21 year old 6th degree Blackbelt

[frank raud]

I have heard ninjutsu goes up to 35th Dan. A 6th Dan, depending on the scaling of ranking, is not unbelievable. From what I've seen, their 12th Dan is equivocable to what I've witnessed in 2nd Dans, respectively. It's all about how you scale it. 9 years to achieve what is equivocable, logically, to a 1st dan skill I would argue is taking their sweet time. But then again, it all comes back to what scaling is used. Do you know what system he is ranked in? I may have overlooked in MP, but I don't think I did.

I'm not familair with the term equivocable. what does it mean?

 

[puunui]

I'm not familair with the term equivocable. what does it mean?

I think he meant equivalent. "their 12th dan is equivalent to what I've witnessed in 2nd Dans".

 

[Zenjael]

Yes, thank you. You'd be amazed how often when writing a paper using scholarly dictionary it bleeds over into your other writings. I've seen a lot of fudging of language, and done it myself to increase length or raise the score for reading level. At Mason they've been pushing a Fleischer-kincaid so our papers come off more 'intellectual'. Apologies if I use diction I've made up... sometimes when tired and the word won't come to mind I get lazy . Again, apologies.

But yes, as puunui said.

Alex, you said this in post #51! It was replied to in #52 and #53 at least. Did you actually read the thread or are you jumping in and out?

My apologies. I thought I had said that already, but when I looked I couldn't locate it. Sorry for the repeat, feel free to remove it if its doable. I've been reading the thread, but I must have missed the page containing my own post. Not sure how... let's chalk it up to sloppy clicking? Thanks for the correction tho.

 

[jks9199]

Yes, thank you. You'd be amazed how often when writing a paper using scholarly dictionary it bleeds over into your other writings. I've seen a lot of fudging of language, and done it myself to increase length or raise the score for reading level. At Mason they've been pushing a Fleischer-kincaid so our papers come off more 'intellectual'. Apologies if I use diction I've made up... sometimes when tired and the word won't come to mind I get lazy . Again, apologies.

Strunk & White. Invest the $7 or $10 for a copy. It's reliably on the stands at Barnes & Noble, if not at GMU's bookstore. You will write better & more effectively, with less fluff.

Here -- you can use the multi-quote feature (which has been explained to you elsewhere), or you simply reply to each post in turn. Either approach is acceptable; I often simply reply to posts in turn because when posts get too long, it's easy to lose track of what's being said.

 

[Zenjael]

Here -- you can use the multi-quote feature (which has been explained to you elsewhere), or you simply reply to each post in turn. Either approach is acceptable; I often simply reply to posts in turn because when posts get too long, it's easy to lose track of what's being said.

Im still getting used to the multi-chat feature. The first time I attempted to use it, it made the reply very cluttered, which was unfortunate. I'll figure it out today to make everyone's lives easier.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I had to re-read the hole thread to work out where we are up to.

So, a 21 year old 6th Dan in this day and age? :lfao:

Sorry! :bs:

And what makes this day and age so special? A cutsey graphic and an animated 'bs' flag without any intelligent addition to the topic actually undermine your statement.

It is already pretty well established that a young athletic practitioner can certainly have the technical skill, particularly if they've been practicing since they were children. It always comes down to the supposed lack of maturity and wisdom in such practitioners, as maturity and wisdom can only be had by those over thirty or whatever number you choose to insert.

No offense, but a sixth grader could have made your post. If those of us who are of the supposedly appropriate age cannot conduct ourselves in a manner that befits our supposed maturity and wisdom, then why are we throwing stone at those who don't meet our arbitrary requirments? Requirements that, may I remind you, many of the founders and their early students were not subjected to.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Yes, thank you. You'd be amazed how often when writing a paper using scholarly dictionary it bleeds over into your other writings. I've seen a lot of fudging of language, and done it myself to increase length or raise the score for reading level. At Mason they've been pushing a Fleischer-kincaid so our papers come off more 'intellectual'. Apologies if I use diction I've made up...

