21 year old 6th degree Blackbelt

[Gnarlie]

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.

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?

No, we don't want you to 'go on about language', but we would prefer if you would desist, both in your continuous and egregious bringing forth of malapropisms and catachreses, and your stultifyingly tedium-inducing self-promotional tirades. We can all wax lyrical, some of us more accurately than others. On an internet martial arts forum, it's about using plain English to communicate your ideas, and not about who can induce migraine in the reader the quickest.

Taking something as a minor means nothing. There are people on this board *and in life* who know more than you do. About everything. You need to accept that. I am an English teacher, have been for a long time. Still wouldn't say I was an expert. You probably should know that, in another 15 years, the qualifications that you're working on now will be completely irrelevant, as working experience will have taken priority.

There are far far fewer than 1 million words in English, especially if you do not count words twice where they have more than one meaning.

Words are added to the dictionary when they coined and come into common use in a particular community, then the usage and meaning spreads. This is not an excuse for someone trying to make themselves sound clever to misuse words that do exist or worse still, to make up their own words. It's small wonder that you are often misunderstood. Try ditching your pretensions, and using plain English to communicate your points. People will understand you better, and you won't be perceived as such a pompous, arrogant young upstart.

Here's what the OED has to say:

"The Second Edition of the 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary contains full entries for 171,476 words in current use, and 47,156 obsolete words. To this may be added around 9,500 derivative words included as subentries. Over half of these words are nouns, about a quarter adjectives, and about a seventh verbs; the rest is made up of exclamations, conjunctions, prepositions, suffixes, etc. And these figures don't take account of entries with senses for different word classes (such as noun and adjective).

This suggests that there are, at the very least, a quarter of a million distinct English words, excluding inflections, and words from technical and regional vocabulary not covered by the OED, or words not yet added to the published dictionary, of which perhaps 20 per cent are no longer in current use. If distinct senses were counted, the total would probably approach three quarters of a million."

 

[Chris Parker]

I was under the illusion that, in the main it was 15 levels. I have heard that in some systems they have gone higher but I don't believe it to be the norm. I'm sure Chris will be much more informative.

Sorry, Russ, I enjoyed this thread the first time, but hadn't watched it this time round. Pity, some interesting conversation for the most part. That said...

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.

Alex, you may want to rethink making claims that are frankly completely baseless and inaccurate, as it'll be spotted pretty damn quickly. And here you have no knowledge whatsoever, as what you've said is completely wrong. "Ninjutsu" doesn't go up to anything, or go from anything, as there is no ranking structure universally used. Each organisation is free to use whatever ranking system they choose.

The Bujinkan (which is probably what you're thinking of... but isn't the only one out there) was the first major organisation, and the first (obviously) to introduce kyu/dan grades. Initially only having the more common 10 Dan grades, it was decided in the mid-90's (from memory) that the 10th Dan would be subdivided into five distinct levels, named for the five elements of the Godai (Chi, Sui, Ka, Fu, Ku), and are typically (albeit informally) referred to as 11th - 15th Dan.

The Genbukan was founded by the seniormost student of Hatsumi (head of the Bujinkan) in the mid 80's, and has 10 Dan grades. At present, 8th is the highest attained. Additionally, the Genbukan (and it's partner organisation, the KJJR) also rank using the traditional Menkyo systems for individual Ryu-ha (systems/traditional schools) for those who wish to be ranked in that form. The ranks are completely separate, though.

The Jinkenkan was founded in 1996 when Hatsumi's longest serving student, Manaka Fumio (Unsui) left. In the Jinenkan, the highest awarded grade so far is 5th Dan, and it is felt that they go to 10th.

Both the Jinenkan and Genbukan have a specific set of requirements for rank attainment, whereas the Bujinkan does not, other than for 5th Dan, which is a single sensory test.

In my organisation, which left the Bujinkan in 2001, we go to 5th Dan as the highest rank attainable.

Steven Hayes has awarded 8th Dan to his longest-serving student, and holds a 10th Dan from the Bujinkan himself.

Next, when it comes to equating rank between one system and another, let alone one organisation and another, is largely pointless. If nothing else, this thread should have shown you that the ranking of a particular organisation, or a particular art, is completely unrelated to any other art, organisation, system, or anything similar. A 12th Dan in one thing is not equal to anything in any other organisation. I mean, I could say that the level of skill I saw in your clips at third dan is barely equivalent to some of my 7th and 6th Kyu students... the ones I'm still knocking fantasy out of. If we're going to compare, that is.

Oh, but before I move on, one little thing on the discussion of language....

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

No, son, using big words CORRECTLY = smart... using big words incorrectly = thinking you're smart while demonstrating exactly the opposite.

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

Yes. Yes. and yes.

Hmm. Show your work.

Mainly as I feel, as Dancingalone does, that these aspects are integral to the practice of said arts. No, they aren't the entire art, yes, you can be training in the art while not specifically doing those aspects, but if you're training karate and you never do kata, are you doing karate? If you do Aikido without falling/learning how to fall, are you doing Aikido? If you train in Kendo without ever doing shiai, are you really doing Kendo? Or are you doing a portion of the material without actually doing the art, which would require a more complete experience.

Personally, I think the most telling one is the kata one. And if you still say that you can be claiming to do karate without ever training in kata, that tells me a lot about the level of your understanding there.

Not entirely. There are also seven tachi kata and three kodachi kata, as well as bokuto waza. In theory, you could learn all of the shinai waza, bokuto waza (Bokuto Ni Yoru Kendo Kihon-waza Keiko-ho), and kata without ever donning bogu. In practice, unless you have some special arrangement with the sensei, you probably won't learn any more than the bokuto waza and the first three kata, depending on the club.

But in terms of what the art contains, there is actually plenty that you can do without shiai. But again, your kendo will not develop if you leave that element out and you'd be better off finding an iai or koryu kenjutsu school.

Okay then, are you really training in a Ryu if you don't deal with it's reiho? Are you really training in Iai if you don't train in the noto aspects? Or focus on hasuji, just on moving the sword around?

I think the point that Dancingalone was making wasn't that each and every moment needs to be sparring, or kata, or falling, but that without those, you aren't really training/doing any of those systems. You're missing one of the vital aspects of the art itself.

That is already being done; do vs. jutsu/sul. The problem is that the distinction wasn't made for art vs. sport but for way vs. art/science.

Uh, Daniel... there really isn't a "do versus jutsu", though... nor was there. Except for Westerners, really...

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Not entirely. There are also seven tachi kata and three kodachi kata, as well as bokuto waza. In theory, you could learn all of the shinai waza, bokuto waza (Bokuto Ni Yoru Kendo Kihon-waza Keiko-ho), and kata without ever donning bogu. In practice, unless you have some special arrangement with the sensei, you probably won't learn any more than the bokuto waza and the first three kata, depending on the club.

But in terms of what the art contains, there is actually plenty that you can do without shiai. But again, your kendo will not develop if you leave that element out and you'd be better off finding an iai or koryu kenjutsu school.

Okay then, are you really training in a Ryu if you don't deal with it's reiho? Are you really training in Iai if you don't train in the noto aspects? Or focus on hasuji, just on moving the sword around?

Regarding reiho, there is reiho of some kind in most dojos (pretty sure that wher I study a koryu, they'd ask me to leave if I refused to observe reiho). Given my less than four months of iai, I'd venture that it would be nigh impossible to practice it without noto.

Regarding kendo, see the response you quoted.

I think the point that Dancingalone was making wasn't that each and every moment needs to be sparring, or kata, or falling, but that without those, you aren't really training/doing any of those systems. You're missing one of the vital aspects of the art itself.

There was no misinterpretation of what he was saying. I responded only regarding kendo. I'll leave answers regarding aikido and karate to those who actually practice them.

RE kendo, you don't spar right away, but you are still training in the system. However, if you never spar, then you will be stuck at a beginner. As I said earlier, sure you can practice waza and kata, both shinai and bokuto, but if you never spar, then your kendo will always be that of a rank beginner. It's still kendo, and if you never spar, you will never grade for ikyu (the AUSKF has organizational gradings for ikyu and higher grades). So if you practice for fifty years and stay at a beginner level, yes, you're doing kendo, but you are not progressing in the system.

Uh, Daniel... there really isn't a "do versus jutsu", though... nor was there. Except for Westerners, really...

And it is a westerner to whom my comment was directed, and my answer was within the context of his question.

 

[Chris Parker]

Regarding reiho, there is reiho of some kind in most dojos (pretty sure that wher I study a koryu, they'd ask me to leave if I refused to observe reiho). Given my less than four months of iai, I'd venture that it would be nigh impossible to practice it without noto.

I don't know that I'd really agree there... there is etiquette in many forms in most (I'd say all) dojo/kwoon/dojang/gyms etc, but reiho is something different. When it comes to Koryu, as I was talking, reiho is the entrance into the methodologies of the Ryu, it is as integral as knowing the proper grip, or the correct stances/kamae. Without it, you're just dancing around, or worse, just fighting.

With regard to noto, yeah, it's essential for Iai... but more to the point, the correct noto is essential for you to be considered to be training/practicing the Ryu in question. If you use the noto of, say, Sosuishi Ryu, but are training in Katori Shinto Ryu, are you really training in Katori Shinto Ryu? I mean, they're really similar....

Regarding kendo, see the response you quoted.

That's the thing, I'm not really sure where you stand. Yes, you can be training in Kendo (in any particular moment) without sparring if you are training in some of the non-sparring aspects, but if you never spar, can you really say that, when missing this essential aspect of the training, you really are training Kendo, or are you just learning bits of it, as opposed to Kendo itself. Personally, I'd say the latter.

There was no misinterpretation of what he was saying. I responded only regarding kendo. I'll leave answers regarding aikido and karate to those who actually practice them.

Fair enough. Going back to your answers there, you mention that, if you are not interested in sparring, you're better off doing Iai or Koryu Kenjutsu, which leads me to a question.... are you still doing that Koryu Kenjutsu system if you introduce sparring? I'm just curious as to your answer, really.

RE kendo, you don't spar right away, but you are still training in the system. However, if you never spar, then you will be stuck at a beginner. As I said earlier, sure you can practice waza and kata, both shinai and bokuto, but if you never spar, then your kendo will always be that of a rank beginner. It's still kendo, and if you never spar, you will never grade for ikyu (the AUSKF has organizational gradings for ikyu and higher grades). So if you practice for fifty years and stay at a beginner level, yes, you're doing kendo, but you are not progressing in the system.

Hmm, I thought that kata was actually done much later in your development, and the initial training was more suburi and kihon, all of which is geared towards a sparring application... which would indicate to me that sparring is required for your training to be considered Kendo. I agree that kata is there, but that's kinda beside the point, to my mind. To continue your argument, though, if you're not progressing from a beginner status due to not involving yourself in sparring, then you're really not doing Kendo, as you're missing what is needed for development in the art.

And it is a westerner to whom my comment was directed, and my answer was within the context of his question.

Yeah, but I always prefer limiting confusion...

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I don't know that I'd really agree there... there is etiquette in many forms in most (I'd say all) dojo/kwoon/dojang/gyms etc, but reiho is something different. When it comes to Koryu, as I was talking, reiho is the entrance into the methodologies of the Ryu, it is as integral as knowing the proper grip, or the correct stances/kamae. Without it, you're just dancing around, or worse, just fighting.

While I didn't say that it was etiquette, only that if I simply refused to do it, I'd be asked to leave, but I'd say that reiho pretty much amounts to highly specialized etiquette. Given that I have been practicing a koryu art for less than half a year, if you feel that it is different, I am definitely interested in learning why; perhaps a Japansese sword arts thread?

With regard to noto, yeah, it's essential for Iai... but more to the point, the correct noto is essential for you to be considered to be training/practicing the Ryu in question. If you use the noto of, say, Sosuishi Ryu, but are training in Katori Shinto Ryu, are you really training in Katori Shinto Ryu? I mean, they're really similar....

I suppose that it depends on how you look at what 'training in' means.

That's the thing, I'm not really sure where you stand. Yes, you can be training in Kendo (in any particular moment) without sparring if you are training in some of the non-sparring aspects, but if you never spar, can you really say that, when missing this essential aspect of the training, you really are training Kendo, or are you just learning bits of it, as opposed to Kendo itself. Personally, I'd say the latter.

I will repeat what I said in my last post:

You don't spar right away, but you are still training in the system. However, if you never spar, then you will be stuck at a beginner level. As I said earlier, sure you can practice waza and kata, both shinai and bokuto, but if you never spar, then your kendo will always be that of a rank beginner. It's still kendo, and if you never spar, you will never grade for ikyu (the AUSKF has organizational gradings for ikyu and higher grades). So if you practice for fifty years and stay at a beginner level, yes, you're doing kendo, but you are not progressing in the system.

So, yes, you're training in it, but you are not progressing, and if a student prolongs their non-participation in keiko, then as an instructor, I'd like to know why. It could be as simple as being unable to afford bogu. The student could have a medical condition that precludes participation, though that should be disclosed at the outset of training. If they just 'don't feel like doing that', then sure, I'd say that they're still training in kendo, but that they are stunting their own development due to a lack of maturity or some other underlying issue.

Fair enough. Going back to your answers there, you mention that, if you are not interested in sparring, you're better off doing Iai or Koryu Kenjutsu, which leads me to a question.... are you still doing that Koryu Kenjutsu system if you introduce sparring? I'm just curious as to your answer, really.

I don't have an answer; my koryu experience is brief enough that I do not consider myself qualified to offer an informed response. I will pose a question to you, however: if the soke or headmaster of the koryu introduced it, would it still be a koryu?

Hmm, I thought that kata was actually done much later in your development, and the initial training was more suburi and kihon, all of which is geared towards a sparring application... which would indicate to me that sparring is required for your training to be considered Kendo. I agree that kata is there, but that's kinda beside the point, to my mind. To continue your argument, though, if you're not progressing from a beginner status due to not involving yourself in sparring, then you're really not doing Kendo, as you're missing what is needed for development in the art.

That is correct, but my point that there is more to kendo than sparring; enough that in theory, you could spend decades studying it and not run out of things to do, not that you could actually, in practice, go to a kendo dojo and learn a la carte.

Yeah, but I always prefer limiting confusion...

As do I. My point was that there are already plenty of terms that can be used to delineate such things, so making up new categories is redundant and would simply cause further confusion anyway.

I think that it is more important for people who study arts from other cultures to appreciate the cultural perspective of the art and try to adapt to it rather than force it to adapt to one's own culture. If you want to teach a 'your nation' specific version of an art not from your nation, then fine, teach it and be proud of it. But also be honest and admit that you are teaching a different art at that point.

 

[Chris Parker]

While I didn't say that it was etiquette, only that if I simply refused to do it, I'd be asked to leave, but I'd say that reiho pretty much amounts to highly specialized etiquette. Given that I have been practicing a koryu art for less than half a year, if you feel that it is different, I am definitely interested in learning why; perhaps a Japansese sword arts thread?

Ha, go for it, I'll be there! But, for the record, the formal etiquette is the entrance into the actual concepts of reiho, from a deeper level.

I suppose that it depends on how you look at what 'training in' means.

To me, only doing a part of the system isn't really training in it. Honestly, though, the idea of sparring in Kendo isn't the best example out of the three scenarios discussed... the idea of karate without kata is the best.

I will repeat what I said in my last post:

You don't spar right away, but you are still training in the system. However, if you never spar, then you will be stuck at a beginner level. As I said earlier, sure you can practice waza and kata, both shinai and bokuto, but if you never spar, then your kendo will always be that of a rank beginner. It's still kendo, and if you never spar, you will never grade for ikyu (the AUSKF has organizational gradings for ikyu and higher grades). So if you practice for fifty years and stay at a beginner level, yes, you're doing kendo, but you are not progressing in the system.

So, yes, you're training in it, but you are not progressing, and if a student prolongs their non-participation in keiko, then as an instructor, I'd like to know why. It could be as simple as being unable to afford bogu. The student could have a medical condition that precludes participation, though that should be disclosed at the outset of training. If they just 'don't feel like doing that', then sure, I'd say that they're still training in kendo, but that they are stunting their own development due to a lack of maturity or some other underlying issue.

Yeah, I'd be saying that they're not really training in Kendo there... they're playing with the idea while avoiding actually doing it.

I don't have an answer; my koryu experience is brief enough that I do not consider myself qualified to offer an informed response. I will pose a question to you, however: if the soke or headmaster of the koryu introduced it, would it still be a koryu?

Ha, there really wasn't a "right or wrong" there, I was just curious. As to your question, that's quite a contentious issue... in general terms, the Ryu remains Koryu, but the introduced training aspect might not be.

That is correct, but my point that there is more to kendo than sparring; enough that in theory, you could spend decades studying it and not run out of things to do, not that you could actually, in practice, go to a kendo dojo and learn a la carte.

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

As do I. My point was that there are already plenty of terms that can be used to delineate such things, so making up new categories is redundant and would simply cause further confusion anyway.

But the thing is that there really isn't a delineation between jutsu and do, when it comes down to it. Saying that there is, to my mind, is what leads to confusion, as people keep the idea that there is a distinction between them.

I think that it is more important for people who study arts from other cultures to appreciate the cultural perspective of the art and try to adapt to it rather than force it to adapt to one's own culture. If you want to teach a 'your nation' specific version of an art not from your nation, then fine, teach it and be proud of it. But also be honest and admit that you are teaching a different art at that point.

Sorry, Daniel, I'm not sure what you're saying here... the cultural perspective (from a Japanese side of things) is that there really isn't a distinction there at all, and I'm really not trying, nor wanting to force it to adapt to Western misunderstandings and misinterpretations...

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

But the thing is that there really isn't a delineation between jutsu and do, when it comes down to it. Saying that there is, to my mind, is what leads to confusion, as people keep the idea that there is a distinction between them.

And I didn't say that there is. Please look at my answer in the context of KSD's question; this isn't a discussion about do and jutsu. You're taking it way beyond what it is.

Sorry, Daniel, I'm not sure what you're saying here... the cultural perspective (from a Japanese side of things) is that there really isn't a distinction there at all, and I'm really not trying, nor wanting to force it to adapt to Western misunderstandings and misinterpretations...

Not you you, Chris. The general you.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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.

Okay: so if there are not too many 21 year olds that would be capable of carrying that rank, then you are in essence saying that a 21 year old can be a sixth dan.

As far as prodigies are concerned, I wasn't excluding them from being able to achieve; only that my statement is not in reference to them. That, and most so-called prodigies are not prodigies; just people who did the work. Because they're young, their effort is written off as them being 'prodigies.'

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?

No, maybe, I don't know, and yes.

Regarding the last, is it different if he starts at six?: Of course it's different, and we freely acknowledge that in virtually every other field. Why are so many people incapable of acknowledging that in the martial arts? It seems to be due either self imposed ignorance or ego.

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:

But the art in the OP is judo and you commented on Judo, BJJ, Karate (whatever ryu have sparring), and Taekwondo. I can tell you that in BJJ, a twenty one year old sixth dan is probably impossible because of the time in grade requirements. I think first dan is like ten years, so even if you started at three, you'd be thirteen, and that is only if a BJJ first dan doesn't have an age minimum higher than thirteen.

KKW/WTF time in grade and age requirements also preclude a twenty one year old sixth dan. Not sure about ITF or ATA.

Is sport karate a separate art or are you simply refering to ryu that have sparring? And does Muay Thai even have a kyu/dan system?

 

[K-man]

Okay: so if there are not too many 21 year olds that would be capable of carrying that rank, then you are in essence saying that a 21 year old can be a sixth dan.

As far as prodigies are concerned, I wasn't excluding them from being able to achieve; only that my statement is not in reference to them. That, and most so-called prodigies are not prodigies; just people who did the work. Because they're young, their effort is written off as them being 'prodigies.'


No, maybe, I don't know, and yes.

Regarding the last, is it different if he starts at six?: Of course it's different, and we freely acknowledge that in virtually every other field. Why are so many people incapable of acknowledging that in the martial arts? It seems to be due either self imposed ignorance or ego.


But the art in the OP is judo and you commented on Judo, BJJ, Karate (whatever ryu have sparring), and Taekwondo. I can tell you that in BJJ, a twenty one year old sixth dan is probably impossible because of the time in grade requirements. I think first dan is like ten years, so even if you started at three, you'd be thirteen, and that is only if a BJJ first dan doesn't have an age minimum higher than thirteen.

KKW/WTF time in grade and age requirements also preclude a twenty one year old sixth dan. Not sure about ITF or ATA.

Is sport karate a separate art or are you simply refering to ryu that have sparring? And does Muay Thai even have a kyu/dan system?

Perhaps you might re-read the OP. It makes no reference to judo that I can see and I have no idea of punisher73​'s area of interest. Further, it is posted in the 'General Martial Arts' section. I may have missed the information in a following post but I thought this was a generic discussion. What I know about Judo is pretty basic so if the OP was about judo then fair enough. It fits my category of sport and achievement through sporting results.

As to a 21 year old reaching 6th Dan, I would ask you, in what style of MA would you find it legitimate? You are saying it would be most unlikely in BJJ and I'm saying it shouldn't happen in traditional karate or aikido.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Perhaps you might re-read the OP. It makes no reference to judo that I can see and I have no idea of punisher73​'s area of interest. Further, it is posted in the 'General Martial Arts' section. I may have missed the information in a following post but I thought this was a generic discussion. What I know about Judo is pretty basic so if the OP was about judo then fair enough. It fits my category of sport and achievement through sporting results.

I read the OP and the follow up posts, so we do know that the 21 year old yukdan that he was talking about in the OP was revealed a few posts later to be one of Kano's students in the art of judo.

As to a 21 year old reaching 6th Dan, I would ask you, in what style of MA would you find it legitimate?

I don't view it those terms. I can tell you that, outside of an independent or unaffiliated school, it would be impossible in any of the arts that I personally practice. What is done in other arts with regards to age and dan grading, I pay little attention to.

I used to pay a lot of attention to it within those arts, but even within my own arts I pay little attention at this point in time. Any organization that will award a first dan to a five year old could certainly award a sixth dan to a twenty one year old; it would take approximately fifteen years to get from first to sixth, depending on the art, so as long as the math adds up and it doesn't violate that orgs own policy, then they can do as they like. It may color what people think of their high dans, but that is their burden to bear, not mine.

People can award whatever they want to whomever they want. Their decisions will prove either smart and on the money or it will wreck their reputation. Either way, it is their repuation to wreck.

You are saying it would be most unlikely in BJJ

No, I'm not saying that it would be unlikely. I'm saying that unless time in grade rules are tossed out, it would be impossible in both BJJ and Kukki taekwondo (and probably other taekwondo orgs as well), kendo and probably any org that has age minimums for dan grades.

Earlier, you said this:

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.

Which I agree with; it would be an exceptional 21 year old that would be capable of carrying that rank. Either of exceptional maturity, exceptional ability, or having done an exceptional amount of work. Or a combination of the above.

In your statement, you seem to imply that you think that it would be (perhaps remotely) possible, but improbable. Perhaps you meant impossible and were speaking coloquially?

In the post above, you said this:

and I'm saying it shouldn't happen in traditional karate or aikido.

Why do you say that it shouldn't happen? I'm not challenging you on it or saying that you're wrong; I would like to know why you say so.

And understand, I already know the prevailing wisdom as to why people of such young age are not awarded such rank, and I largely agree with it. But I always like to hear others' opinions on the subject.

Also, I would like to know what you feel is different about this day and age that makes it laughable as compared to decades previous where high ranks were awarded to fairly young people early on, as with the judoka discussed by the OP.

 

[puunui]

RE kendo, you don't spar right away, but you are still training in the system. However, if you never spar, then you will be stuck at a beginner. As I said earlier, sure you can practice waza and kata, both shinai and bokuto, but if you never spar, then your kendo will always be that of a rank beginner. It's still kendo, and if you never spar, you will never grade for ikyu (the AUSKF has organizational gradings for ikyu and higher grades). So if you practice for fifty years and stay at a beginner level, yes, you're doing kendo, but you are not progressing in the system.

And a lot of people are ok with that. And if they are ok with it, would it be right to exclude them by saying they are not kendoka?

 

[puunui]

No, son, using big words CORRECTLY = smart... using big words incorrectly = thinking you're smart while demonstrating exactly the opposite.

I think using big words, correctly or incorrectly is not smart, if the goal is to communicate to a wide audience. In my opinion, it's best to use as simple words as possible, so more people can understand. If we have to constantly refer to a dictionary or google, then that discourages people from reading and understanding the point being made.

 

[puunui]

Hmm. Show your work.

What does that mean?

Mainly as I feel, as Dancingalone does, that these aspects are integral to the practice of said arts. No, they aren't the entire art, yes, you can be training in the art while not specifically doing those aspects, but if you're training karate and you never do kata, are you doing karate? If you do Aikido without falling/learning how to fall, are you doing Aikido? If you train in Kendo without ever doing shiai, are you really doing Kendo? Or are you doing a portion of the material without actually doing the art, which would require a more complete experience.

Your point goes to doing "the entire art", which wasn't in the original question by dancingalone (whose name is a cool indirect reference to kata). the original questions were: Can you do karate without kata? Can you do kendo without sparring? Can you do aikido without falling?

And my answer is yes to all three. Yes you can do those arts without kata, sparring or falling. This can apply to both beginners and advanced practitioners. For example, I studied kenpo karate under Professor William Chow, and he never taught any kata nor did I ever see him doing any, at least not any solo type kata which I believe is the subject in this thread. Similarly, I have watched some video (probably less than you) on youtube of Ueshiba Sensei demonstrating techniques and never once did I see him take a fall. As for kendo, one of my students competes at the World Kendo Championships and he spends a great deal of time training by himself hitting an old tire mounted on a stand, which he made himself. Are they not practicing karate, kendo or aikido?

As for karate, a similar argument can be made with regard to makiwara training. Many seniors, including Chung Do Kwan founder GM LEE Won Kuk, have expressed their opinion that without makiwara training, there is no karate. And yet today, very very few practitioners include regular makiwara training at part of their routine. Should we exclude everyone who does not do makiwara training from karate? If so, then we would have very little karateka left.

I think the difference is our respective approaches. Being a taekwondo practitioner, I am constantly looking to see how we can be as inclusive as possible. You tend to be more exclusive, looking at something, interpreting it narrowly, and then going off (using google and youtube) on why whoever is incorrect in their views or information, oftentimes finishing with unnecessary statements such as this:

Personally, I think the most telling one is the kata one. And if you still say that you can be claiming to do karate without ever training in kata, that tells me a lot about the level of your understanding there.

I think most regular posters can relate, including but not limited to those who train koryu like you do.

I think the point that Dancingalone was making wasn't that each and every moment needs to be sparring, or kata, or falling, but that without those, you aren't really training/doing any of those systems. You're missing one of the vital aspects of the art itself.

I think another way of looking at it is if you do not do sparring, kata or falling, then you are not doing "the complete" art, but you are still doing the art, since even advanced practitioners have training sessions which sometimes do not include those elements of the art. If that is the position, then there would be really no argument or debate about this topic.

 

[puunui]

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

Do you mean shiai keiko? And it always was a semantics game.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

And a lot of people are ok with that. And if they are ok with it, would it be right to exclude them by saying they are not kendoka?

Personally, I don't exclude them.

I just figure that they are where they are and that their progress is between themselves and their sensei.

If it is a student of my own, my view is that he or she is practicing kendo (though not playing; that requires competing), but I would like to know what the underlying reasons are for them not going further; if it is something that I can help them with, then I'd like to help them.

If they simply are happy where they are for the time being and wish to continue to train and pay club dues, then I'm happy to have them. If they move on to other things eventually, then I am thankful for the time that they were in attendance. If they get to a point where they want more, then I'm happy to accomodate them.

 

[K-man]

He's 21.
7 is a lucky number and goes into 21 three times.
Because we are in a century where the year begins with the number '2', we multiply 3 twice to arrive at the number 6.

There you are: 6th dan.

Daniel

Just reposting this to prove I wasn't the only one having a joke.

I read the OP and the follow up posts, so we do know that the 21 year old yukdan that he was talking about in the OP was revealed a few posts later to be one of Kano's students in the art of judo.

You are quite correct. I missed that post but I was on the money when I said not this day and age. Now, knowing that that, let's look at the facts.

Kyuzo Mifune, born 1883, started judo at age 13. By my maths that would be about 1896. He joined Kano's Kodokan in 1903. Once again I'll point out the maths. He started with the Kodokan at age 20. After 15 months of training he achieved the rank of SHODAN. If you are still with me, 20 plus 1 = 21 . Just to restate the facts Mifune was 1st Dan at 21. From here he progressed rapidly. According to my references he made 6th dan about 1912. Still a remarkable achievement but he was now 29. He was also very good. He was Kodokan champion each year so he could carry the rank. He was awarded 10th Dan at about age 62.

I don't view it those terms. I can tell you that, outside of an independent or unaffiliated school, it would be impossible in any of the arts that I personally practice. What is done in other arts with regards to age and dan grading, I pay little attention to.

At age 21, I have said the same. However, Koichi Tohei also began Judo as a child. He changed to Aikido at about 19 years of age and trained with Ueshiba for 6 months. He was then sent out to teach, unranked, and about 2 years later when he was drafted into the army he was awarded 5th Dan. This was also quite unusual for a 22 year old but he had picked up Ueshiba's KI concepts, probably the only one of Ueshiba's students to do so. At age 49, just before Ueshiba died, Tohei was promoted to 10th Dan.

I used to pay a lot of attention to it within those arts, but even within my own arts I pay little attention at this point in time. Any organization that will award a first dan to a five year old could certainly award a sixth dan to a twenty one year old; it would take approximately fifteen years to get from first to sixth, depending on the art, so as long as the math adds up and it doesn't violate that orgs own policy, then they can do as they like. It may color what people think of their high dans, but that is their burden to bear, not mine.

People can award whatever they want to whomever they want. Their decisions will prove either smart and on the money or it will wreck their reputation. Either way, it is their repuation to wreck.

I agree with you.

No, I'm not saying that it would be unlikely. I'm saying that unless time in grade rules are tossed out, it would be impossible in both BJJ and Kukki taekwondo (and probably other taekwondo orgs as well), kendo and probably any org that has age minimums for dan grades.

Once again, fine by me.

Earlier, you said this: (Basically it would have to be an exceptional 21 year old)

Which I agree with; it would be an exceptional 21 year old that would be capable of carrying that rank. Either of exceptional maturity, exceptional ability, or having done an exceptional amount of work. Or a combination of the above.

In your statement, you seem to imply that you think that it would be (perhaps remotely) possible, but improbable. Perhaps you meant impossible and were speaking colloquially.

Yes. I was being PC.

In the post above, you said this:

Why do you say that it shouldn't happen? I'm not challenging you on it or saying that you're wrong; I would like to know why you say so.

Within the karate I study, it is not the learning of kata or the ability to win tournaments that matter. It is the total understanding of a kata that takes a lot of study and needs some excellent guidance. Multiply that by about 10 kata to be at that level and you have spent a lifetime, not just a few years or even decades.

In the Aikido we study, I am trying to learn to use KI. This is not something that you pick up in a year or two. It is not just the biomechanics and angles that you can learn very quickly.

And understand, I already know the prevailing wisdom as to why people of such young age are not awarded such rank, and I largely agree with it. But I always like to hear others' opinions on the subject.

That 6th Dan at 21 is BS. That's my opinion.

Also, I would like to know what you feel is different about this day and age that makes it laughable as compared to decades previous where high ranks were awarded to fairly young people early on, as with the judoka discussed by the OP.

The OP was factually inaccurate, but that does not invalidate the following discussions. However, it makes me even more convinced that what happened in ealier times is possibly less likely to occur in reputable schools now.

I'm not sure why you are questioning me so intensely when the others are make similar or more strident protestations. Is it because I ran up the flag?

:bs1:

 

[Kenlee25]

I've been training for 11 years and I've yet to get my third degree yet ( There was a long while in which I just stopped testing though, so I SHOULD have it by now if it's up to just training/time in standards. I just haven't gone through the motions ). I'm 18 years old and started when I was maybe 9 or 10? I received my black belt when I was about 12 or 13. Technically i probably cheated, having worked my way up the colored belts before going into the adult class ( or as I like to call it, real class ) but whatever. The 5 years since then I would have more than earned an adult black belt anyway, so it doesn't matter.

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Just reposting this to prove I wasn't the only one having a joke.

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

You are quite correct. I missed that post but I was on the money when I said not this day and age. Now, knowing that that, let's look at the facts.

Kyuzo Mifune, born 1883, started judo at age 13. By my maths that would be about 1896. He joined Kano's Kodokan in 1903. Once again I'll point out the maths. He started with the Kodokan at age 20. After 15 months of training he achieved the rank of SHODAN. If you are still with me, 20 plus 1 = 21 . Just to restate the facts Mifune was 1st Dan at 21. From here he progressed rapidly. According to my references he made 6th dan about 1912. Still a remarkable achievement but he was now 29. He was also very good. He was Kodokan champion each year so he could carry the rank. He was awarded 10th Dan at about age 62.

So you are saying that he was a 29 year old yuk dan, not a 21 year old. That certainly is more in line with modern promotional norms.

At age 21, I have said the same. However, Koichi Tohei also began Judo as a child. He changed to Aikido at about 19 years of age and trained with Ueshiba for 6 months. He was then sent out to teach, unranked, and about 2 years later when he was drafted into the army he was awarded 5th Dan. This was also quite unusual for a 22 year old but he had picked up Ueshiba's KI concepts, probably the only one of Ueshiba's students to do so. At age 49, just before Ueshiba died, Tohei was promoted to 10th Dan.

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

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

Within the karate I study, it is not the learning of kata or the ability to win tournaments that matter. It is the total understanding of a kata that takes a lot of study and needs some excellent guidance. Multiply that by about 10 kata to be at that level and you have spent a lifetime, not just a few years or even decades.

In the Aikido we study, I am trying to learn to use KI. This is not something that you pick up in a year or two. It is not just the biomechanics and angles that you can learn very quickly.

Taekwondo is similar with regards to pumse (kata). Which is why I would raise an eyebrow or two at a 21 year old yukdan.

That 6th Dan at 21 is BS.

That's my opinion.

Fair enough. Personally, I'd be interested to know what art and what the art's requirements for sixth dan were, and would like to see the person in question. In most cases, however, you are likely correct.

I'm not sure why you are questioning me so intensely when the others are make similar or more strident protestations. Is it because I ran up the flag?

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I've been training for 11 years and I've yet to get my third degree yet ( There was a long while in which I just stopped testing though, so I SHOULD have it by now if it's up to just training/time in standards. I just haven't gone through the motions ). I'm 18 years old and started when I was maybe 9 or 10? I received my black belt when I was about 12 or 13. Technically i probably cheated, having worked my way up the colored belts before going into the adult class ( or as I like to call it, real class ) but whatever. The 5 years since then I would have more than earned an adult black belt anyway, so it doesn't matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Chris Parker]

I think using big words, correctly or incorrectly is not smart, if the goal is to communicate to a wide audience. In my opinion, it's best to use as simple words as possible, so more people can understand. If we have to constantly refer to a dictionary or google, then that discourages people from reading and understanding the point being made.

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

What does that mean?

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

Your point goes to doing "the entire art", which wasn't in the original question by dancingalone (whose name is a cool indirect reference to kata). the original questions were: Can you do karate without kata? Can you do kendo without sparring? Can you do aikido without falling?

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

And my answer is yes to all three. Yes you can do those arts without kata, sparring or falling. This can apply to both beginners and advanced practitioners. For example, I studied kenpo karate under Professor William Chow, and he never taught any kata nor did I ever see him doing any, at least not any solo type kata which I believe is the subject in this thread.

Right, this is a bit of a mess, so I'm going to take it apart a bit for ease of answering.

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

Similarly, I have watched some video (probably less than you) on youtube of Ueshiba Sensei demonstrating techniques and never once did I see him take a fall.

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

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

Seriously flawed argument, Glenn.

As for kendo, one of my students competes at the World Kendo Championships and he spends a great deal of time training by himself hitting an old tire mounted on a stand, which he made himself.

Yep, that's a form of makiwara training, and is another part of Kendo training. But again, are you suggesting that this student, who competes at the World Kendo Championships, doesn't spar in his training? Because that's really the only way this is relevant to the point.

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

Are they not practicing karate, kendo or aikido?

I find it hard to believe you actually followed your own argument there... but seriously, Glenn, yes, they are. Provided they are training as the system dictates (kata for karate systems who utilise it... which is all the Okinawan and Japanese ones, sparring for Kendo, and falling for Aikido). They don't have to be doing those exact elements at any given time for it to be considered training in, or "doing" the art, but those aspects have to be present in their training overall.

As for karate, a similar argument can be made with regard to makiwara training. Many seniors, including Chung Do Kwan founder GM LEE Won Kuk, have expressed their opinion that without makiwara training, there is no karate. And yet today, very very few practitioners include regular makiwara training at part of their routine. Should we exclude everyone who does not do makiwara training from karate? If so, then we would have very little karateka left.

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

I think the difference is our respective approaches. Being a taekwondo practitioner, I am constantly looking to see how we can be as inclusive as possible. You tend to be more exclusive, looking at something, interpreting it narrowly, and then going off (using google and youtube) on why whoever is incorrect in their views or information, oftentimes finishing with unnecessary statements such as this:

Personally, I think the most telling one is the kata one. And if you still say that you can be claiming to do karate without ever training in kata, that tells me a lot about the level of your understanding there.

I think most regular posters can relate, including but not limited to those who train koryu like you do.

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

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

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

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

I think another way of looking at it is if you do not do sparring, kata or falling, then you are not doing "the complete" art, but you are still doing the art, since even advanced practitioners have training sessions which sometimes do not include those elements of the art. If that is the position, then there would be really no argument or debate about this topic.

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