimum for their arts. Like a knife master gives top three things, judo master gives top three things and so on. These Masters would serve on the board that backs up the certifications. The curriculum would be designed not to overlap yet fit together to develop a nice well rounded base.

There would be nothing from stopping them nor should there be. The fact is though WE all would KNOW exactly what they are teaching and their level and the buyer could be
WELL INFORMED!

Lastly - this was an idea and a fun discussion amongst Masters of the like I will probably never will be that I got to sit in on. I thought it would be fun to share and kick around not stomp into the ground and treated as if I know nothing for even suggesting the concept. Funny thing is that compared to the guys actually having the discussion getting talked down to by someone online like Chris is actually vey amusing

How can I say what I did about the punches, because for the most part I have found it to be true. Maybe your experience is different and so you have a different idea about things but that does not mean that others with different ideas are wrong. Even if someone has an idea that is different from the crowd it does not necessarily make that person wrong, just different.

The only similarity is "you stick your arm out, with your fist on the end of it and try to connect to your opponents face" That's were the similarities end.
So, you are saying that all punches have similarities then. Great. Now, just determine the preferred striking areas and then you analyze how each punch performs attacking those areas rating them on 1) how much damage they caused and 2) how much damage was sustained to the puncher. Once you have this data one or a few will stand out and more than likely one punch will take the cake on the "best" general punch. So, after you have done this across the board you have the most basic set and everything after that is flavor and opinion.

I mean, up til that point, it's been a discussion that you were a part of, you don't change that part of the story until post #120, page 8:

Ok,

I would like to SINCERELY thank everyone (including Chris) for the responses to this "idea." Mind you it was/is not something I had nor have I ever had it was something I heard discussed once and was curious to see how you all felt about it.

Can there be a Universal Black Belt? NO!!!!

I don't think a single person gave it a chance. WOW!

So again, tell me why we should trust you when you refuse to back up some ridiculous claims, and come at us with these bizarre ideas? You haven't even stayed consistent in this thread! Piece of advise, though... you are aware of how you are perceived here. If you are going to float something like this as a hypothetical, and it's not something you believe, but are taking the Devil's Advocate's role, say so! Otherwise you seriously just look lacking in all aspects, and it's even harder for us to take anything you say without great handfuls of salt.

Dude, get over yourself. You have, and not just in this thread mind you, constantly attacked my knowledge of martial arts, my training and even my relationships with my teachers. Its no doubt that you are a smart fellow but maybe too smart for your own good. You think you know everything even things you could NEVER know about and you comment as if you are the last say on an issue or that everyone else should just stop cause how could they add anything of value after you have posted.

The way you post makes me sad. It makes me even more sad that you have some kind of role with this forum officially it seems. Don't get me wrong Chris, I have nothing against you personally and I even enjoy a lot of your comments. I think you probably mean well but at some point mate you might find that you are not the one looking down on everyone - even if you speak as if you are.

And you, Jason, not just in this thread, have shown major gaps in your understandings of martial arts, including showing major issues in your training background (training in Daito Ryu for over a dozen years, but missing everything but base mechanical technique, as that seems to be all you can see a martial art as). My questions have been to help you have some credibility... your inability, or unwillingness to answer anything is why you are doubted. It probably wouldn't be so bad if what you said rang true once in a while, but it just doesn't.

I can be blunt, yeah. And if that gets to you, and you don't like it, well, okay. But frankly, Jason, I have to say that this is really brought upon by yourself. This is hardly the first place you've encountered such issues... although I wasn't aware of those the first time we ran around in this dance, so you can't claim anything about outside influence. Oh, and Mentors aren't truly "official", in terms of staff. We don't give infractions, warnings, enforce rules, or anything of the kind. We do encourage them, though.

If you took 2 seconds to reflect - I was saying that I was the post and me arguing for it was like the crazy guy in the Ben Stiller clip, but how could you see that Chris when you are just waiting to pounce.

That really wasn't clear, Jason. Nor was what you meant about saying that a particular clip was something that needed to be "prevented"... or how realistically you intended it's companion to be taken. In fact, there's a lot of different interpretations of a lot of your posts here, which I've requested clarification of, to understand exactly where you're coming from, and which you have never answered (even when others have asked)... so if you've been misunderstood, and haven't clarified when asked, whose fault would that be?

We FUNDAMENTALLY disagree on what the Martial Arts are about and what they are for. I believe that men created them for survival and to fight. I train them to survive and fight. My goals with any training come against that filter first and last.

That's not what you said. You said that you train them for self defence, and I informed you that that is not the reason that many martial arts were founded (as you had stated). Fighting and survival are a different thing, in a large range of cases and contexts. So, again, no. Missed that one as well.