Not diction. Word. A word you made up. Good rule of thumb: if you don't actually know the meaning of the word, don't use it, and don't make up words.

Equivocable, the word you made, might have the definition of "able to be made to have multiple meanings, be ambiguous, or be uncertain". If it were a real word.

The word doesn't make sense in the sentence, obviously.


Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[Zenjael]

It is already pretty well established that a young athletic practitioner can certainly have the technical skill, particularly if they've been practicing since they were children. It always comes down to the supposed lack of maturity and wisdom in such practitioners, as maturity and wisdom can only be had by those over thirty or whatever number you choose to insert.

No offense, but a sixth grader could have made your post. If those of us who are of the supposedly appropriate age cannot conduct ourselves in a manner that befits our supposed maturity and wisdom, then why are we throwing stone at those who don't meet our arbitrary requirments? Requirements that, may I remind you, many of the founders and their early students were not subjected to.

Love it. I recall reading in a Casca novel the recognizance that those who begin youngest are those most likely to excel and evolve the art. When you think of the great martial art legends, and look at when they began and where, it is not hard to see it is not age which imparts rank, it is experience. And you can get experience through fighting on the front, or studying in a classroom. To disagree would be to find our entire military system at the same fault.

I agree with it though- I have seen 13 year old 3rd dan, and myself received a dan at 7. Who's to say if I really deserved it, I probably didn't, objectively, but subjectively I see no err in my technique then for the Moo Duk Kwan I practiced.

Not diction. Word. A word you made up. Good rule of thumb: if you don't actually know the meaning of the word, don't use it, and don't make up words.

You would be surprised how often people have criticized me for making up a word. Having read a dictionary through one particularly dull summer (my father and grandmother have both read encyclopedias and phone books... it's a family thing) forgive me that occasionally I might forget which words are obscure, and one's I've frankly made up.

That being said,

Similarly, equivocable, equivocably, and unequivocable do not exist.

I've come across published works on theology. English is a language which has over 1,000,000 words, and you want to nitpick when 'tivoing' is a verb? Sheesh, I thought I was anal... I said sorry, if you'd like to keep harping, feel free. But at that point I'd like to see your linguistic degree, and study history in relation to English. I happen to be taking it as a minor, so if you want to get into that side of things I'd be happy to.

Again, sometimes I obfuscate between everyday vernacular I use, and the more scholarly I'm forced to while writing. Since this is writing, you can see how this can create issue. If I make up a word, please, feel free to let me know, but also be aware that the word in question has not been seen before, in academic works.

English is a language where we use words which don't exist, until 'recognized' by some group which decides what words to 'add' to the language.

Would you like me to go on about language? Or can we let the matter drop?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Not diction. Word. A word you made up. Good rule of thumb: if you don't actually know the meaning of the word, don't use it, and don't make up words.

Equivocable, the word you made, might have the definition of "able to be made to have multiple meanings, be ambiguous, or be uncertain". If it were a real word.

The word doesn't make sense in the sentence, obviously.


Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

Or he may have simply misspelled equivocal. Regardless, I knew what he meant.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I agree with it though- I have seen 13 year old 3rd dan, and myself received a dan at 7. Who's to say if I really deserved it, I probably didn't, objectively, but subjectively I see no err in my technique then for the Moo Duk Kwan I practiced.

Why wouldn't you deserve it? If you met the requirements that were established at the school and provided that there was no organizational prohibition or age restrictions laid out by an organization that the school was part of, then you were as deserving of yours as I was of mine.

 

[jks9199]

Love it. I recall reading in a Casca novel the recognizance that those who begin youngest are those most likely to excel and evolve the art. When you think of the great martial art legends, and look at when they began and where, it is not hard to see it is not age which imparts rank, it is experience. And you can get experience through fighting on the front, or studying in a classroom. To disagree would be to find our entire military system at the same fault.

I agree with it though- I have seen 13 year old 3rd dan, and myself received a dan at 7. Who's to say if I really deserved it, I probably didn't, objectively, but subjectively I see no err in my technique then for the Moo Duk Kwan I practiced.



You would be surprised how often people have criticized me for making up a word. Having read a dictionary through one particularly dull summer (my father and grandmother have both read encyclopedias and phone books... it's a family thing) forgive me that occasionally I might forget which words are obscure, and one's I've frankly made up.

That being said, I've come across published works on theology. English is a language which has over 1,000,000 words, and you want to nitpick when 'tivoing' is a verb? Sheesh, I thought I was anal... I said sorry, if you'd like to keep harping, feel free. But at that point I'd like to see your linguistic degree, and study history in relation to English. I happen to be taking it as a minor, so if you want to get into that side of things I'd be happy to.

Again, sometimes I obfuscate between everyday vernacular I use, and the more scholarly I'm forced to while writing. Since this is writing, you can see how this can create issue. If I make up a word, please, feel free to let me know, but also be aware that the word in question has not been seen before, in academic works.

English is a language where we use words which don't exist, until 'recognized' by some group which decides what words to 'add' to the language.

Would you like me to go on about language? Or can we let the matter drop?

Recognizance

Obfuscate

Using 10 dollar words is not scholarship; it's obfuscation of scholarship unless those are the best and most effective words to use. For example, I frequently write "The magistrate released the suspect on his own recognizance." There, it's the proper word. Using made up words or using words improperly just confuses people; it's only very rarely the mark of genius. Perhaps you're familiar with Lewis Carroll:

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”[
​

You're often leaving us in Alice's shoes...

 

[Zenjael]

Using 10 dollar words is not scholarship; it's obfuscation of scholarship unless those are the best and most effective words to use. For example, I frequently write "The magistrate released the suspect on his own recognizance." There, it's the proper word. Using made up words or using words improperly just confuses people; it's only very rarely the mark of genius. Perhaps you're familiar with Lewis Carroll:

No it isn't, and you won't see me ever saying it is. That doesn't mean in academia we aren't still forced to write in scholarly jargon nontheless. Im not saying language is something subjective... though you can argue it is, as you just did, I do feel there is a standard. There has to be or language means nothing. But the first search on google produced a multitude of works, published and non, which utilize the word. I'm not making up language when others have been using the 'made-up' word for years before I used it. Hell I have a textbook on my shelf, today, which I found using the word.

There is no mark of a genius in making up anything- people recognizing one for who they are, and if it is brilliance, is what makes one a genius. Was Shakespeare a genius? Or were we just lucky his texts weren't burned up? Maybe both, maybe neither. We came up with living-room, and at the end of the day, every word we used was made up.

The argument runs in circle- being a grammar nazi is attacking a person, on the surface, over things which don't matter (grammar nazies are also a logical fallacy, ironically, through argument ad Hitler). If I were using words no one understood, we'd have an issue. But so far the problem has not been from missappropriated words, and rather statements which could be read in different ways, to different people. Which is something I have a not great habit in doing.

what's the theory? Using big words=smart? You're right. I like the phrase tho, 10 dollar word, when does it hail from?

 

[Zenjael]

Why wouldn't you deserve it? If you met the requirements that were established at the school and provided that there was no organizational prohibition or age restrictions laid out by an organization that the school was part of, then you were as deserving of yours as I was of mine.

This is true, but I added the latter statement because honestly, I've had enough people jump down my throat over the age I first received my Dan.

 

[Tez3]

Love it. I recall reading in a Casca novel the recognizance that those who begin youngest are those most likely to excel and evolve the art. When you think of the great martial art legends, and look at when they began and where, it is not hard to see it is not age which imparts rank, it is experience. And you can get experience through fighting on the front, or studying in a classroom. To disagree would be to find our entire military system at the same fault.

I agree with it though- I have seen 13 year old 3rd dan, and myself received a dan at 7. Who's to say if I really deserved it, I probably didn't, objectively, but subjectively I see no err in my technique then for the Moo Duk Kwan I practiced.



You would be surprised how often people have criticized me for making up a word. Having read a dictionary through one particularly dull summer (my father and grandmother have both read encyclopedias and phone books... it's a family thing) forgive me that occasionally I might forget which words are obscure, and one's I've frankly made up.

That being said, I've come across published works on theology. English is a language which has over 1,000,000 words, and you want to nitpick when 'tivoing' is a verb? Sheesh, I thought I was anal... I said sorry, if you'd like to keep harping, feel free. But at that point I'd like to see your linguistic degree, and study history in relation to English. I happen to be taking it as a minor, so if you want to get into that side of things I'd be happy to.

Again, sometimes I obfuscate between everyday vernacular I use, and the more scholarly I'm forced to while writing. Since this is writing, you can see how this can create issue. If I make up a word, please, feel free to let me know, but also be aware that the word in question has not been seen before, in academic works.

English is a language where we use words which don't exist, until 'recognized' by some group which decides what words to 'add' to the language.

Would you like me to go on about language? Or can we let the matter drop?

Please, just write good English. Yours is not good English, it's not scholarly and at times is unreadable. The grammar and syntax are both poor. It reads like William McGonagall's poetry.

"Again, sometimes I obfuscate between everyday vernacular I use, and the more scholarly I'm forced to while writing. Since this is writing, you can see how this can create issue. If I make up a word, please, feel free to let me know, but also be aware that the word in question has not been seen before, in academic works."

This sentence means nothing at all, there's no sense to it.

Stick to George Orwell's rules for effective writing.

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

6. Break any of these rules sooner than saying anything outright barbarous.

Please,please do read this http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

Read it and what you learn from this will serve you all your days.

 

[K-man]

And what makes this day and age so special? A cutsey graphic and an animated 'bs' flag without any intelligent addition to the topic actually undermine your statement.

It is already pretty well established that a young athletic practitioner can certainly have the technical skill, particularly if they've been practicing since they were children. It always comes down to the supposed lack of maturity and wisdom in such practitioners, as maturity and wisdom can only be had by those over thirty or whatever number you choose to insert.

No offense, but a sixth grader could have made your post. If those of us who are of the supposedly appropriate age cannot conduct ourselves in a manner that befits our supposed maturity and wisdom, then why are we throwing stone at those who don't meet our arbitrary requirments? Requirements that, may I remind you, many of the founders and their early students were not subjected to.

No offense taken Daniel. This is an old post that was brought back and strayed of track. The cutesy graphic served it's purpose to bring the thread back on track.

I can remember back to the 80s when the ZDK organisation brought in a 12 month black belt programme. There may well have been exceptions but the product I saw was extremely poor. The reason they could do it was that they had thrown out kata and were training freestyle, not unlike MMA now. Certainly they were turning out fighters and many of these guys went into security. However we had a heap of teenagers running around with black belts.

Now I don't want to rehash everything that was posted back at the beginning of this thread but I really do think it is BS of the highest order. To suggest that someone could reach master level by 21 with virtually total understanding of their craft is just not possible IMO. I don't care what age they start. I have had kids starting as three year olds and although they slowly build up to junior blackbelt they are just that ... Junior blackbelts, and they normally wouldn't get to more than Junior Shodan by the time they were 15 or so. Even at 15 these guys in the main, are still kids in kids bodies and they just can' t match it with the adults. Sure they should have good technique and they will have a large number of kata memorised and they have an excellent base to progress. When they are older and have the ability to hold their own physically with the adults they would normally be graded to Shodan ho. Could be about 16 but more likely 18yo.

From there he could progress to 2nd Dan, by 21 or maybe 3rd. The transition to sixth Dan from there would normally be about mid thirties and I would we looking sideways at anyone of that age with that ranking.

The example I gave earlier was a notable exception. On the whole, I think that 6th Dan at 21 devalues the whole Dan system.

Now I really must go to get ready for school. If I work hard I will get to High Sschool next year!
Cheers. :wavey:

 

[Josh Oakley]

You would be surprised how often people have criticized me for making up a word. Having read a dictionary through one particularly dull summer (my father and grandmother have both read encyclopedias and phone books... it's a family thing) forgive me that occasionally I might forget which words are obscure, and one's I've frankly made up.

That being said,

Similarly, equivocable, equivocably, and unequivocable do not exist.

I've come across published works on theology. English is a language which has over 1,000,000 words, and you want to nitpick when 'tivoing' is a verb? Sheesh, I thought I was anal... I said sorry, if you'd like to keep harping, feel free. But at that point I'd like to see your linguistic degree, and study history in relation to English. I happen to be taking it as a minor, so if you want to get into that side of things I'd be happy to.

Actually I'm retracting my statement that you made it up.

Here is an example of how "equivocable" would be used correctly: http://www.mmrc.iss.ac.cn/pub/mm21.pdf/tang.pdf

You'll notice the term is used with a definition that was pretty damn close to the definition I postulated when I thought you made up the word.

Now, as far as the "tivoing" as a verb... I think the practice of using a noun as a verb is just silly, but I never brought that up.

The idea of comparing degrees to discuss who is right about something employs faulty reasoning. One person could have a doctorate in mathematics, and another could have a GED, and the doctor says that 5x5=123, and the person with the GED says it's 25... well, of the degree, the mighty doctor is still incorrect.

So comparing your mighty linguistics minor to my lowly Philosophy degree really wouldn't change the meaning of the word you used incorrectly.

I pointed the word out in the first place because you have a habit of using language that does not represent you well.

Do you have the humility to actually fix the issue, rather than be defensive and dismissive of your method of communication?

Again, sometimes I obfuscate between everyday vernacular I use, and the more scholarly I'm forced to while writing. Since this is writing, you can see how this can create issue. If I make up a word, please, feel free to let me know, but also be aware that the word in question has not been seen before, in academic works.

English is a language where we use words which don't exist, until 'recognized' by some group which decides what words to 'add' to the language.

Would you like me to go on about language? Or can we let the matter drop?[/QUOTE]

 

[chinto]

Either way a 21 year old 6th dan who was not for instance raised doing 8 hours from about age 3 in the dojo is beyond Not-credible!

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Now I don't want to rehash everything that was posted back at the beginning of this thread but I really do think it is BS of the highest order. To suggest that someone could reach master level by 21 with virtually total understanding of their craft is just not possible IMO. I don't care what age they start.

Apparently Kano thought differently. And I will say that I disagree with you; I think that if you train from an early age and are focused and driven, you can be a masterful technician by twenty one. But most will not train that hard or that consistently, and most are not that focused or driven. Thus such a person would be the exception, not the rule.

And before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not talking about prodigies. Just years of hard work. Yes, some kids are capable of focusing, working towards, and achieving goals that are normally achieved by older people.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Either way a 21 year old 6th dan who was not for instance raised doing 8 hours from about age 3 in the dojo is beyond Not-credible!

Probably not. But I tend to look more at the finished product to determine its credibility than at the process that crafted it.

 

[K-man]

Apparently Kano thought differently. And I will say that I disagree with you; I think that if you train from an early age and are focused and driven, you can be a masterful technician by twenty one. But most will not train that hard or that consistently, and most are not that focused or driven. Thus such a person would be the exception, not the rule.

And before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not talking about prodigies. Just years of hard work. Yes, some kids are capable of focusing, working towards, and achieving goals that are normally achieved by older people.

Then I'll agree to disagree. If we exclude prodigies and in that context I would include the likes of Kenshiro Abbé of judo fame and Koichi Tohei from aikido, then there are not too many 21 year olds that would be capable of carrying that rank.

The difficulty for me is in sport based martial arts such as BJJ, Judo, Muay Thai and to some extent even TKD or sport Karate. Do you give rank for achievement alone? Is a 21 year old, who is technically good and wins a world championship, worthy of the rank of 6th Dan just because he is a good fighter? What if he started at 18 and trained really hard? Is it different if he started as a 6 yo?

I can only speak with any real understanding of Goju karate and Aikido. In both of those arts I believe it is just not possible. :asian: