21 year old 6th degree Blackbelt

[dancingalone]

I would say that that is where you were in your martial journey and that your personal journey took you elsewhere. People train in different arts for different reasons, and different people like different part of the same art. Some people only like to spar. That is the part of the art that they love, that connects with them, and that they get the most out of. It doesn't make them less of a "martial artist" than I am just because I enjoy kata as much as sparring.

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 with kata, arguably you're not doing karate. You're doing something else, no matter how much it can resemble karate.

Saying that you see a difference between an athlete in fight sport and a martial artist is fine, and certainly a reasonable case can be made for that perspective. It doesn't become snobbery until you admonish those in competitive arts not to call themselves martial artists, which is what prompted my comments.

If the above discussion has been about KKW sparring, and I'm not interpreting it personally as such, I don't believe the focus on Olympic rules sparring is a permanent one. It's a young person's game. Eventually the taekwondoin will turn to the other aspects of TKD, including teaching, even if it is only out of necessity. But until he does and assuming his practice is a narrow one, I don't necessarily think the term sportist is inaccurate, though certainly it can be used unkindly and for exclusion.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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 with kata (don't you mean without?), arguably you're not doing karate. You're doing something else, no matter how much it can resemble karate.

I don't know that I'd say that you're doing something else, but if you practice an art though multiple stages of life and only practice one part, you certainly are limiting your growth in the art.

Can you do kendo without sparring? Sure; people don't generally get into bogu right away, so there is a period of time that you are practcing kendo without sparring. But your kendo will never develop and you will never develop as a kenshi if you never go beyond this stage. But yes, you are still 'doing kendo.'

If the above discussion has been about KKW sparring, and I'm not interpreting it personally as such,

Not specifically, no. It can apply to any MA with a competition element.... such as judo.

I don't believe the focus on Olympic rules sparring is a permanent one. It's a young person's game. Eventually the taekwondoin will turn to the other aspects of TKD, including teaching, even if it is only out of necessity.

Yes.

But until he does and assuming his practice is a narrow one, I don't necessarily think the term sportist is inaccurate, though certainly it can be used unkindly and for exclusion.

So why not call him or her an athlete or taekwondo player? That is what they are generally called in a tournament setting. The term kendo player is also used... by kendoists.

The term 'sportist' is fine aside from the fact that there are already existing terms in use, but the context that you describe above is not what was being addressed in KSD's post.

 

[terryl965]

Wow what a very interesting thread....

 

[dancingalone]

The term 'sportist' is fine aside from the fact that there are already existing terms in use, but the context that you describe above is not what was being addressed in KSD's post.

I guess we can wait for him to clarify what he meant. Or not.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I think that he clarified it pretty well in his post:

The issue boils down to standards. There exists no universal set of standards within the martial arts as a whole, or indeed even within a specific martial art. TKD was mentioned, so it can serve as an example. Within TKD you have the martial art side and the martial sport side. Although the trappings may be similar i.e. uniform, belts, titles, forms (in some cases), the teaching methodologies, focus and goals of each are different. There are those on the sport side that would suggest that there is nothing wrong with a 4 or 5 year old black belt. At the same time, someone on the art side (where the focus is on self-defense as an example) would look upon such as unacceptable. Who is right? Well, they both are. For the purpose of sport, a 5 year old running around as a BB can be acceptable. A 21 year old master is acceptable. Someone claiming GM status in their 20's after only 16 years of training is acceptable.

Personally, my focus is in the martial arts, therefore none of that directly or indirectly affects me in the slightest. The perception of what a black belt is and can be seen differently between the art and sport side. Both should respect the other and not get bent out of shape as there really is not cross-over. The only real issue I would have is if one tried to portray themselves as the other. This is not only intellectual dishonesty, it does a disservice to the student and could put them at risk. If one is a martial artist, then be proud to be a martial artist. If one is a martial sportist, then be proud to be a martial sportist. But do not confuse the two. And don't think that training in one methodology covers for the other. It does not and wasn't designed to have much carry-over.

We will never have universal guidelines because they are separate entities. Even within one side you will never have universal guidelines as you'll never get a full consensus on what the standard(s) should be.

The above is definitely not about individual practitioners who compete in their teens and twenties and then stop practicing altogether because now they're playing golf. He's talking about teaching methodologies and whether or not what an instructor is teaching qualifies as art or as sport, and that if you're teaching sport, then you shouldn't claim to teach art.

While I agree with his conclusion; that a school that teaches SD focused curriculum is unaffected by a school that has child BB's because each is doing something different, that there should be mutual respect between schools that are more SD oriented and schools that are more 'do' oriented, and that there is no universal standard, I disagree with the logic that he uses to underpin that conclusion.

I disagree, not because I don't see a difference between SD and sport, but because I don't agree with him that a competition focused school is being intellectually dishonest in calling its martial art a martial art or that such a school is for martial sportists rather than martial artists.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Totally agree. But if you're going to draw an imaginary line between arts that have a competitive element and arts that do not and then call one group martial artists and the other martial sportists, then you are engaging in snobbery and creating a false dichotomy in order to lessen the value of or be dismissive of martial arts that have that competitive element.

This isn't the case. Just because you make a distinction in no way means you're engagin in snobbery. It means you're distinguishing things that are different, that's all. Whether or not one makes a value judgement while doing so, or whether or not there are inherent differences to the values of the things in question, is another matter. If there are people who do so it certainly isn't KSD, in any case. FWIW, you seem to be taking things more personally than is warranted.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Totally agree. But if you're going to draw an imaginary line between arts that have a competitive element and arts that do not and then call one group martial artists and the other martial sportists, then you are engaging in snobbery and creating a false dichotomy in order to lessen the value of or be dismissive of martial arts that have that competitive element.

So, if you're going to engage in that kind of snobbery (and no offense to Kong Soo Do, but that is exactly what it is), then you'd better be doing something that is actually 'martial' and put your money where your mouth is. While he didn't couch it this way, what it amounts to is implying that he and those who train the way that he does are "true" martial artists, while everyone else is doing dumbed down sport stuff. He may not intend for it to come across that way, and he may not even feel that way, but that is where that line of thought ultimately goes.

By the way, I want to clarify that I do not think that Kong Soo Do is a snob.

I have, however, seen his line of reasoning expressed by many others both here and elsewhere in the many art vs. sport threads. I consider this line of argument to be a form of snobbery, though the people who express it don't see it that way and generally are not snobs themselves.

Maybe calling it snobbery in and of itself is incorrect on my part; a more accurate statement would be that it promotes, and often leads to, a kind of snobbery.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

This isn't the case. Just because you make a distinction in no way means you're engagin in snobbery. It means you're distinguishing things that are different, that's all. Whether or not one makes a value judgement while doing so, or whether or not there are inherent differences to the values of the things in question, is another matter. If there are people who do so it certainly isn't KSD, in any case.

Sorry, but as soon as one group dubs themselves martial artists and declares that those who train differently are not martial artists, you have a dynamic of snobbery.

If you (the general you, not you specifically) are distinguishing between quality schools and schools that take excessive amounts of money and issue belts while offering little in the way of quality training, that is a different topic.

FWIW, you seem to be taking things more personally than is warranted.

Chris, I'm not taking anything personally. I am engaging in a discussion with other members of the board. I posted my previous post to clarify before I saw your comment above, so maybe that will clarify.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

To be honest, this conversation probably deserves its own thread, but it is the first sport vs. art conversation that I recall in recent years that didn't degenerate into fanboy-ism or personal attacks.

Edit:

And Kong Soo Do, I hope you don't mind me micro-analyzing your posts and discussing them with DA.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Sorry, but as soon as one group dubs themselves martial artists and declares that those who train differently are not martial artists, you have a dynamic of snobbery.

No, you don't. And this is exactly my point. What you have is a group of people drawing a distinction between what they do and what other people do. It's like people who draw a distinction between Olympic sparring and other types of sparring. You can do it and not be a snob. Or you can do it an be a snob. The choice is up to you, but there's nothing inherently snobbish about it.

If you (the general you, not you specifically) are distinguishing between quality schools and schools that take excessive amounts of money and issue belts while offering little in the way of quality training, that is a different topic.

Not really. Not if you mean it wouldn't be the exact same "snobbery" going on in a martial arts vs. sports distinction. One could easily say that a person who distinguishes schools that have quality training from those who are, for want of a better term, belt mills was engaging in snobbery because they were holding up some schools as being superior to others. The same can be said for distinctions made about traiing methods, types of competitions, time in grade requirements, etc. It has less to do with the distinctions being made and more to do with the attitude of the person making them. And, sometimes, with the attitude of the person reading the post(s) in question.

Chris, I'm not taking anything personally. I am engaging in a discussion with other members of the board. I posted my previous post to clarify before I saw your comment above, so maybe that will clarify.

Hey, if you say so.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Quite a bit to comment on, and the discussion is a great one. If I fail to touch on something please bring it to my attention.

By your standard, only koryu and a handful of later arts qualify. Most arts that people consider 'martial' (meaning training for war) are not martial at all; the term was appropriated by westerners who brought the arts here.

I disagree with your first sentence. Dancing Alone posted a very good list of examples of what I would classify, at least originally, as a martial art. It isn't or doesn't necessarily mean it is meant for 'war' which is why I mentioned an offensive/defensive element. Something that has a real world combative element and/or has been used in that light.

If you want to practice a modern martial art, get out of the dojo/dojang and either enlist or find someone to teach you military rifle use, including all of the marching and gun twirling (kata) and whatever hand to hand that soldiers are taught. I understand that anyone can go and take 'basic training' from groups that offer it as a course all its own and not as part of the military. That is martial art....

...Totally agree. But if you're going to draw an imaginary line between arts that have a competitive element and arts that do not and then call one group martial artists and the other martial sportists, then you are engaging in snobbery and creating a false dichotomy in order to lessen the value of or be dismissive of martial arts that have that competitive element.

So, if you're going to engage in that kind of snobbery (and no offense to Kong Soo Do, but that is exactly what it is), then you'd better be doing something that is actually 'martial' and put your money where your mouth is. While he didn't couch it this way, what it amounts to is implying that he and those who train the way that he does are "true" martial artists, while everyone else is doing dumbed down sport stuff. He may not intend for it to come across that way, and he may not even feel that way, but that is where that line of thought ultimately goes.

As has been pointed out, no 'snobbery' intended. I was very careful with how I worded my comments to avoid exactly this. I did not lessen or dismiss the value of martial sports in any way, shape or form. I did however point out that the goals, focus and training methodologies are vastly different even if some of the window dressing looks the same. Do I consider someone that trains for competition or for a hobby or for socialization a 'true' martial artist? No, I do not according to the definition I stated. This is not dismissive of them or an insult. Someone that trains for competition can be tough, talented, highly skilled in their respective sport and even have a 'warrior' mind set. They may even have some SD skills by default. If given the choice of a highly skilled KKW TKD BB that has focused on sport training methodology or someone with some simple, yet hard core H2H training as my back up....I'll go with the H2H guy. It is strictly due to the venue. If I was into competition then obviously the H2H guy isn't qualified.

I have used the martial arts outside the dojo/dojang, including rifle, shotgun, pistol and revolver in deadly force/critical force incidents. I stopped counting at 200 as far as H2H uses of force. I don't put that forth as a boast, that is just my chosen career over the last 22 years not counting military. Would this count for putting my money where my mouth is? To be blunt, and no offense intended, I know what works and what is a bunch of fluff and nonsense as far as SD is concerned. What works in a ring or on a mat doesn't mean it works against real bad guys.

And yes, I look negatively at what some claim is SD when it is nothing more than sport methodology. If it is sport, and designed to be used in competition then claim it and teach it with pride and confidence. But don't call it SD. Just like I wouldn't disrespectfully call what I teach sport because it isn't. I don't claim to train 'world champions'. I don't have a trophy case. That isn't our niche. So I can respect the 'martial sportist' for what they do if that is their goals and focus. Rock on and more power to them. But it disrespects us 'SD' people when sport folks hang a 'SD taught here' when they don't really know what SD actually is or how to train for it.

So do you consider Kano to have been a martial sportist?

I am only familiar with what he's done with Judo, though I know he started out with around five years of Jujutsu. I would say yes in as far as Judo is concerned.

I'm probably missing some stuff, but I just got done doing GVT training and I'm wiped out and needs some protein and carbs

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

No, you don't. And this is exactly my point. What you have is a group of people drawing a distinction between what they do and what other people do. It's like people who draw a distinction between Olympic sparring and other types of sparring. You can do it and not be a snob. Or you can do it an be a snob. The choice is up to you, but there's nothing inherently snobbish about it.

Just to be clear, I don't have any problem with distinguishing between what different schools do. Different schools do different things, have different training philosophies, and frequently are aimed at different groups of students.

But as soon as you draw a distinction between 'martial artists' and 'not martial artists' and say that one is intellectually dishonest if they claim to be the other, you've gone beyond making a distinction between what you do as compared to what another school does. Some schools are SD focused and teach you to defend yourself using the medium of martial arts. Some train students to be great competitors in the medium of martial arts. Others are more about self improvement through the medium of martial arts. Some give you a bit of everything.
But they're all martial arts.

Not really. Not if you mean it wouldn't be the exact same "snobbery" going on in a martial arts vs. sports distinction. One could easily say that a person who distinguishes schools that have quality training from those who are, for want of a better term, belt mills was engaging in snobbery because they were holding up some schools as being superior to others. The same can be said for distinctions made about traiing methods, types of competitions, time in grade requirements, etc. It has less to do with the distinctions being made and more to do with the attitude of the person making them.

It would depend upon what distinction is being mad, though to an extent, I'd agree with you.

And, sometimes, with the attitude of the person reading the post(s) in question.

Meaning?

 

[pgsmith]

Dancing Alone posted a very good list of examples of what I would classify, at least originally, as a martial art.

Anyone can call anything whatever they want, it's a free country after all. However, when you try to say that some schools are dishonest if they call themselves martial artists, that's when you're going to get arguments. This is due entirely to the fact that you have created arbitrary divisions with no basis in reality. I've seen a number of 'self defense' schools that were hopelessly inept in their approach and training. Youtube is full of them. I've also met several judoists that would (and have) wiped the floor with an attacker in a real self defense situation. You can't call one group of martial artists with real self defense skills dishonest because they train for competition. It's just silly, and does smack of elitism and an attempt to say "I'm better than that group" just on the basis of what a person does, not the results.

Just my opinion ...

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Quite a bit to comment on, and the discussion is a great one. If I fail to touch on something please bring it to my attention.

Glad you're enjoying it and I appreciate you being a good sport about me picking apart your posts. Of course, if they didn't have any substance, there'd be nothing to pick apart.

I disagree with your first sentence. Dancing Alone posted a very good list of examples of what I would classify, at least originally, as a martial art. It isn't or doesn't necessarily mean it is meant for 'war' which is why I mentioned an offensive/defensive element. Something that has a real world combative element and/or has been used in that light.

You are correct; I should restate that as, by your standard, only a comparative handful of schools would qualify, as most schools are not specifically teaching any kind of real world combatives but are more 'do'-ish, at least by my seat of the pants observation.

As has been pointed out, no 'snobbery' intended. I was very careful with how I worded my comments to avoid exactly this. I did not lessen or dismiss the value of martial sports in any way, shape or form. I did however point out that the goals, focus and training methodologies are vastly different even if some of the window dressing looks the same. Do I consider someone that trains for competition or for a hobby or for socialization a 'true' martial artist? No, I do not according to the definition I stated. This is not dismissive of them or an insult.

But the mindset of the student, which can change as time goes by. People often get into the arts for fitness or as a social activity and then train more seriously after they've gotten the bug, so to speak. Most people use the term 'martial artist' to designate someone who practices a martial art.

How about a mother who started taking an ATA TKD class because her kid took it and thought it looked fun; her kid is in it for a couple of years, gets their black belt, and wants to play soccor. Mom, however, enjoys the class, likes the fact that she fits into dresses she wore before having kids, and feels more confident about herself, so she stays in the class even though her kid moved on a few years ago. Is she being intellectually dishonest if she calls herself a martial artist?

Or is the guy who runs a TKD school that is as focused on WTF competition as you are on practical SD being intellectually dishonest if he says he's a martial arts instructor?

Someone that trains for competition can be tough, talented, highly skilled in their respective sport and even have a 'warrior' mind set. They may even have some SD skills by default. If given the choice of a highly skilled KKW TKD BB that has focused on sport training methodology or someone with some simple, yet hard core H2H training as my back up....I'll go with the H2H guy. It is strictly due to the venue. If I was into competition then obviously the H2H guy isn't qualified.

As backup (not sure for what), I'd want the one with with most even temperment and the best judgement. I view the type of training as secondary.

But you are hitting on a different point; if you know that you want to train for a specific setting, you should check out the training options available to you and choose the most appropiate one. Most people just go to a martial arts school because they assume that the curriculum will include what they are after without really asking any pertinent questions to confirm their assumption. And in fairness, some school owners eager to make a sale will exploit this, even if they know that their program really isn't a good fit for the student.

I have used the martial arts outside the dojo/dojang, including rifle, shotgun, pistol and revolver in deadly force/critical force incidents. I stopped counting at 200 as far as H2H uses of force. I don't put that forth as a boast, that is just my chosen career over the last 22 years not counting military. Would this count for putting my money where my mouth is? To be blunt, and no offense intended, I know what works and what is a bunch of fluff and nonsense as far as SD is concerned. What works in a ring or on a mat doesn't mean it works against real bad guys.

Sure. I was speaking in hyperbole, but enlisting is one of the things that I mentioned.

And yes, I look negatively at what some claim is SD when it is nothing more than sport methodology. If it is sport, and designed to be used in competition then claim it and teach it with pride and confidence. But don't call it SD. Just like I wouldn't disrespectfully call what I teach sport because it isn't. I don't claim to train 'world champions'. I don't have a trophy case. That isn't our niche. So I can respect the 'martial sportist' for what they do if that is their goals and focus. Rock on and more power to them. But it disrespects us 'SD' people when sport folks hang a 'SD taught here' when they don't really know what SD actually is or how to train for it.

Worded that way, I agree with you. However, I think athlete is a better term than martial sportist; an MMA fighter who has taekwondo as his base art is both an athlete (they're competing in an open tournamment) and they are a martial artist (they practice a martial art).

I am only familiar with what he's done with Judo, though I know he started out with around five years of Jujutsu. I would say yes in as far as Judo is concerned.

I appreciate the honesty, though I disagree with you.

I'm probably missing some stuff, but I just got done doing GVT training and I'm wiped out and needs some protein and carbs

I think you hit on the meat of the subject.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

However, when you try to say that some schools are dishonest if they call themselves martial artists, that's when you're going to get arguments.

And that is what sparked this conversation.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

You can't call one group of martial artists with real self defense skills dishonest because they train for competition.

I didn't. I said that if one group teaches with one methodology but claims they are teaching a different methodology then they are dishonest.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Glad you're enjoying it and I appreciate you being a good sport about me picking apart your posts. Of course, if they didn't have any substance, there'd be nothing to pick apart.

I enjoy discussing things with you because neither of us puts it, or takes it personally. I respect that.

If we're going to lump everyone into 'martial artist', I still think some sort of catagorization needs to be generally put into place. Will it happen? No. But I'd like to see it happen. Perhaps martial arts for the sport crowd and martial discipline for the SD crowd. A 'system' could have both an art side and a discipline side, but they are different in there methodology.

Would that be more easy to acccept?

 

[chrispillertkd]

Just to be clear, I don't have any problem with distinguishing between what different schools do. Different schools do different things, have different training philosophies, and frequently are aimed at different groups of students.

Of course, and that is my point. Simply pointing these things out isn't snobbery. It's pointing things out.

But as soon as you draw a distinction between 'martial artists' and 'not martial artists' and say that one is intellectually dishonest if they claim to be the other, you've gone beyond making a distinction between what you do as compared to what another school does.

Not really. You've just reserved the term "martial artist" to a particular group. That's not dishonest, especially since there's no hard and fast agreed upon use of the term. I know some people who refer to Thai boxers as martial artists, but I don't. But their use of it in such a manner doesn't bother me in the least.

Some schools are SD focused and teach you to defend yourself using the medium of martial arts. Some train students to be great competitors in the medium of martial arts. Others are more about self improvement through the medium of martial arts. Some give you a bit of everything. But they're all martial arts.

According to you, sure. According to other people, maybe not. What you're doing is trying to force other people to use your terminology when they don't want to. Frankly, I don't care one way or the other about what people call what they do.

It would depend upon what distinction is being mad, though to an extent, I'd agree with you.

I don't think so. Any distinction made can be seen as being "snobbery" by someone if they take offense at the distinction, even if it's valid.

Meaning?

The sentence "And, sometimes, with the attitude of the person reading the post(s) in question." was the end of a paragraph which pointed out that distinctions qua distinctions aren't what makes for "snobbery." Rather it is the attitude of the person making the comment or, at times, the attitude of the person hearing or reading the comment which makes it be perceived as "snobbery." If one is looking to be offended or lacks confidence about what they are learning then they are more likely to interpret an innocuous statement as something else. You see it all the time on the internet.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Randy Strausbaugh]

Folks, I bow deeply to you all. This is by far, one of the best threads I've read in years. Just the sort of thing I joined Martial Talk for. Thank you all, and please keep it up.

 

[puunui]

Can you do karate without kata? Can you do kendo without sparring? Can you do aikido without falling?

Yes. Yes. and yes.