I like to have debates with people to learn. Even if I agree with someone or their viewpoint there is often a lot to learn as to how they came to that belief or stance that is different from my own experience. There are places on the internet and they are not court rooms where people go to share and interact and they are called forums, welcome.

Except you weren't listening, you weren't engaging in debate, you weren't offering any such insight. If you were taking a Devil's Advocate position, say so. If this was your idea of debate, there's a lot missing there as well.

As for you slyly trying to poke at my martial arts training, background, experience, etc., etc.;

Really? Trying to slyly poke at your background? Is that what you think I'm doing? Jason, I was providing a way for you to provide backup for your beliefs and claims... if you didn't want to do that, then frankly, you need to accept that there will be more than a healthy dose of skepticism where your ideas are found.

 

[jks9199]

Ladies & Gentlemen,

Let's do try our best to remember that Martial Talk is supposed to be a FRIENDLY place to discuss martial arts. One can only hope that perhaps jasonbrinn posted his opening idea much like some of those wonderful dorm room philosophy discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or the like that I've heard about. (Hard to say, my "dorm" experience was limited to a rather unique institution, in the days when women were things that we only dreamed of -- so dominated much of our discussions that weren't about whether or not the corporal would approve of our shoe shine or uniform press the next day... that and the occasional "I wonder what they talk about at a normal college...")

Perhaps we can drop the personal attacks and cheap shots, lest something more formal come to pass...

 

[Cyriacus]

Dude, get over yourself. You have, and not just in this thread mind you, constantly attacked my knowledge of martial arts, my training and even my relationships with my teachers. Its no doubt that you are a smart fellow but maybe too smart for your own good. You think you know everything even things you could NEVER know about and you comment as if you are the last say on an issue or that everyone else should just stop cause how could they add anything of value after you have posted.

Ive seen Chris not know stuff plenty of times.
But anyway

 

[arnisador]

Really? Trying to slyly poke at your background? Is that what you think I'm doing? Jason, I was providing a way for you to provide backup for your beliefs and claims... if you didn't want to do that, then frankly, you need to accept that there will be more than a healthy dose of skepticism where your ideas are found.

This seems like a reasonable topic for discussion. I don't get the point of a lengthy ad hominem post like this. Colleges have such a concept, high schools do, judo does it reasonably well...and we've all known martial arts schools that have standards so low we wish we could take away their students' black belts. As things stand a black belt in and of itself is meaningless unless you know the org. or instructor...of course, the same could be said of the degrees of many colleges nowadays. I don't see a viable path forward toward a universal black belt but I certainly have wished for it at times, as I have wished that Harvard gad trademarked "Bachelor of Arts" right at the beginning and only licensed its use to schools of appropriate quality.

In some ways a ZNKR iaido dan ranking, for example, is a sort of universal iaido ranking--you learn the minimum and perform at accepted competence, even though most (I think?) practitioners will still study a more traditional system with much more to it. I don't see a way to generalize that to, say, all styles of Karate, yet I've been lead to understand that "in the old days" one often had instructors of other schools and styles help judge your students in order to enforce not a common curriculum but comparable standards.

 

[K-man]

A lot of posts have passed under the bridge since I posted last and I think the fight is over. Certainly, it was a topic worth discussing but I think there was only ever one outcome.

If I could use Goju karate as an example of why a universal black belt would not work, even if there were only the Japanese and Okinawan styles of Goju in the discussion. Jason proposed that there should be certain basics that are universal. The example given was punching. But punching in Okinawa is very, very different to Japanese punching. Lineage goes to a common source in Chojun Miyagi but Gogen Yamaguchi changed the punching to more like Shotokan punching. So which is right? Regardless of the answer most practitioners would not change their position because to do so would necessitate changing a lot more of the basic structure to accomodate the change in punching.

Now we move to kicking. Japanese karate is more directed at competition and includes high kicks. Okinawan Goju karate is more directed at self defence and doesn't include high kicks at all. Which is right. Answer .. it depends.

Let's look at blocks. In the Japanese system we trained 'blocking'. In the Goju I now train there are no 'taught' blocks at all. So which is right?

There is no way I could ever go back to the training I grew up with, but I know a lot of very proficient martial artists that still train the way we did in the past. They are more than happy to continue along their original path.

If I could not even combine the styles of Goju, separated by one generation, how could it be possible to bring all other forms of karate into one basic form. We don't even have the same kata.

Then we look at 'internal' martial arts. How could you possibly introduce a base system that combines external and internal arts?

And that's before we try to force more than 100 different martial arts into one framework that would fit all. It just can't happen. :asian:

 

[Chris Parker]

This seems like a reasonable topic for discussion. I don't get the point of a lengthy ad hominem post like this. Colleges have such a concept, high schools do, judo does it reasonably well...and we've all known martial arts schools that have standards so low we wish we could take away their students' black belts. As things stand a black belt in and of itself is meaningless unless you know the org. or instructor...of course, the same could be said of the degrees of many colleges nowadays. I don't see a viable path forward toward a universal black belt but I certainly have wished for it at times, as I have wished that Harvard gad trademarked "Bachelor of Arts" right at the beginning and only licensed its use to schools of appropriate quality.

Honestly arnisador, that wasn't ad hominem. It was questioning directly, showing examples and evidence to back up why I was asking, demonstrating issues with the concept, as well as the original poster's claims, and was, really, entirely an answer to an ad hom post from Jason directed towards me. Pointing out the fact that he now says that he never supported the idea he put forth, and showing multiple cases of him supporting it isn't ad hom, it's establishing support for my argument. That said..

I'm not sure you're interpreting the idea of a "Universal Black Belt", as put forth in the OP and discussed from there, as it's being used. While the idea of standards is part of it, the side that we've all had an issue with is the idea that there's a universally applicable skill set, which is just as usable by all arts. That's not what you have in colleges, nor high schools, nor judo. Each of them are restricted to particular areas (while you get a High School diploma, the classes aren't all the same thing... English Literature classes don't share the same basics as Chemistry classes do). Additionally, the idea of applying the concept of college degrees is flat out flawed in the first place, as there is really no correlation between the educational methods whatsoever. One is intellectual, the other pretty much the opposite.

One thing we haven't really discussed in this thread is the idea of exactly what a "black belt", or dan ranking really is... because there are a lot of misunderstandings and assumptions (that aren't necessarily accurate, or even relevant) about that topic.

In short, a black belt, a first dan, however you want to look at it, means absolutely nothing outside of the school itself. Just because it's been adopted by the majority of modern systems (Japanese, Korean, Okinawan, Western, with a variation in some Chinese systems as well, often a sash rather than a belt) doesn't mean there is any relationship between them. In other words, a black belt (shodan) in one art is not meant to be equal to a black belt (shodan) in another. All Shodan means is "first level"... really, a school, should they choose, might only have Dan grades... and award the first of them at the beginning of the training. I wonder how many people would take it if you were awarded a Shodan just on entering a school? To be honest, it's completely plausible, and there's no reason that it couldn't be done... it just isn't.

A big part of why it isn't is that the initial usage of this ranking system (in martial arts) was from Kano Jigoro, founder of Judo. And the main reason he employed it was to be able to tell, at a glance, what rough level of experience the students he was teaching had, as he was travelling around teaching to school groups he'd never met before. The thing is, of course, that there was no precedent. As a result, there was no established "standard", or aim for each rank. When Kano first started applying the Dan ranks, they were awarded fairly loosely, with those Kano felt had more individual skill being put in a higher ranking than those who were less skilled, or less experienced. Additionally, it should be noted that there was no "highest" Dan rank... theoretically, you get a 274th Dan, if your skill was to that degree. Due to the way the ranking ended up settling, as it was being applied, 10th has been adopted as the upper eschelon of Dan ranking, but that was never part of it to begin with.

As different arts started to adopt Dan ranking systems themselves, they essentially had free reign to impose whatever limitations or standards they wanted to when it came to their implementation of the ranking. As I said, if a school/art wanted to just have Dan grades, but go up to 50, that'd be fine. If they wanted to have a pre-Dan ranking (Kyu ranking, as established in Kano's early ranking system, both of which were taken from the ranking structure of the game Go), they could... and could have as many, or as few as they wanted. I'm familiar with systems that have 3 kyu grades, or 6, or 9, or 10, or 12. In my organization (well, the one I do that has such grades... the others don't use this at all), we have 10 Kyu levels, then 5 Dan levels. That's it, just 5. So is our Shodan the same as a system that has 10 Dan grades? Or 15? How about the Kyu levels... we use 10. Another organisation for the same arts has 3. Are both of our 3rd Kyu's the same?

So really, Black Belt isn't a standard... so how can you have a "standard" for black belt? Let alone have it be universally applicable?

In some ways a ZNKR iaido dan ranking, for example, is a sort of universal iaido ranking--you learn the minimum and perform at accepted competence, even though most (I think?) practitioners will still study a more traditional system with much more to it. I don't see a way to generalize that to, say, all styles of Karate, yet I've been lead to understand that "in the old days" one often had instructors of other schools and styles help judge your students in order to enforce not a common curriculum but comparable standards.

No, ZNKR Iaido dan ranking is dan ranking applicable to ZNKR Seitei Iaido. Nothing else. Your dan ranking doesn't equal ranking in Muso Shinden Ryu, Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu, Hoki Ryu, or Mugai Ryu, all of which contributed kata to Seitei's curriculum. Nor is it equal to Yagyu Seigo Ryu, Shinmuso Hayashizaki Ryu, Kage Ryu, Tamiya Ryu, Sekiguchi Ryu, Araki Mujinsai Ryu, Toyama Ryu, or anything else. It's not uncommon for MSR or MJER to be taught alongside Seitei Iaido, commonly with the Seitei Iai being used as a "base" to continue into the MJER/MSR side of things, but that's not really the same thing as equating Dan ranking in one with Dan ranking in the other... more realistically, it's Dan ranking applied within that school, which might go across both, or might not. As far as Seitei Iaido being a case of "learn the minimum and perform at an accepted competence", I really don't know that I'd agree with that, the way Seitei is these days... the amount of attention to detail found there is hardly an approach of "learn the minimum"...

In the higher rankings (Godan), one requirement is to perform a kata from a Koryu system, so there's a reason that older arts are often studied alongside Seitei Iaido... that said, in a fair few cases (maybe the majority, maybe not... there's far too many practitioners to really know for sure) where only a couple of Koryu kata might be learned, specifically for the purpose of passing the grading. Commonly, in fact, it's just the Koryu version of one of the kata already in Seitei... so I don't know that I'd say most practitioners really study a more traditional system either.

With regard to the old methods of karate instruction, that's again a slightly different occasion. Similar to a large number of Chinese systems, a particular "school" of karate was essentially whatever a particular instructor was teaching. There would be some differences between, say, Naha-te and Shuri-te, but as the time went on, a number of kata would be shared amongst a number of different forms of karate... and this became even more solidified with Funakoshi going to Japan. Most of the Japanese systems trace themselves to Funakoshi's Shotokan, or teachings at that time, then going on to become separate arts based on the understanding of the instructor in what they've learnt. As a result, karate, probably more than in any other area of martial arts, has the most cross-over of technology... and a single, generic, universally applicable "karate black belt" still just wouldn't work. Goju Ryu, Isshin Ryu, Wado Ryu, and Shotokan all have very different approaches to just how to stand, or punch. The orientation of the fist alone is a difference. In short, it just doesn't work.

 

[Zero]

Let's see, how can someone with years of experience ask a QUESTION about an IDEA to see what people think? I guess it is because all of my years of training have taught me to be open-minded and search for NEW things, not to be closed minded and dogmatic.

Why take a shot at me with the "so called many years" statement? Does the idea attack your rigid thinking this much that you need to go after me personally?

You say it is great to debate and keep open minds while at the same time attacking the idea of debating certain things and keeping an open mind on them. Well then I guess the debate and minds in the debate are only as open as your view is wide.

How can I say what I did about the punches, because for the most part I have found it to be true. Maybe your experience is different and so you have a different idea about things but that does not mean that others with different ideas are wrong. Even if someone has an idea that is different from the crowd it does not necessarily make that person wrong, just different.

The only similarity is "you stick your arm out, with your fist on the end of it and try to connect to your opponents face" That's were the similarities end.
So, you are saying that all punches have similarities then. Great. Now, just determine the preferred striking areas and then you analyze how each punch performs attacking those areas rating them on 1) how much damage they caused and 2) how much damage was sustained to the puncher. Once you have this data one or a few will stand out and more than likely one punch will take the cake on the "best" general punch. So, after you have done this across the board you have the most basic set and everything after that is flavor and opinion.


To think you could surmise what I was after or any kind of context from my posting as simple as it was is well - your just jumping to conclusions.

Looks like Chris and others have beaten me to the punch (maybe some kinda universal punch...), seriously though, as said, it was not a personal pot shot at you. I dont' even know you or your skill levels but it was merely a statement of surprise at how certain people with what I would think should have quite a bit of experience raise or quesiton certain things. In fact the raising or questioning of things is great, and I assure you I am pretty open-minded both in life and MA, or at least I try to fight my redneck hillbilly tendencies... But when the questioning is done and someone keeps lambasting on about a matter that seems to have been shown lacking or a non-starter, well I think then it is valid to question from what level of experience that person is really coming from. And I would expect someone who intended to credibly argue for such a universal and functionable system/approach to need to be pretty highly experienced in both the doing and the knowing.

But to be clear, not intending to "dis" you in particular, there is clearly a massive range of experience levels between members on MT and I would hope to be only somewhere in the mid of that, at best.

I would hate to go on as this post is pretty 'el-deado but even your argument and surmising regarding the basics of a punch just don't seem to follow through beyound my initial throw-away (but I think correct) statement. I was lucky enough to do a couple years wing chun alongside my goju ryu (and also did TKD all through high school). But just looking at the marked differences in a wc to goju punch (strike surfaces, angle of wrist and arm alignment, angle of execution) there is no way you could bring any closer form of proximity between the two. In fact, I may be wrong, but I would be willing to posit that if you tried to instead use some "average" or middle ground (half-way house) of the two different punching styles you would probably end up with something with quite an unstable wrist and which would not at all be an ideal "base"/starting point for some "universal" application. As mentioned I think elsewhere, there are even differences in applicaiton of each different type of goju punch between goju camps, and different reasons (ie wrist stability etc) for those differences and no applicaiton is necessarily wrong. And as the guy who is great with the Tomahawk and axe said (sorry, forgot his name), you can't grade which punch is best overall on a grading system as different values or importance for things such as range, speed, angle, wrist stability, knuckle damage, impact type, hand protection (whether you are wearing gloves and wraps) are the very things behind the different punching types.

Anyway, time to cash in those chips and move on...

 

[Steve]

I just went through this thread and I'm really pleased that everyone agrees with me. After #152 posts, it seems that even Einstein would agree with my post #2: "I would say no." So, what else is there to talk about?

 

[Rich Parsons]

I just went through this thread and I'm really pleased that everyone agrees with me. After #152 posts, it seems that even Einstein would agree with my post #2: "I would say no." So, what else is there to talk about?

It is all about Steve!

 

[lklawson]

In short, a black belt, a first dan, however you want to look at it, means absolutely nothing outside of the school itself. Just because it's been adopted by the majority of modern systems (Japanese, Korean, Okinawan, Western, with a variation in some Chinese systems as well, often a sash rather than a belt) doesn't mean there is any relationship between them. In other words, a black belt (shodan) in one art is not meant to be equal to a black belt (shodan) in another. All Shodan means is "first level"... really, a school, should they choose, might only have Dan grades... and award the first of them at the beginning of the training. I wonder how many people would take it if you were awarded a Shodan just on entering a school? To be honest, it's completely plausible, and there's no reason that it couldn't be done... it just isn't.

Sorry I'm late on this reply. I've been away on vacation for several days.

I just have one nit to pick. Most Western systems do not have a "Black Belt" or Shodan. While it is absolutely true that many of them have ranking systems, the similarities end there. Some modern systems use a few ranks of "beginner" or sometimes no beginner ranks at all and only award ranks after "expert" skill has been achieved such as "Expert 1," "Expert 2," etc. Some reconstructed arts use a 4 part system following roughly an old English system in the ranks of Scholar, Free Scholar, Provost, Master. Savate uses a dual ranking system, tallying up both internal ranking and competition wins and marking through colored gloves ending with several levels of Silver Gloves (which, ims, derives from a ring ranking structure). Some arts, such as boxing and most of the wrestling styles, use no ranking whatsoever outside of ring victories and "coach" status.

Aside from that minor nit, I agree with your primary point 100%

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi Kirk,

Ha, yeah... sorry about that. What I had in mind when I wrote that was the modern Western takes on the Oriental based arts, "American Karate", "American Jujitsu", even BJJ, rather than the HEMA approaches, or systems such as the various boxing and wrestling methods. Apologies for the confusion...

 

[Zero]

It is all about Steve!

Can we please have set up a "Steve" forum, where going forward any and all MA questions are put to Steve for a simple and authoritative "yes/no" response to cut down on post numbers and get to the bottom of things quickly.

 

[Cyriacus]

Can we please have set up a "Steve" forum, where going forward any and all MA questions are put to Steve for a simple and authoritative "yes/no" response to cut down on post numbers and get to the bottom of things quickly.

I propose we have a board of Steverators as well, who get to yell "Yay!" or "Nay!" after Steve passes his verdict, to show the public opinion.

 

[lklawson]

Hi Kirk,

Ha, yeah... sorry about that. What I had in mind when I wrote that was the modern Western takes on the Oriental based arts, "American Karate", "American Jujitsu", even BJJ, rather than the HEMA approaches, or systems such as the various boxing and wrestling methods. Apologies for the confusion...

Fair enough.

I had a friend who taught "American Karate" some years ago.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk