# Can there be a Universal Black Belt?



## jasonbrinn (Aug 16, 2012)

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

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

I am curious to read your responses.

Thank you,


Jason Brinn


----------



## Steve (Aug 16, 2012)

I would say no.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 16, 2012)

I would go a little further than Steve and say that, should such a thing occur, it would be the death of martial arts as it completely and utterly denies what makes each art individual in the first place. It is frankly the last thing I would ever want to see happen.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Aug 16, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> I would go a little further than Steve and say that, should such a thing occur, it would be the death of martial arts as it completely and utterly denies what makes each art individual in the first place. It is frankly the last thing I would ever want to see happen.



I believe Chris stated my feelings exactly


----------



## Grenadier (Aug 16, 2012)

There will never be a universal black belt ranking that encompasses all systems. 

If you're looking for a universal ranking in a more specific area, such as Karate, you can get certified by the governing bodies, such as the USA-NKF or WKF, where such rankings are meant to supplement your native system's ranking.  As you go for higher ranks, you're required to demonstrate the appropriate knowledge of more than one of the four major Karate systems (Shotokan, Wado Ryu, Shito Ryu, Goju Ryu).  The details can be found on the respective governing bodies' websites.


----------



## clfsean (Aug 16, 2012)

That's funny...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 16, 2012)

Can there be a Universal Black Belt?

Let me think...no

Since the majority of Chinese martial arts styles do not even use a belt ranking system a black belt would not apply.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 16, 2012)

clfsean said:


> That's funny...



But what if H E double Hockey sticks froze over


----------



## elder999 (Aug 16, 2012)

I could see such a thing happening  for instructors if it martial arts instruction came to be regulated by the government.


It would suck.


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 16, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> I would go a little further than Steve and say that, should such a thing occur, it would be the death of martial arts as it completely and utterly denies what makes each art individual in the first place. It is frankly the last thing I would ever want to see happen.



Seriously...?

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

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

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

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

Is this really so offensive an idea?


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 16, 2012)

Yes, it is that offensive an idea. It also completely lacks understanding of the range of martial arts, as well as how martial arts work. It is flawed from the beginning, and has no correlation to the "generic" University degree you're talking about.


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 16, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Yes, it is that offensive an idea. It also completely lacks understanding of the range of martial arts, as well as how martial arts work. It is flawed from the beginning, and has no correlation to the "generic" University degree you're talking about.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


----------



## geezer (Aug 16, 2012)

What, are you nuts? LOL. Not only no, bet Hell No!


----------



## elder999 (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> Is this really so offensive an idea?




It couldn't help but be a "generic" black belt, and so, yes, it's offensive. It couldn't help but be "less" than whatever *real* rank one had earned, and so, *yes*, it's offensive. 

Consider the foreknuckle punch, a mainstay of Okinawan karate-and I'm not even going to get into wheteher it's a forward punch or a reverse punch: just consider the variety across styles of fist formation, impact area, fist orientation at final extension, that final extension itself, and withdrawal- how do you standardize something like that? In Okinawa, where they have a blanket organization for their native arts, they haven't done so: they simply have a blanket organization that recognizes each art, and let's the head of that art *be* the standard for _that art,_ and it's the same for any art:

The head of the art is the standard, and all other standards are meaningless. Especially "a universal 'black belt'" 

I mean, really. :lfao: :barf:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 16, 2012)

Here you go Jason

Look through these and then standarize them

Aww heck...just because I like you let's make it easy and limit it to a partial list from China, Japan and Korea...now standardize these

*China 
*
Bafaquan (&#20843;&#27861;&#25331 - Eight Methods
 Baguazhang (&#20843;&#21350;&#25484;; Bagua Zhang) - Eight Trigrams Palm
 B&#257;jíquán (&#20843;&#26997;&#25331 - Eight Extremes Fist
 Bak Mei (&#30333;&#30473;&#25331 - White Eyebrow
 Ch&#257;quán (&#26597;&#25331 - Cha Fist
 Changquan (&#38263;&#25331 - Long Fist
 Chu&#333;ji&#462;o (&#25139;&#33139 - Poking Feet
 Choy gar (&#34081;&#23478 - Choi Family style
 Cai Li Fo (&#34081;&#26446;&#20315;; Càil&#464;fó)
 Ditangquan (&#22320;&#36538;&#25331 - Ground-Prone Fist, Ground Tumbling Boxing
 Duan Quan (&#30701;&#25331 - Short Range Boxing
 Emeiquan (&#23784;&#23883;&#25331 - Emei Fist
 Fanzi (&#32763;&#23376;&#25331 - Overturning Fist, Tumbling Boxing
 Five Ancestors (&#20116;&#31062;&#25331 - Wuzuquan or Ngo Cho Kun
 Five Animals (&#20116;&#24418
 Fujian White Crane (&#31119;&#24314;&#30333;&#40372;&#25331 - also known as Bai He Quan (&#30333;&#40372;&#25331
 Fu Jow Pai (&#34382;&#29226;&#27966 - Tiger Claw System
 Fut Gar (&#20315;&#23478- Buddhist Palm
 Gouquan (&#29399;&#25331 - Dog Fist
 Hakka Kuen (&#23458;&#23478;&#25331 - Hakka Boxing
 Hap Ga (&#20448;&#23478
 Houquan (&#29492;&#25331 - Monkey Fist Drunken Monkey (&#37257;&#29492
 Hei hu quan (&#40657;&#34382;&#25331 - Black Tiger Fist
 Huaquan (&#33775;&#25331 - China Fist
 Hung Fut (&#27946;&#20315 - Hung and Buddha style kung fu
 Hung Ga (&#27946;&#23478;&#25331;; also known as Hung Kuen)
 Jing Wu Men (&#31934;&#27494;&#38272 - Jing Wu, a famous school founded in Shanghai that teaches several different styles.
 Jow-Ga Kung Fu (&#21608;&#23478 - Jow family style
 Lai Tung Pai - Shaolin Style that mixes long and short fist
 Lama Pai (&#21895;&#22043;&#27966
 Leopard Kung Fu (&#35961;&#25331
 Li Gar (&#26446;&#23478 - Li Family or Lee Family style
 Liuhebafa (&#20845;&#21512;&#20843;&#27861;; Liu He Ba Fa) - Six Harmonies, Eight Methods or Water Boxing
 Longquan (&#40857;&#25331 - Dragon Fist
 Luohan Quan (&#32645;&#28450;&#25331 Arhat Boxing, Loh Han Kuen
 Meihuaquan (&#26757;&#33457;&#25331 - Plum Blossom Fist
 Mian Quan (&#26825;&#33457;&#25331;&#25802 - Cotton Boxing
 Mizongyi (&#36855;&#36452;&#25331;; Míz&#333;ngquán) - Lost Track Fist (also known as My Jong Law Horn; &#36855;&#36452;&#32645;&#28450;&#25331
 Mok Gar (&#33707;&#23478;&#25331 Mok family style
 Nam Pai Chuan (&#21335;&#21271;&#25331 - North South Fist
 Nanquan (&#21335;&#25331 - Southern Fist
 Ng Ga Kuen- Five Family/Five Animal style (Hung, Mok, Li, Choy, Fut)
 Northern Praying Mantis (&#21271;&#27966;&#34739;&#34690;&#25331
 Northern Shaolin (&#21271;&#23569;&#26519 - Bei Shaolin
 Pào Chuí (&#28846;&#25462 - Cannon Fist, Sanhaung Paochui
 Piguaquan (&#21128;&#25499;&#25331 - Chop-Hitch Fist, Axe-hitch boxing
 Shaolin Kung Fu (&#23569;&#26519;&#25331 - Shaolin Fist
 Shequan (&#34503;&#25331 - Snake Fist
 Shuai jiao (&#25684;&#36324;; Shuaijiao) - Chinese and Mongolian styles of wrestling
 Southern Praying Mantis (&#21335;&#27966;&#34739;&#34690;&#25331 Chow Gar (&#21608;&#23478- Chow Style Southern Praying Mantis
 T'ai chi ch'uan (&#22826;&#26997;&#25331; Taijiquan) - Supreme Ultimate fist Chen-style t'ai chi ch'uan
  Tán Tu&#464; (&#24392;&#33151;/&#35674;&#33151 - Springing legs style
 Tibetan White Crane (&#30333;&#40372;&#27966
 Tien Shan Pai (&#22825;&#23665;&#27966
 Tongbeiquan (&#36890;&#32972;&#25331 - Through-the-Back Fist
 Wing Chun (&#35424;&#26149; or &#27704;&#26149 - Style based on movements of a snake and a crane. Wing Tsun (&#35424;&#26149
 Wudang chuan (&#27494;&#30070;&#25331
 Xingyiquan (&#24418;&#24847;&#25331;; Hsing-i Chuan) - Form-Intent Fist
 Yau Kung Moon (&#36719;&#21151;&#38272 - Flexible-Power Style
 Yingzhaoquan (&#40441;&#29226;&#25331 - Eagle Claw Fist
 Yuejiaquan (&#23731;&#23478;&#25331 - Yue family Fist/Boxing
 Yiquan (&#24847;&#25331;; I Ch'uan) - Mind Boxing
 Zi Ran Men (&#33258;&#28982;&#38376 - Natural Boxing or "fist of nature"

*Japan*

Aikido (&#21512;&#27671;&#36947;/&#21512;&#27683;&#36947
 Ashihara kaikan (&#33446;&#21407;&#20250;&#39208
 Bajutsu
 B&#333;jutsu (&#26834;&#34899
 Battojutsu (&#25244;&#20992;&#34899
 Bujinkan (&#27494;&#31070;&#39208
 Daito-ry&#363; aiki-jujutsu (&#22823;&#26481;&#27969;&#21512;&#27671;&#26580;&#34899;&#65289;
 Enshin kaikan (&#20870;&#24515;&#20250;&#39208
 Gensei-ry&#363; (&#29572;&#21046;&#27969
 Goju Ryu
 Hakk&#333;-ry&#363; (&#20843;&#20809;&#27969
 Iaido(&#23621;&#21512;&#36947;&#12289;&#23621;&#21512;&#34899; Iaijutsu)
 J&#333;d&#333; (&#26454;&#36947
 J&#363;kend&#333; (&#37507;&#21091;&#36947;?)
 Japanese kickboxing
 Jigen-ry&#363; (&#31034;&#29694;&#27969
 Judo (&#26580;&#36947
 Jujutsu (&#26580;&#34899;&#12289;Jiujitsu, Jujitsu)
 Juttejutsu (&#21313;&#25163;&#34899;?)
 Kendo (&#21091;&#36947
 Kenjutsu (&#21091;&#34899
 Kenpo (&#25331;&#27861
 Kosho Shorei Ryu Kempo
 Ky&#363;d&#333; (&#24339;&#36947
 Karate
 Kyokushin kaikan (&#26997;&#30495;&#20250;&#39208
 Naginatajutsu
 Ninjutsu
 Nippon Kempo
 Pancrase
 Puroresu
 Seidokaikan (&#27491;&#36947;&#20250;&#39208
 Seishinkai (&#32854;&#24515;&#20250
 Shinkendo &#65288;&#30495;&#21091;&#36947;&#65289;
 Shoot Boxing
 Shooto
 Shootfighting
 Shoot wrestling
 Shorinji Kempo (&#23569;&#26519;&#23546;&#25331;&#27861
 Sh&#333;t&#333;kai (&#26494;&#28644;&#26371
 Sh&#333;t&#333;kan-ry&#363;(&#26494;&#28644;&#39208;&#27969
 Sh&#363;d&#333;kan (&#20462;&#36947;&#39208
 Sh&#363;k&#333;kai (&#20462;&#20132;&#20250
 Shind&#333; jinen-ry&#363;(&#31070;&#36947;&#33258;&#28982;&#27969
  Shuri-ry&#363; (&#39318;&#37324;&#27969
 Sumo
 Shurikenjutsu
 Taido
 Taijutsu
 Takeda Ryu Nakamura Ha
 Tenjin Shin'y&#333;-ry&#363; (&#22825;&#31070;&#30495;&#26954;&#27969;?)
 Togakure-ryu
 Toyama-ry&#363;
 Wado-ry&#363; (&#21644;&#36947;&#27969
 Yoseikan Budo
 Yoseikan-ry&#363;(&#39178;&#27491;&#39208;&#27969

*Korea*

Choi Kwang-Do
 GongKwon Yusul
 Gwonbeop
 Gyongdang
 Haidong Gumdo
 Han Mu Do
 Hankido
 Hapkido
 Hwa Rang Do
 Kuk Sool Won
 Kuk Sul Do
 Kumdo
 Shippalgi
 Ssireum
 Subak
 Taekkyeon
 Taekwondo
 Tang soo do
 Yusul


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> In your opinion Chris, your OPINION. I have a good understanding bro.
> 
> It has always amazed me that some people in martial arts want to make things complicated, mystical or the like. So someone who studies complex sciences through the university process is actually studying something less complex as the martial arts, huh?
> 
> ...



Sciences have a common base in the scientific method. Many martial arts simply don't share a common base in that way. Your take on unarmed arts there leave out the weapon systems, the idea of focusing on striking methods denies grappling systems, and the "rules" for striking in, say, boxing is completely different and incongruent with Wing Chun, Karate, the Ninjutsu schools, or even things like kickboxing/muay Thai in a number of ways. Concepts of power generation are in conflict with each other, concepts of distance and angling are in conflict with each other, concepts of what striking surfaces are used are in conflict with each other, primary tactics and strategies are in conflict with each other, and that's all just with seemingly similar arts.

This idea just can't work with martial arts retaining their ability to be themselves. It would lead to the removal of what makes them martial arts (individual) in the first place.

Desperately bad idea.


----------



## Grenadier (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> College's and most areas, SCRATCH THAT, all areas of science operate in such a manner and yet they have much more defined, refined and professional industries supported by them.
> 
> People go to college and get some kind of generic initial degree, such as BA arts or BS in science and then within or after that study they go onto have some specialized field.



It's not nearly that generic.  If you get a BS degree, it's going to be something that's at least somewhat specialized.  It can be a BS of biology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc., even "Premedical" where it's essentially a biochemistry degree, but it still requires some specialization.  

You simply don't have enough time to get a bunch of BS degrees to cover all of the science fields, and certainly not enough to gain the depth of knowledge that you think you can get.  While you can take courses in the various sciences outside of your area, you will never have the depth that dedication would give you.


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 16, 2012)

Chris, do each one of those have a different way to punch that is unique to each and every system, no overlap?


Elder - Is a Kyokushin punch that different than a Shotokan punch, and for that matter that different from a Taekwondo punch?




What is the difference between a punch in Wing Chun and a punch in, I don't know choose any Karate style?




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




And yes, I think Black Belt is the beginning of understanding.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 16, 2012)

Grenadier said:


> It's not nearly that generic.  If you get a BS degree, it's going to be something that's at least somewhat specialized.  It can be a BS of biology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc., even "Premedical" where it's essentially a biochemistry degree, but it still requires some specialization.
> 
> You simply don't have enough time to get a bunch of BS degrees to cover all of the science fields, and certainly not enough to gain the depth of knowledge that you think you can get.  While you can take courses in the various sciences outside of your area, you will never have the depth that dedication would give you.



Not to mention that a BS degree from University to University and College to College is not all that Generic. The Curriculum for a BS in Chemistry at Harvard is not the same as a BS in Chemistry at MIT nor is it the same ay SUNY Buffalo, UMass, Michigan State, Yale or UCLA either


----------



## elder999 (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> In your opinion Chris, your OPINION. I have a good understanding bro.
> 
> It has always amazed me that some people in martial arts want to make things complicated, mystical or the like. So someone who studies complex sciences through the university process is actually studying something less complex as the martial arts, huh?
> 
> ...




ANd all of this is just wrong. First, a story about standards:

Back when I started at the nuke plant, way back in 1982, I learned that there are two types of reactor plants used in the U.S.: boiler water reactors, where water from the reactor is boiled, and steam from that reactor turns a turbine, and condensate from the turbine is fed back to the reactor, and pressurized water reactors, where water from the reactor goes through heat exchangers called steam generators to heat another loop of water into steam that is used to turn the turbine, and condensate is fed back into. A pressurized water reactor, like Indian Point, where I worked, has a few advantages and disadvantages, but chief among its advantages is a minimization of release of radioactive material-with a closed loop, reactor coolant should stay on the nuclear side of the plant, and the turbine is, essentially, radiologically clean. People don't have to wear dosimetry on that side of the plant, whereas in a boiler water reactor, the entire plant is contaminated, and people have to wear dosimetry and do self checks everywhere.....now, the NRC-the Nuclear Regulatory Commission-regularly uses people from plants, or takes retirees from plants, or hires people from departments at plants.

Most of your NRC guys have worked at a plant or two. Leave it at that.

One day, a visiting NRC agent (yeah, that's what we called them then) came into our control room for the first time, and loudly and angrily asked where our dosimetry was, and why we weren't wearing it. Of course, he left in embarassment when we pointed out that we were a PWR, and didn't require it. So much for "standards." :lfao:

Now, people don't move the same. Over the years, I've developed a little bit of an eye for such things, and we just don't-and our training makes sure we don't. Over the years, I've picked up more than one girl by walking up to her and asking how long she'd been doing ballet or gymnastice (one or the other, sometimes, but rarely both) and playing on her surprise that I recognized it, but I could recognize it by the way they walked-hell, the first time I did that, I was 14. Likewise, boxers (who punch differently),Muay Thai fighters (who punch differently), Okinawan karate men (who *all*punch differently), Japanese karate men (who *all*punch differently), tae kwon do men (who-when they do punch-punch differently), and a wide variety of Chinese stylists (who punch differently), "ninjutsu" men (who punch way differently), and a wide variety of Japanese jujutsuka who punch differently.....

....and there's usually a reason, and that's just punching. You just aren't making sense: we could DEFINITELY *NOT* teach and mandate what "the basics" are outside of opinions of application, because all the standards are different-they're different people.

_I don't see how somebody who studied under one sensei for more than a decade could not know this._


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> Chris, do each one of those have a different way to punch that is unique to each and every system, no overlap?



To a fair degree, yes. The commonality is that they strike with the fist. That's it, when you come down to it. The fist is even formed differently in a number of the different arts.



jasonbrinn said:


> Elder - Is a Kyokushin punch that different than a Shotokan punch, and for that matter that different from a Taekwondo punch?



Yes. 



jasonbrinn said:


> What is the difference between a punch in Wing Chun and a punch in, I don't know choose any Karate style?



A Wing Chun punch features a different structure to the fist, different body mechanics, different methods of generating power, different stance concepts, different angles that are used, different targeting concepts, and more. 



jasonbrinn said:


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



Which doesn't work. I train in five different sword systems. Each has a completely different grip, cutting mechanic, and, well, everything else. Even though they are all Japanese sword systems, using essentially the same sword.



jasonbrinn said:


> And yes, I think Black Belt is the beginning of understanding.



But the beginning of what? The way you've presented this it doesn't offer the beginning of any martial art at all, as you'd need to start again, and correct everything from what your "generic" black belt would have taught.


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 16, 2012)

Cool,

Question asked - question answered.

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

I have spent 30 years in the martial arts and I can't tell you how many times I have watched a high ranking Black Belt of one art get treated like a child by a virtual beginner from another art.  I have even seen this happen within the same arts as well.  This is shameful in my opinion.  

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

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


Thank you everyone for your time and consideration,


Jason Brinn


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> What is the difference between a punch in Wing Chun and a punch in, I don't know choose any Karate style?.



What is the difference between a punch in Wing Chun, a punch in any Karate style and Xingyiquan, Baguazhang, JKD, Jun Fan Gung Fu, Sports Sanshuo, Non-sports sanshou, etc.? Can be quite a lot actually.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> Elder - Is a Kyokushin punch that different than a Shotokan punch, and for that matter that different from a Taekwondo punch?



Having actually studied all three, and studied Kyokushin and taekwon do at the same time for nearly a decade, I can unequivocally and quite vocally say *YES, GODDAMMIT!* :lfao:

Look here, same basic form, tae kwon do, kyokushin, shotokan:























jasonbrinn said:


> What is the difference between a punch in Wing Chun and a punch in, I don't know choose any Karate style?



And, having done wing chun, I shouldn't even bother to get into this, but, I dunno-what the puncher does with their shoulders, the orientation of the fist, and, most importantly in this instance, what is done with the legs. *A LOT*, actually. :lfao:






jasonbrinn said:


> And yes, I think Black Belt is the beginning of understanding.



Then you should probably put in the proper time to earn one.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> Chris, do each one of those have a different way to punch that is unique to each and every system, no overlap?
> 
> 
> Elder - Is a Kyokushin punch that different than a Shotokan punch, and for that matter that different from a Taekwondo punch?
> ...



The type of relaxed penetrating power generated in a Wing Chun punch comes from the unique Wing Chun stance , in order to execute force in this way you would have to adopt this unique  stance.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> And, having done wing chun, I shouldn't even bother to get into this, but, I dunno-what the puncher does with their shoulders, the orientation of the fist, and, most importantly in this instance, what is done with the legs. *A LOT*, actually. :lfao:



Wing Chun - Straight Punch (basics)






Wing Chun - Chain Punching (basics)






Wing Chun - Distance Fighting - Punch Drill (basics)


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 16, 2012)

Thanks Elder for the passion.

I too have studied all 3, including others, and I feel at the core there is little difference.  Not that I care about standing alone as I am fully prepared to stand up, for and by my own ideas but I am not exactly alone in this idea either.  Here are three quotes from a generally known and respected martial artist;

"To reach the masses, some sort of big organization (whether) domestic and foreign branch affiliation, is not necessary. To reach the growing number of students, some sort of pre-conformed set must be established as standards for the branch to follow. As a result all members will be conditioned according to the prescribed system. Many will probably end up as a prisoner of a systematized drill.
Styles tend to not only separate men - because they have their own doctrines and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot change. But if you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a human being, how can I express myself totally and completely? Now, that way you won't create a style, because style is a crystallization. That way, it's a process of continuing growth."  Bruce Lee


"The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity. 
Before I studied the art, a punch to me was just like a punch, a kick just like a kick. After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick no longer a kick. Now that I've understood the art, a punch is just like a punch, a kick just like a kick. The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. It is the halfway cultivation that leads to ornamentation."  Bruce Lee


"Each one of us is different and each one of us should be taught the correct form. By correct form I mean the most useful techniques the person is inclined toward. Find his ability and then develop these techniques. I don't think it is important whether a side kick is performed with the heel higher than the toes, as long as the fundamental principle is not violated. Most classical martial arts training is a mere imitative repetition - a product - and individuality is lost.
When one has reached maturity in the art, one will have a formless form. It is like ice dissolving in water. When one has no form, one can be all forms; when one has no style, he can fit in with any style."  Bruce Lee


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> Cool,
> 
> Question asked - question answered.
> 
> ...



Honestly, I'm not sure what you're saying in a lot of this, Jason....



jasonbrinn said:


> Cool,
> 
> Question asked - question answered.



Hmm. Okay.



jasonbrinn said:


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



Are you saying that they were all the same OTHER THAN striking surface, angle and power, or that those aspects were all the same in each? If the former, well, that's a part of the differences between karate and Wing Chun (I'm assuming you meant Joe Lewis, can't find any "Jow" Lewis, yeah...?). If the latter, well, there should have been notable differences... the method of "rooting" to generate power for Wing Chun is markedly different from the rotational power in traditional karate, or the kinetic linking found in boxing, so unless these people were just working with what you were already doing (in which case it is far from you then learning "Wing Chun" punching or the like), then you seem like you missed quite a bit there... 



jasonbrinn said:


> I have spent 30 years in the martial arts and I can't tell you how many times I have watched a high ranking Black Belt of one art get treated like a child by a virtual beginner from another art. I have even seen this happen within the same arts as well. This is shameful in my opinion.



I honestly have no idea what this has to do with the idea being put forth here... are these high ranking black belts entering a new school as beginners, and don't know what they're doing there, or is this in some kind of competition? Or are you trying to say that people here aren't respecting your experience enough, and we should agree with you, or give your ideas more credence due to your 30 years experience? Frankly, none of it seems to have any relevance. 



jasonbrinn said:


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



In what? What are you actually talking about here? And consistency only needs to be within the same context. There is no need for consistency between Hung Gar and Seitei Iaido.... 



jasonbrinn said:


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



Remedy for what? That karate practitioners don't do the same thing as Aikido practitioners, let alone members of the Dog Brothers?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> Thanks Elder for the passion.
> 
> I too have studied all 3, including others, and I feel at the core there is little difference.  Not that I care about standing alone as I am fully prepared to stand up, for and by my own ideas but I am not exactly alone in this idea either.  Here are three quotes from a generally known and respected martial artist;
> 
> ...



And I would put forth that a "Universal Black Belt" is the antithesis of everything Bruce Lee said or was trying to say



> I have not invented a "new style," composite, modified or otherwise that is set within distinct form as apart from "this" method or "that" method. On the contrary, I hope to free my followers from clinging to styles, patterns, or molds. Remember that Jeet Kune Do is merely a name used, a mirror in which to see "ourselves". . . Jeet Kune Do is not an organized institution that one can be a member of. Either you understand or you don't, and that is that.
> 
> There is no mystery about my style. My movements are simple, direct and non-classical. The extraordinary part of it lies in its simplicity. Every movement in Jeet Kune-Do is being so of itself. There is nothing artificial about it. I always believe that the easy way is the right way. Jeet Kune-Do is simply the direct expression of one's feelings with the minimum of movements and energy. The closer to the true way of Kung Fu, the less wastage of expression there is.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> Thanks Elder for the passion.
> 
> I too have studied all 3, including others, and I feel at the core there is little difference.  Not that I care about standing alone as I am fully prepared to stand up, for and by my own ideas but I am not exactly alone in this idea either.  Here are three quotes from a generally known and respected martial artist;
> 
> ...



I'll be blunt.

Bruce was personally very talented, but had incredibly limited training and understanding, instead seeking a personal truth without understanding what the realities of different styles actually are. 

In other words, Bruce was wrong.

EDIT: I should also add that I agree with Xue in that these quotes (indeed, any from Bruce) do not support the idea you're putting forth.


----------



## frank raud (Aug 16, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> Not to mention that a BS degree from University to University and College to College is not all that Generic. The Curriculum for a BS in Chemistry at Harvard is not the same as a BS in Chemistry at MIT nor is it the same ay SUNY Buffalo, UMass, Michigan State, Yale or UCLA either



Nor is a degree from a foriegn university necessarily accepted as "appropriate" credentials. Way too many engineers and doctors driving taxis because their degrees are from a university that is not recognised by American standards.


----------



## clfsean (Aug 16, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> I'll be blunt.
> 
> Bruce was personally very talented, but had incredibly limited training and understanding, instead seeking a personal truth without understanding what the realities of different styles actually are.
> 
> ...



There's much truth in this.


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 16, 2012)

Can't see the forest for the trees.

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

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


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> Can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> I am not suggesting Bruce would have agreed, I am not even saying I completely agree with Bruce. I am saying that by his quotes he seemed to believe there was a core essence to everything that could be taught. It seemed he believed that there was a basic set that we are somewhat limited to as members of the same species. I am of that belief and I also think we could teach these as a basis.
> 
> Physics, as well as other disciplines, dictate the ways "we" punch not styles. You can flavor the water but in the end it is still H2O.



What are you going on about? You post quotes from Bruce to make your case, now you're saying that you're not suggesting he would have agreed? And that you don't agree with him? So putting his quotes up meant what, exactly? Cause that's not what his quotes were saying, you realize... in fact, quite the opposite. He was talking about how everyone is an individual, so limiting yourself to a single approach, confined and with outwardly established boundaries was not the most efficient or effective way for an individual martial artist to come to an understanding of their own personal abilities.

And again, with your claimed background, I am rather surprised that you are getting this so far wrong (with the comments about physical limitations).

But while I'm here.... 

Hmm, missed this bit. 



jasonbrinn said:


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


 
Better at what? What use does Daito Ryu have for such things? Daito Ryu is claiming to be a Koryu, which means it's concerned with preserving the way things are done in that art. What use does Iaido have for any of it? What about Kyudo? Martial arts are not (I'm going to emphasise this, as it's a common misconception that I see a lot) NOT about self defence. They can be, aspects of them can be, but that's not the single reason for them. If you are training for Judo competition, then knife conflict, punching and kicking mean absolutely nothing. If you are training in Filipino martial arts, knife is going to be a big aspect, but it's going to be completely different to Japanese knife methods, with very different attacks, weapons, and far more.

I can go on for hours, Jason. This single statement shows gigantic gaps in your understanding of martial arts in the breadth of their ranges. Make us all better? Not in the slightest.



jasonbrinn said:


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



There cannot be a single approach agreed on by the majority. It just doesn't work.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> Can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> I am not suggesting Bruce would have agreed, I am not even saying I completely agree with Bruce.  I am saying that by his quotes he seemed to believe there was a core essence to everything that could be taught.  It seemed he believed that there was a basic set that we are somewhat limited to as members of the same species.  I am of that belief and I also think we could teach these as a basis.
> 
> Physics, as well as other disciplines, dictate the ways "we" punch not styles.  You can flavor the water but in the end it is still H2O.



And yet none of that supports your origianl post about a Universal Black Belt

Which leads me to a question, if none of what Bruce Lee said supports your original premise then why post them?

Your original post was not about the commonality of anatomy and physiology between martial artists it was about standardizing Martial Arts and a &#8220;Universal Black Belt&#8221; which spoke more to standardized curriculum than human anatomy and physics

And I can see the forest and the trees that make up that forest and you know what... not all forests are the same either and the trees are all different.


----------



## pgsmith (Aug 16, 2012)

> I am not suggesting Bruce would have agreed, I am not even saying I completely agree with Bruce. I am saying that by his quotes he seemed to believe there was a core essence to everything that could be taught. It seemed he believed that there was a basic set that we are somewhat limited to as members of the same species. I am of that belief and I also think we could teach these as a basis.
> 
> Physics, as well as other disciplines, dictate the ways "we" punch not styles. You can flavor the water but in the end it is still H2O.



Jason,

If all water is the same, why are there a dozen of different brands on sale at my local Quickie Mart?

You are entitled to your views of the martial arts, but my views tell me you are wrong. I think a large part of the problem you're having getting your ideas accepted here is the fact that nobody agrees with your basic premise. At the root of what you are proposing is the claim that there is a problem that needs to be fixed, but nobody other than you sees it as a problem. So far as I can see, you are the only one in this thread that wants to make something "generic" so it can be palatable to the "masses". Everyone else seems to be content to learn their arts just the way they are. 

I believe that you'll just have to get used to the fact that, as someone who felt a need to create their own art, your outlook and ideas are not going to fit well with the vast majority of serious martial artists.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> Chris, do each one of those have a different way to punch that is unique to each and every system,


Heck, there are at least 5 or 6 different western systems of boxing alone. And that's without considering backfist, hammerfist, etc. 





> no overlap?


Sure.  Here it is, "make a fist."  Ooops, not even that.  There are 3 or 4 different ways to make a fist and then there's the debate of what is the proper punching surface of the fist and what orientation it should have when impacting.

I don't know who these supposed "legends in the Martial Arts community" but if you're claiming they agree with this concept either they're not as legendary as you think or, frankly, they're made up.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


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


Then it was different.



> I have spent 30 years in the martial arts and I can't tell you how many times I have watched a high ranking Black Belt of one art get treated like a child by a virtual beginner from another art.  I have even seen this happen within the same arts as well.  This is shameful in my opinion.


That's because their knowledge and understanding in *their *system doesn't necessarily translate to some *other *system.  In other words, despite their high degree of achievement in their own system, they are rank beginners in some other system.  I train with a 7th Dan Judoka and he's, frankly, a natural.  He dribbles me around the judo dojo like a basket ball.  But he doesn't know jack about the Military Saber and I'd eat him alive with the Tomahawk.  He doesn't come to me for Tomahawk training because he's doing what he loves, Judo, and doesn't have room in his life for something like 'hawk.  I, on the other hand, an expert at Bowie Knife, Tomahawk, and several other martial skills, came to Judo as a rank beginner and I learned Judo's method, humbly, starting off as a white belt.  You may not like it, but just because you are awesome at basket ball doesn't mean you don't suck at baseball.


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 16, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> ...serious martial artists.



Stop it now...seriously I laughed so hard reading this one that I almost spit out my water on the keyboard.  If you knew me for 1/2 a second Mr. Smith you would you know I am a very serious and dedicated Martial Artist.  But this isn't about me - this is about an idea.  Yes you have different brands and that's called marketing - which is probably the real answer to all this classical mess to begin with.

Xue, Chris, others:  I was using Bruce's quote to backup the idea that there are core ways to move that we are all bound by.  The Universal Black Belt was a suggestion of making sure everyone understood those core elements - nothing more.  So you see how I can use someone's principles in one point to outline those same principles in a totally different point....?  Bruce was actually saying in those quotes that styles build upon the core so much so that the individual is trapped by the extras when simply studying the core would have given them all they needed to freely express.

Mr Lawson:  Unfortunately, you will have to take my word on the legends part.  It is true, I have no reason to lie as we are just talking about an idea in open conversation - and the fact that I don't lie.  However, one of the "legends" was a good friend of Bruce's (not onscreen but off).

Chris and people like him believe that Martial Arts are not about Self Defense - this is true for them.  I was not brought in nor raised in the Martial Arts under that notion.  If Martial Arts are not for Self Defense then why were they created Chris?  If Martial Arts are not for Self Defense then you are training a cultural combative reenactment art form, sort of like Civil War buffs do then right? 

Look, I am willing to be wrong in the pursuit of something more.  Greater men before me were willing to be wrong about their ideas and I have been fortunate to learn from the innovations they taught and have seen how they changed things for the better.  I was also taught that it was my duty to carry on that tradition.  I am more than likely going to fail because I am a simple person and not as smart as most - but O have enough integrity and fight to do what I said I would and not quit in the face of adversity or criticism. 

Because someone's ideas are different doesn't mean they are wrong or their background or grasp is flawed or short sighted.  Unless, of course, we are going to say that since all these arts by everyone's posts are so different that in essence most of them are wrong too.(?)


Once again I say thank you to everyone for their carefully thought out posts and responses.  I enjoy posting here at MartialTalk directly because of the great people, the vastness of experiences and the willingness of the community to share, critique and honestly exchange ideas.


Jason Brinn


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 16, 2012)

lklawson said:


> I, on the other hand, an expert at Bowie Knife, Tomahawk...



WHOA!  This is awesome.  I have been trying to learn hawk but all I have at the moment are a set of DVDs by Cold Steel.  Could you suggest some alternatives, and/or are you willing/available to teach it?


----------



## MJS (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> I have talked about this subject many times with friends, some of which are considered legends in the Martial Arts community, and it seems most people think that there could be but politics will probably never allow for it.
> 
> What I mean by Universal Black Belt is really a universally agreed upon set of curriculum that should one learn and demonstrate they would be acknowledged worldwide as a "general Black Belt".  After this people could have specialties in specific arts.
> 
> ...



Hi Jason,

I would have to say no, there can't be a universal BB.  That would imply that there'd have to be 1 art.  However, looking at your last paragraph, where you talk about specialties in specific arts...could you clarify that please?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> In your opinion Chris, your OPINION. I have a good understanding bro.
> 
> It has always amazed me that some people in martial arts want to make things complicated, mystical or the like. So someone who studies complex sciences through the university process is actually studying something less complex as the martial arts, huh?
> 
> ...



Using your analogy universities would offer courses in "Generic Literature 101", which would not cover any specific literature. Once students received their B.A. degree, they could go on to graduate school for classes in "18th century English novels", "20th Century French short stories" and "16th century Chinese poetry". It doesn't work that way.

Leaving aside the flawed comparison to college education, what exactly would be covered in "punching class 101"?
How to form a fist?
How to generate power?
How to land a punch without being blocked or countered?
How to use punches in combination?
When to use a punch?

The answers to these questions (and many more) are completely different in arts such as Wing Chun, Shotokan, Boxing and Bujinkan Taijutusu. There is no "generic" answer to any of these questions that would carry over into those various arts. You might have the opinion that a certain approach to punching might be a "superior" approach, either in general or for an individual, but that's very different from being a generic approach that would have any connection to most martial arts.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> WHOA!  This is awesome.  I have been trying to learn hawk but all I have at the moment are a set of DVDs by Cold Steel.  Could you suggest some alternatives, and/or are you willing/available to teach it?


The Cold Steel stuff isn't bad.  Dwight McLemore's stuff is far better.  His book & vid are the perfect place to work from.

I do teach but I'm in Ohio.  Not particularly close to NC.  I might consider doing a short seminar but I'm currently suffering a broken foot which I acquired at Judo last week.


----------



## MJS (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


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



Ok, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, and if so please clarify.  Going on what you're saying, if the BA or BS was the univ. BB, and then goes on to study in a specific area, the univ. BB would teach someone a basic set of skills, ie: how to punch, block, kick, etc, and then they'd go on to pick the art that interested them, ie: TKD, BJJ, etc.?


----------



## MJS (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> Chris, do each one of those have a different way to punch that is unique to each and every system, no overlap?
> 
> 
> Elder - Is a Kyokushin punch that different than a Shotokan punch, and for that matter that different from a Taekwondo punch?
> ...



While there are punches in the arts that you mention, its the application that will most likely differ.  Now, it may've just been the schools/instructors that I've trained at, but the way I used to punch and see others punch in Kenpo, differed from what I see in Kyokushin.


----------



## MJS (Aug 16, 2012)

Hmm...something else to consider.  If we have 1 standard way of punching, and then move on to study a particular art, we're now going to have to re-learn, that schools method of punching.  An easy task?  Sure, on the surface it doesnt seem like a big deal, however, if someone spends alot of time, ie: years, learning 1 (univ) way of punching, and then moves onto a new art, they're going to basically have to start from square 1.


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 16, 2012)

Oh dear lord.... 



jasonbrinn said:


> Stop it now...seriously I laughed so hard reading this one that I almost spit out my water on the keyboard.  If you knew me for 1/2 a second Mr. Smith you would you know I am a very serious and dedicated Martial Artist.  But this isn't about me - this is about an idea.  Yes you have different brands and that's called marketing - which is probably the real answer to all this classical mess to begin with.



It's not marketing, Jason. The idea that you think it is shows major issues with your take on things... again.



jasonbrinn said:


> Xue, Chris, others:  I was using Bruce's quote to backup the idea that there are core ways to move that we are all bound by.  The Universal Black Belt was a suggestion of making sure everyone understood those core elements - nothing more.  So you see how I can use someone's principles in one point to outline those same principles in a totally different point....?  Bruce was actually saying in those quotes that styles build upon the core so much so that the individual is trapped by the extras when simply studying the core would have given them all they needed to freely express.



Except there are no core elements that are in all systems, or even the majority of systems. Additionally, the quotes you gave don't support what you're stating, nor do they say what you think they say.



jasonbrinn said:


> Mr Lawson:  Unfortunately, you will have to take my word on the legends part.  It is true, I have no reason to lie as we are just talking about an idea in open conversation - and the fact that I don't lie.  However, one of the "legends" was a good friend of Bruce's (not onscreen but off).



There have been issues with things not being backed up before, though, Jason, so really all we have to go on that you don't lie is your own word... hmm.



jasonbrinn said:


> Chris and people like him believe that Martial Arts are not about Self Defense - this is true for them.  I was not brought in nor raised in the Martial Arts under that notion.  If Martial Arts are not for Self Defense then why were they created Chris?  If Martial Arts are not for Self Defense then you are training a cultural combative reenactment art form, sort of like Civil War buffs do then right?



You're kidding, right? Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu - duels with swords. Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu - military education for a warrior class. Yagyu Shinkage Ryu - expression of strategy (military and political). Ogasawara Ryu - deportment and social education. Judo - social improvement through physical and mental education. Seitei Iaido - give Kendoka an experience at actually using a sword. Seitei Jodo - formulation of a set of basics to give Kendoka, and the police force (particularly the Riot Squad in Tokyo). Tae Kwon Do - aid moral and fitness for the Korean Army and people. Muso Shinden Ryu Iaido - preservation of a line of Iai, with a look to combative efficiency as formulated by Nakayama Hakudo. Shinto Muso Ryu - develop a new weapon in order to win a duel. Kyudo - spiritual refinement through action. 

In other words, there are as many reasons arts are created as there are arts. I've only really dealt with Japanese arts here, after all you claim Daito Ryu (protection of a family), so you really should get this. We can do the same thing with arts from anywhere else, you know. 



jasonbrinn said:


> Look, I am willing to be wrong in the pursuit of something more.  Greater men before me were willing to be wrong about their ideas and I have been fortunate to learn from the innovations they taught and have seen how they changed things for the better.  I was also taught that it was my duty to carry on that tradition.  I am more than likely going to fail because I am a simple person and not as smart as most - but O have enough integrity and fight to do what I said I would and not quit in the face of adversity or criticism.



Okay, you're willing to be wrong... so, after you were immediately corrected, and given example after example of how wrong you are, why are you still trying to argue? 



jasonbrinn said:


> Because someone's ideas are different doesn't mean they are wrong or their background or grasp is flawed or short sighted.  Unless, of course, we are going to say that since all these arts by everyone's posts are so different that in essence most of them are wrong too.(?)



No, but if someone is wrong, they are wrong. If their ideas show a lack of understanding, it shows a lack of understanding. If their comments show flawed understandings, they show flawed understandings. The little comment about arts being different, therefore wrong is just another example, by the way. Using karate power generation when doing Wing Chun is wrong... but karate power generation in karate isn't. 



jasonbrinn said:


> Once again I say thank you to everyone for their carefully thought out posts and responses.  I enjoy posting here at MartialTalk directly because of the great people, the vastness of experiences and the willingness of the community to share, critique and honestly exchange ideas.
> 
> 
> Jason Brinn



Do forgive this, but that does come across rather disingenuously...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> Xue, Chris, others:  I was using Bruce's quote to backup the idea that there are core ways to move that we are all bound by.  The Universal Black Belt was a suggestion of making sure everyone understood those core elements - nothing more.  So you see how I can use someone's principles in one point to outline those same principles in a totally different point....?  Bruce was actually saying in those quotes that styles build upon the core so much so that the individual is trapped by the extras when simply studying the core would have given them all they needed to freely express.



 Nothing against Bruce Lee, I am actually rather impressed by Jun Fan Gung Fu and JKD when taught correctly however the core principles form art to art are not the same beyond the fact that they are all fighting styles at their root. However they can approach that from vastly different directions.

There is a school of thought that many of the CMA styles have a similarity to or their root is Changquan (long fist) and that if you have a basic knowledge of Changquan you will do better and advance faster in other CMA styles. However there are CMA styles that have no such similarity and having a basic knowledge of Changquan will not help you much. Shuaijiao is very different and Bruce Lee&#8217;s base style Wing Chun is rather different as well


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 16, 2012)

Sure.

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

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






and what I see at most schools similar to this;


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> and what I see at most schools similar to this;



That is what you see at most martial arts schools....... where are you looking?

I have not seen that at any martial arts school in almost 40 years of training. Don't get me wrong, I have seen some pretty bad schools but if that is what you are using to support your argument, something that appears to be an obvious spoof then you have no support for what you are saying at all

And exactly what are you tryig to proove with the first video of various arts most of which are not kung fu by the video label, and do you have any idea what you are really saying when you say Kung Fu?

The thing about using YouTube to support anything is there are just as many examples to the contrary of anything you are trying to prove


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 16, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Oh dear lord....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Chris,  I meant what I said.  I am not a disingenuous person.  I also don't claim Daito ryu, other than having studied it.  The art I claim is my own, Shamar system.

Whether someone has understanding or not is merely a matter of perspective.  Maybe your perspective is correct Chris, or maybe you your moon is just a reflection on the water.  One thing is for sure, you nor I will know which one has the correct perspective until one of our perspectives changes.  Fighting is usually the accepted method through out Martial Arts history in finding correct perspective.  I fight with my ideas to gain mine as I am sure you do as well(?)

And whether you know it or not Chris - the many different brands of water at his local market are their exclusively because of marketing and nothing more - read the labels.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 16, 2012)

But what about those generic college degrees that are really not generic that you spoke of before?


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


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



Then you really don't get the first thing about martial arts, or the way they differ. Physics isn't the most essential aspect to understanding different arts, Jason, an understanding of the culture and context of the art is. What you're describing here is completely wrong.



jasonbrinn said:


> Chris,  I meant what I said.  I am not a disingenuous person.  I also don't claim Daito ryu, other than having studied it.  The art I claim is my own, Shamar system.
> 
> Whether someone has understanding or not is merely a matter of perspective.  Maybe your perspective is correct Chris, or maybe you your moon is just a reflection on the water.  One thing is for sure, you nor I will know which one has the correct perspective until one of our perspectives changes.  Fighting is usually the accepted method through out Martial Arts history in finding correct perspective.  I fight with my ideas to gain mine as I am sure you do as well(?)
> 
> And whether you know it or not Chris - the many different brands of water at his local market are their exclusively because of marketing and nothing more - read the labels.



And again... you're a fair bit out. With the idea of whether or not you have any understanding, that's observation of your posts, Jason. It's not perspective, other than my perspective being somewhat more informed, from all accounts. But I'm pretty sure I know who's correct here... I'm going with the one who is in agreement with, well, everyone else in the thread. But no, fighting is not a method of finding the "correct perspective", whatever you mean by that. And you've lost me again with your sentence about "fight with my ideas"... 

With the marketing comment, I was referring to your statement that the "marketing" idea lead to the "classical mess"... a really bizarre statement for anyone trained in Daito Ryu to make at the very least.


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 16, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Then you really don't get the first thing about martial arts, or the way they differ. Physics isn't the most essential aspect to understanding different arts, Jason, an understanding of the culture and context of the art is. What you're describing here is completely wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Chris, let me make this clear since you are not a very nice person and seem to be confused about me a little, I study Martial Arts as a means to make myself the best fighter I can be and to be able to protect the ones I love.  I do NOT study the arts in appreciation of their cultures or as some part of art form or the like.  Yes I studied Daito ryu and I gathered what I needed from it and that's that.  I have also studied BJJ, Karate, Wing Chun, Muay Thai, Kyokushin and more and did the same with them.

Some smart people who think they know so much are really smart people and know a lot - others not so much mate.

I fight with ideas means that I don't sit around and postulate about methods, concepts and techniques and think that because I can make a good argument or that people agree with me means that the stuff has combative merit.  I test stuff fighting and I let what works be the the judge for whats right mate.

I see a lot of people training BJJ these days.  Not too long ago people didn't put much merit in the system - the MAJORITY of people.  Somehow for some reason they seem to have changed their minds...?

And as for your different arts blah blah blah;


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 16, 2012)

Hmm, actually, we'll try it this way.

Jason, you're wanting to come up with a single set of basic, universal approaches that people would learn (to a level of black belt) before "specializing" in their preferred art, yeah? Then let's look at what that might involve. Let's look at a punch.

What is the "basic" punch like? How is the fist held? How is it formed? How is the power generated? Does it come from the hip, or the shoulder? Or somewhere else? How are the hips used? What is the stance used that the punch is thrown from?

Give some answers to that, and we'll see how it fits with a range of arts, yeah?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 16, 2012)

And how does that punch apply to BJJ in the Universal approach?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> Yes I studied Daito ryu and I gathered what I needed from it and that's that.  I have also studied BJJ, *Karate*, *Wing Chun*, Muay





jasonbrinn said:


> What is the difference between a punch in Wing Chun and a punch in, I don't know choose any Karate style?



And you mean to say you saw no difference.... that is rather interesting and very telling... actually it tells me you did not study them all that much... sorry, but that is what it is telling me.

Well... I must go... I have no more time to waste on this... I have a real MA class to go to..... one that is from the guy you seem to like to quote


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> Chris, let me make this clear since you are not a very nice person and seem to be confused about me a little, I study Martial Arts as a means to make myself the best fighter I can be and to be able to protect the ones I love.  I do NOT study the arts in appreciation of their cultures or as some part of art form or the like.  Yes I studied Daito ryu and I gathered what I needed from it and that's that.  I have also studied BJJ, Karate, Wing Chun, Muay Thai, Kyokushin and more and did the same with them.



Actually, Jason, I've been quite restrained and polite in this. Your entire idea is ludicrous, and that's been demonstrated by myself and others pretty well, but you have not come up with a single answer to any of our comments.

As far as why you train martial arts, fine, but you do realize that that doesn't mean that's why they were formulated? And frankly, the sheer arrogance that because you train to make yourself "the best fighter" you can be, therefore that's what the emphasis should be is again an indication that you really do have a very low understanding of all this. I've tried showing you where you're wrong (here and before), but you don't listen. So I'm mainly showing others so they don't listen to the bizarre ideas you come up with.



jasonbrinn said:


> Some smart people who think they know so much are really smart people and know a lot - others not so much mate.



I'm pretty damn secure in my intelligence, for a large number of reasons. The implication is rather amusing, though, for someone who has not been able to answer a single part of the criticism of your idea.



jasonbrinn said:


> I fight with ideas means that I don't sit around postulate about methods, concepts and techniques and think that because I can make a good argument or that people agree with me means that the stuff has combative merit.  I test stuff fighting and I let what works for the judge for whats right mate.



Completely irrelevant when it comes to knowing about different martial arts, Jason. All it means is that you are looking for what works for you, which is beside the point (in fact, completely unrelated to) of a universal set of ideas for all martial arts.



jasonbrinn said:


> I see a lot of people training BJJ these days.  Not too long ago people didn't put much merit in the system - the MAJORITY of people.  Somehow for some reason they seem to have changed their minds...?



Oh, don't get me started on that, Jason... besides the fact that it has no bearing on the discussion, and shoots down your idea of universal basics, your comment is frankly out of date by about 20 years.



jasonbrinn said:


> And as for your different arts blah blah blah;



While I love that clip (and the whole movie, really), you asked what arts were not designed for self defence. Gee, sorry if I answered your question. And Jason? That was a very, very quick list, and hardly exhaustive.


----------



## frank raud (Aug 16, 2012)

Just for morbid curiousity, how long would it take to get this "universal" black belt?  As the time range for obtaining a black belt varies depending on the system, from roughly two years to over a decade, is the idea that you would have to train for an additional period of time, prior to the style's own time line for black belt, or would this some how "fast track" your learning? Big problems with either scenario.

How would you devise a curriculum for this "universal" black belt for students of two very popular arts, Tae Kwon Do and Judo? How much commonality do you see between the two arts that you could devise a curriculum that would significantly benefit both arts, without subtracting or adding extraneous elements to them?

Once a student has obtained this "universal" blackbelt, what is there to stop them from opening a club and teaching, despite the fact that they have no grounding in any particular art? Do you see this as something that would heighten the percieved value of a black belt, or lessen it, as it would be looked upon as a junior belt, similar to what is given to kids in some systems?


----------



## pgsmith (Aug 16, 2012)

> Stop it now...seriously I laughed so hard reading this one that I almost spit out my water on the keyboard. If you knew me for 1/2 a second Mr. Smith you would you know I am a very serious and dedicated Martial Artist. But this isn't about me - this is about an idea. Yes you have different brands and that's called marketing - which is probably the real answer to all this classical mess to begin with.


My reference to serious martial artists was not meant as a reflection upon your own dedication to your own arts. I was simply referring to the response you've gotten from *everyone *else on this forum, who tend to be serious martial artists in their own right. You're correct in that this isn't about you, it is about your ideas. Those very ideas that everyone except you considers incorrect. This paragraph of yours is a graphic illustration of your erroneous assumptions. You are the *only* one which has a problem with any "classical mess". 

My personal opinion is that it's because you never dedicated enough time and effort to advance in rank in any traditional martial art. You feel that this reflects badly on you, so you overcompensate for it in other ways. That's the only thing that makes sense to me as regards your aggressive anti-tradition stance and willingness to argue vociferously against the opinions of every other martial artist that has answered you. I think your aggression and ideas about traditional martial arts are misplaced myself. There are as many good ways to learn martial arts as there are martial artists learning them. However, your ways are different than most everyone else here, so you can't expect us to embrace them over our own.



> Mr Lawson: Unfortunately, you will have to take my word on the legends part. It is true, I have no reason to lie as we are just talking about an idea in open conversation - and the fact that I don't lie. However, one of the "legends" was a good friend of Bruce's (not onscreen but off).


Why? Why will we have to take your word for it about either the legends that you hinted at, or the fact that you don't lie? None of us know you except by the reputation which you've garnered here on this forum, and that reputation does not presuppose anyone to excessive trust.



> Chris and people like him believe that Martial Arts are not about Self Defense - this is true for them. I was not brought in nor raised in the Martial Arts under that notion. If Martial Arts are not for Self Defense then why were they created Chris? If Martial Arts are not for Self Defense then you are training a cultural combative reenactment art form, sort of like Civil War buffs do then right?


Somewhat. I find the cultural references and requirements fascinating myself. Self defense and martial arts are two entirely seperate things. All of my self defense situations (and there were a number of them) came well before I began learning martial arts. One does NOT necessarily require the other. Of the people that I know who have had to actually defend themselves in a life or death situation, very few of them were martial artists. 



> Because someone's ideas are different doesn't mean they are wrong or their background or grasp is flawed or short sighted. Unless, of course, we are going to say that since all these arts by everyone's posts are so different that in essence most of them are wrong too.(?)


That is an incredibly flawed bit of logic there. *Nobody* except for you has said that any art is 'wrong'. You asked for opinions on your ideas, but got upset and argumentative when every single one of those opinions you asked for told you that your ideas were flawed. Nobody (except you) said anything about any arts being wrong. For you to throw that up there as justification for your flawed ideas is bordering on ridiculous.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> Sure.
> 
> I believe that there is a core way of doing most things like punching and kicking.


The evidence contradicts your belief.  There are marked differences between a Thai shin-kick, a MMA "cut kick," a Savate fouette, a Tang Soo Do dulryo chagi, and most every other "round house kick" from differing styles.



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


It would be "great" but it would also be impossible because your base assumption is wrong.



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


Why would you *want* to "prevent things like this"???



> and what I see at most schools similar to this;


I find that exceptionally hard to believe.  Even at the bad schools I've visited, they're commonly way better than what you have represented here.


----------



## geezer (Aug 16, 2012)

Jason, as you can surmise from my previous response to the OP, I think the idea of a "Universal Black Belt" is pretty far fetched for all of the reasons enumerated by so many others. However, I do agree with the idea that there are many core principles that are found throughout the martial arts. However, they are manifest in such diverse, even contradictory ways that your idea of a universal Black Belt becomes an impossibility.

Still, you could benefit from studying the basics of a handful of iconic styles which might be _very generally_ representative of the major kinds of arts practiced around the world. Perhaps you could explore how certain core concepts such as balance, movement, speed, power generation, focus and transition, etc. are expressed in each, as well as strategy, objectives, attitude and philosophy of combat.

You might choose a selection of percussive or striking arts, including, for example Okinawan Te, Japanese Shotokan, a Korean art like TKD, Northern Chinese Chang Chuan, A short-bridge, Southern Chinese art like Wing Chun, at least one "internal" combat art like Chen Village Taiji, and something from SE Asia like Silat, perhaps a bit of Indian Kaliripayat and some competative arts such as Muay Thai and Western Boxing. You should also experience a smattering of Eastern and Western grappling, throwing and Joint locking arts. At the very least Judo, Bjj, Some Catch Wrestling and Shuai-Chiao for grappling, and then a bit of Chinese Chin-na, and maybesome Japanese Daito Ryu Aiki-Jujutsu for locks? 

Oh, and there's weapons to consider. You could sample classical Japanese Kenjutsu and Kendo, Some Chinese work with Gim and Dao, ...definitely try Filipino Escrima, and also historical Western Swordsmanship ...some basic broadsword and rapier work, for example. 


Now of course this is a lot of stuff, even just to cover the basics with any quality. For a "sampler" course, I'd suggest a minimum of four years, full-time study, five days a week plussome serious time doing homework and research, just like earning a BA or BS degree in a demanding field. Now, I admit that even after four or more years, this training would be so broad, that your knowledge would be ..."a mile wide and an inch deep" but still very worthwhile. You could call your degree a...

*UNIVERSAL WHITE BELT!!!*


----------



## Gentle Fist (Aug 16, 2012)

As someone who has obtained the rank of Shodan or higher in 3 different styles (Judo,Jujutsu,Ke?po) I will simply state that it will never happen.  There is no one walking the earth that knows the name of every martial arts style from memory, let alone be proficient enough to teach and master all of them...

Unless... you can find a way to download all of them into your mind like in the Matrix!  

Neo: I Know... Kung Fu    
Morpheus: Show me

(fight scene)


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 16, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> it's because you never dedicated enough time and effort to advance in rank in any traditional martial art. You feel that this reflects badly on you, so you overcompensate for it in other ways.



Sorry Smith - I spent 13 years training relentlessly in Karate to earn my first BB, which I now have a 3rd degree in approaching 4th here soon).  I also spent 13 years in Daito ryu obtaining another BB and a 2nd degree.  So no, Professor Green did not do it in the library with the wrench.



pgsmith said:


> Why? Why will we have to take your word for it about either the legends that you hinted at, or the fact that you don't lie? None of us know you except by the reputation which you've garnered here on this forum, and that reputation does not presuppose anyone to excessive trust.



Sorry you feel that you were able to obtain this from forum posts on the interwebs.



pgsmith said:


> Somewhat. I find the cultural references and requirements fascinating myself. Self defense and martial arts are two entirely seperate things. All of my self defense situations (and there were a number of them) came well before I began learning martial arts. One does NOT necessarily require the other. Of the people that I know who have had to actually defend themselves in a life or death situation, very few of them were martial artists.



I have had to defend myself more than once and my training is exactly what got me through it alive.



pgsmith said:


> That is an incredibly flawed bit of logic there. *Nobody* except for you has said that any art is 'wrong'. You asked for opinions on your ideas, but got upset and argumentative when every single one of those opinions you asked for told you that your ideas were flawed. Nobody (except you) said anything about any arts being wrong. For you to throw that up there as justification for your flawed ideas is bordering on ridiculous.



It was a suggestion based on the logic behind the attacks against my idea and YES I agree it is incredibly flawed.

Last point:  I only got "upset" when Captain Chris came riding in pointing out how he knows so much and we all need to here him cause we's is wrong.


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 16, 2012)

frank raud said:


> Just for morbid curiousity, how long would it take to get this "universal" black belt?  As the time range for obtaining a black belt varies depending on the system, from roughly two years to over a decade, is the idea that you would have to train for an additional period of time, prior to the style's own time line for black belt, or would this some how "fast track" your learning? Big problems with either scenario.



Awesome and thanks for playing along Frank (imagine that someone open to discussing a different idea instead of jumping down its throat first)!

I think the time to get the belt would be the time it took to get the material and demonstrate it effectively (tests).  No exceptions.



frank raud said:


> How would you devise a curriculum for this "universal" black belt for students of two very popular arts, Tae Kwon Do and Judo? How much commonality do you see between the two arts that you could devise a curriculum that would significantly benefit both arts, without subtracting or adding extraneous elements to them?



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



frank raud said:


> Once a student has obtained this "universal" blackbelt, what is there to stop them from opening a club and teaching, despite the fact that they have no grounding in any particular art? Do you see this as something that would heighten the percieved value of a black belt, or lessen it, as it would be looked upon as a junior belt, similar to what is given to kids in some systems?



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

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

Thanks again,


Jason Brinn


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> Sorry Smith - I spent 13 years training relentlessly in Karate to earn my first BB, which I now have a 3rd degree in approaching 4th here soon).  I also spent 13 years in Daito ryu obtaining another BB and a 2nd degree.  So no, Professor Green did not do it in the library with the wrench.



This is the Daito Ryu you only trained at seminars in....?

Here's the thing, Jason. If everyone looking at the way you present something, especially those who focus on the more traditional arts, all see huge problems with the way you address things, then don't be surprised when your training is questioned as well. It really seems that any of the actual training has almost bypassed you completely, and all you've done is look at mechanical methods and "techniques", missing the martial arts that are meant to be passed through them.



jasonbrinn said:


> Sorry you feel that you were able to obtain this from forum posts on the interwebs.



We can only go on the way you present yourself, Jason.



jasonbrinn said:


> I have had to defend myself more than once and my training is exactly what got me through it alive.



Honestly, that's a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after it therefore because of it). Happy that you got out okay, but that doesn't necessarily follow that martial arts are about self defence, or even that there's a huge correlation between your martial training and your getting out safe. The only way we could know that definitively would be to put you in the same situation without any martial art training, but such a control group experiment is impossible.



jasonbrinn said:


> It was a suggestion based on the logic behind the attacks against my idea and YES I agree it is incredibly flawed.



There was logic behind the criticisms of your idea (not attacks, Jason... I could do that if you wanted, though), and your "suggestion" was really a failed attempt at trying to link ideas that had no relationship.



jasonbrinn said:


> Last point:  I only got "upset" when Captain Chris came riding in pointing out how he knows so much and we all need to here him cause we's is wrong.



Now, I could take offense at that.... but, for the record, I didn't come in here pointing out "how much I know", or insisting that everyone needs to listen to me because you're all wrong... you're the only one that's been wrong in this thread. From the OP onwards. And believe me, I haven't gone through a tenth of what I know about why your idea is totally unfeasible, so I've hardly pointed out "how much I know".

Could you perhaps try to answer the criticisms, or the questions rather than just complain that no-one thinks your idea is a good one? Try to back it up, or provide some reason, or evidence as to why you think all martial arts can have a universal black belt program, equally applicable to all? Say, by answering the questions I had on punching?


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 16, 2012)

Fair enough Chris.


Understand that just because you reject my premises does not mean I have not answered ALL of the questions posed (whether in general or specifically).

Fact is I was a SUPER traditional person for almost half of my martial arts history to date (15 years plus).  After getting my first BB in Karate after 13 years of straight training I moved to a new city for work.  There I started training Shorinji ryu, Okinawan Kobudo and Tai Chi Chuan.  I stayed until reaching BB candidate in Shorinji ryu and Kobudo and completed my Tai Chi Chuan training before shipping out in the military.

I came to where I am by asking questions, training with everyone I could and fighting with the ideas presented.  I have ONLY cared about Martial Arts from the perspective of how they can help me with self defense and survival.  I have all the culture and religious influence I need with my faith.

In terms of Physics there are only certain valid options to choose.  I base all of my techniques against scientific training and testing and re-training and more testing.  In the end I take the things that work the highest percentage of time and follow the training methods that achieve the most productive and efficient results.

To determine the "best" punch in my world you take ALL the punches and put them in a test.  The testing is done against what you want to strike.  Since I focus on self defense only, I want to strike the human body.  With anatomy we know there are good spots to hit with a fist and then there are not so good spots.  Now that we have the striking areas defined we strike with all of the punches and measure a) damage we receive by punching and b) damage we deliver.  When you take the results you have one or two that stand out.  Out of the one or two I choose the most versatile punch and start training it.  While this is not the most perfect process it does deliver the highest yielding percentage shots - which is what I bet on.

If you had to run out into the woods and you could only grab three things you would choose the tools that you can use in the most situations and especially the most critical need areas such as survival.

There may very well be 40 different ways and types of punches, but I really only need to train one to an above average level to be more effective than most.  If you are going to shoot aim for the body.

A saying I use all the time when teaching BJJ is "position before submission."  You have to earn the right to use any technique, method or concept.  What gets you there and even takes you through is balance, power, speed, focus, timing, etc.  Things like these are generic to everyone - the same laws apply.  I focus on trying to perfect these basic elements and mastering a few tool sets that can be used in many incidences.  This has proven itself for me and my students across many real world circumstances.

While I appreciate you Chris, I don't appreciate the personal jabs at me.  You talk about me not addressing the ideas I put forth while you make tongue in cheek remarks in weak attempts to besmirch my training personally.  You have basically called me a liar and or fraud on numerous occasions while you can be found across this entire website making "expert" remarks on more topics and disciplines then I have life to type in here now.  

If you didn't like the idea then you could have just said you didn't and left it at that like Steve did.

Thanks again for making me question why I even bother to post here in the first place.


Jason Brinn


----------



## K-man (Aug 16, 2012)

Amazing! I close my eyes for 7 hours, go to training, open up MT and it's all over, done and dusted. Five pages no less!

Well, I have to put in my two bobs worth.     I tried to look at it from Jason's perspective.  What is common to all the martial arts?  I figured that if I could get that part sorted then you could have a base so after 'x' amount of study we have our generic black belt. Now, if the course is three or four years full time study we should come out of it with a bit of practical knowledge, so, just as we have Bachelor of Science (Chiropractic) we could have Bachelor of Martial Arts (Karate) etc.  So far so good.  

(Wonderful thread!  In combines at least three threads that I can think of.  'What is a Martial Artist', 'Frankenstein systems' and 'Sport or Self Defence'.)

The basic course could be like the accreditation courses we have here. For example I have certificates in 'Fitness' and 'Sport (Coaching)'. We could include things like nutrition and lifestyle but at the end of the day, full time I have about six months of course content. So I go back to look for the base knowledge that is common to all martial arts .... Mmm!

OK! I couldn't think of much there except meditation and Mushin.  Never mind, within the faculty we will have departments for Karate, Aikido, Kung Fu, Ninjutsu, TKD, Muay Thai, etc.  I could just go to Chris' list but it probably was a bit light on. His list didn't even include Systema, Krav or Capoiera, let alone BJJ.

Now for our Karate division.  We will need to separate Okinawan Karate from Japanese Karate as they have evolved into vastly different animals. Within the Okinawan school I think we might have some common threads. And, maybe the Japanese styles have a bit in common.  Now Aikido. Ok we have lots of techniques in common but the basic stances are totally different between styles.  One style is not going to convince the others to change, especially when something works for them. So, maybe we could distil our Aikido down to three departments.  This is really starting to get difficult.

Hang on a minute! I forgot to ask.  Why do we want this basic black belt?  We will need schools bigger than Universities to cater for all the different styles and at the end of the day we will have different qualifications, just like now.

Sorry Jason, the idea is not in the least bit viable.      :asian:

Oh! And in real life, Chris is actually a nice guy!          :cheers:


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 16, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> Fair enough Chris.



Right.



jasonbrinn said:


> Understand that just because you reject my premises does not mean I have not answered ALL of the questions posed (whether in general or specifically).



We'll come back to this, but straight away, no you haven't.



jasonbrinn said:


> Fact is I was a SUPER traditional person for almost half of my martial arts history to date (15 years plus).  After getting my first BB in Karate after 13 years of straight training I moved to a new city for work.  There I started training Shorinji ryu, Okinawan Kobudo and Tai Chi Chuan.  I stayed until reaching BB candidate in Shorinji ryu and Kobudo and completed my Tai Chi Chuan training before shipping out in the military.



I'll say a couple of things here. Firstly, I wasn't asking for your history, but thanks. Next, a black belt in karate isn't necessarily any kind of indication of being a "super traditional" person/martial artist, so I'm not sure if anything there was meant to prove anything, mainly as your posts (here and elsewhere) indicate that, if that was the case, you've forgotten everything from then.



jasonbrinn said:


> I came to where I am by asking questions, training with everyone I could and fighting with the ideas presented.  I have ONLY cared about Martial Arts from the perspective of how they can help me with self defense and survival.  I have all the culture and religious influence I need with my faith.



Which contradicts your previous claim of being a "super traditional person", really. Which is it? You were a traditional minded martial artist, or you were only concerned with what you considered effective? They aren't really the same thing. And as far as you having "all the culture and religious influence you need", wow have you missed the point. And where has the religious thing come from? You do tend to keep adding things in randomly... 



jasonbrinn said:


> In terms of Physics there are only certain valid options to choose.  I base all of my techniques against scientific training and testing and re-training and more testing.  In the end I take the things that work the highest percentage of time and follow the training methods that achieve the most productive and efficient results.



As I said earlier, physics is not the actual primary influence that you should be looking at to see how off your idea is. And really, your idea there is more about biomechanics that physics anyway, but it's still not that. But, for fun, let's deal with the rest of this comment.

Do you really think that you're the only one to have a "scientific" approach to combative disciplines? Dude, I know arts that have been doing that for 500 years. They actually describe their technical repertoire in terms of scientific mechanical principles. But more to the point, what kind of testing? After all, you've stated that you don't have any sparring, only doing set drills and the like (and trained unnamed fighters to MMA success in that method), so how are you ensuring that what you're doing actually works? Then again, if it's for self defence, rather than competition, what are you doing, going out and getting into fights to test new theories?

Basically what I'm saying is that, based on the priorities that you've stated, and the approach you take, I can't see any form of testing that is actually what would be seen as a scientific approach, or even able to render a definitive result one way or another.



jasonbrinn said:


> To determine the "best" punch in my world you take ALL the punches and put them in a test.  The testing is done against what you want to strike.  Since I focus on self defense only, I want to strike the human body.  With anatomy we know there are good spots to hit with a fist and then there are not so good spots.  Now that we have the striking areas defined we strike with all of the punches and measure a) damage we receive by punching and b) damage we deliver.  When you take the results you have one or two that stand out.  Out of the one or two I choose the most versatile punch and start training it.  While this is not the most perfect process it does deliver the highest yielding percentage shots - which is what I bet on.



Except that that's a highly flawed concept. 

A number of years ago there was a National Geographic program on martial arts (Fight Science)... and in it, they did exactly that. They got a bunch of different practitioners from different arts to see who had the most powerful punch, who had the most powerful kick, and so on. And at the end, they gave a list of who had the "best" so they could make up the "best" possible collection of martial arts techniques. They decided that the boxers punch was the strongest, the muay Thai knee was the most powerful leg strike, a turning TKD kick was the most powerful "full" kick, a "ninjutsu" (the guy used had no connection to the art itself, a complete fail on Nat Geo's part) hammerfist was the most devastating hand strike, and so on.  Except that if you tried the muay Thai knee, or the "ninja" hammerfist, or the TKD kick from a boxers posture, they wouldn't work. By the same token, if you were set up for throwing TKD kicks, the boxers punch would be severely reduced in power as well.

What I'm saying is that, whatever you choose, it can't be in isolation, choosing just a punch, then presumably just a front kick, then a turning kick, then an elbow, and so on. It needs to be congruent and all work together, otherwise none of it will work, as each of the different elements will work against each other, and you end up with a dozen things that work in their contexts taken out of their contexts. 

Really, though, the reason I asked is that if you said you were picking a horizontal (flat) fist, then I'd be pointing out that in about half the striking arts out there, that wouldn't match their punching methods, which are vertical fists. There would also be the question of if the punch is corkscrewed on the way out, some will, some will do it partway, some won't at all. In short, no matter what you came up with, it would only match the smallest percentage of martial arts.



jasonbrinn said:


> If you had to run out into the woods and you could only grab three things you would choose the tools that you can use in the most situations and especially the most critical need areas such as survival.



Frankly, that's a flawed analogy. Firstly, if you're fleeing into the woods, and are grabbing tools, then what you pick will all be aiming for the same aim (survival), which is not the case for martial arts (no matter your personal reasons for training in martial arts, it is not universal), the tools would be able to be consciously selected for deliberate usage to a specific purpose, enabling the conscious mind to control what you do with them, and when. For example, if you chose a box of matches, a tent, and a shotgun, you're not going to be expected to light matches while putting the tent up and shooting the gun, are you? Martial techniques, on the other hand, need to be congruent in order for them to be reliably present when needed... you need a single power source, a single approach, and a single overarching strategy. This should be able to be expressed in a number of principles, which might cover one or more ranges (depending on what your strategy is); the use of different power sources, strategies, and approaches doesn't work for a number of reasons.



jasonbrinn said:


> There may very well be 40 different ways and types of punches, but I really only need to train one to an above average level to be more effective than most.  If you are going to shoot aim for the body.



Sure, but I have no idea why you're now making this about your personal performance... you posited an idea where people would get a generic "universal black belt", which was made up of the "basics that apply to all martial arts", allowing the prospective student to "specialize" in a particular art after getting the "universal black belt". This isn't about what you would use, it's about your construct. Or are you saying that what works for you is the one thing that everyone should train in?

But, again, if you're training in that one punch, it has to fit in with everything else that is part of the course. Otherwise everything else you put in there will work against the punch, and no matter how good it is, it'll be weakened by confusing it with other approaches. That said, you're now saying that there are many different types of punches? I thought your contention was that there were underlying basics that all arts applied in a similar enough way, and that was the basis of why you thought your plan was a good idea...

I have no idea why you've now brought shooting into it, though.



jasonbrinn said:


> A saying I use all the time when teaching BJJ is "position before submission."



Well, that's a standard BJJ strategy there... and, gotta say, doesn't seem to have much to do with the previous, or the following... 



jasonbrinn said:


> You have to earn the right to use any technique, method or concept.  What gets you there and even takes you through is balance, power, speed, focus, timing, etc.  Things like these are generic to everyone - the same laws apply.  I focus on trying to perfect these basic elements and mastering a few tool sets that can be used in many incidences.  This has proven itself for me and my students across many real world circumstances.



Firstly, the vague truisms vary wildly in how they're applied and approached from art to art. As a result, you really can't take the approach of one art when it comes to, say, power, or speed, and apply it to another. So that's a fail there. When you mention "the same laws apply", no they don't. If you're talking laws of physics, the biomechanical  approach does actually alter that to a degree from art to art. If you're talking about the detail that they all have to address those truisms, sure, but not in the same way, with the same context, or by the same rules. So no.

And the second half (where again you take this to your personal approach) is completely irrelevant. I'm not asking what you do in your training time, I'm asking how you think there is any viability to a universal black belt program that doesn't contradict 99% of arts. 



jasonbrinn said:


> While I appreciate you Chris, I don't appreciate the personal jabs at me.  You talk about me not addressing the ideas I put forth while you make tongue in cheek remarks in weak attempts to besmirch my training personally.  You have basically called me a liar and or fraud on numerous occasions while you can be found across this entire website making "expert" remarks on more topics and disciplines then I have life to type in here now.


 
There have been no jabs, Jason, unlike the ones you've taken at me. Okay, maybe a small one with your Daito Ryu experience... as far as calling you a liar, I actually implied that there was more than sufficient evidence to cast doubt on your claims and statements, so having you tell us that you don't lie would require taking you at your word, which is not something that I feel many here would feel is a safe bet. You've made numerous claims, been asked details to supply credibility to your words, and have dodged the questions each time. If you've been telling the truth, okay. But you need to realize that you have created the image we have of you yourself. 



jasonbrinn said:


> If you didn't like the idea then you could have just said you didn't and left it at that like Steve did.



Well, you almost immediately addressed questions to me, not to Steve.... so I figured, you know, I'd stick around and answer them.... 



jasonbrinn said:


> Thanks again for making me question why I even bother to post here in the first place.



Wasn't it that...:


jasonbrinn said:


> Once again I say thank you to everyone for their carefully thought out posts and responses. I enjoy posting here at MartialTalk directly because of the great people, the vastness of experiences and the willingness of the community to share, critique and honestly exchange ideas.


?

Hmm. 

But to address what I said at the beginning, you haven't come close to answering the questions you've been asked. If you can't remember them, here you go:



Xue Sheng said:


> Here you go Jason
> 
> Look through these and then standarize them
> 
> Aww heck...just because I like you let's make it easy and limit it to a partial list from China, Japan and Korea...now standardize these


 (see post for full list)



Chris Parker said:


> Honestly, I'm not sure what you're saying in a lot of this, Jason....
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, missed this bit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





MJS said:


> Hi Jason,
> 
> I would have to say no, there can't be a universal BB. That would imply that there'd have to be 1 art. However, looking at your last paragraph, where you talk about specialties in specific arts...could you clarify that please?





Tony Dismukes said:


> Using your analogy universities would offer courses in "Generic Literature 101", which would not cover any specific literature. Once students received their B.A. degree, they could go on to graduate school for classes in "18th century English novels", "20th Century French short stories" and "16th century Chinese poetry". It doesn't work that way.
> 
> Leaving aside the flawed comparison to college education, what exactly would be covered in "punching class 101"?
> How to form a fist?
> ...





MJS said:


> Ok, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, and if so please clarify. Going on what you're saying, if the BA or BS was the univ. BB, and then goes on to study in a specific area, the univ. BB would teach someone a basic set of skills, ie: how to punch, block, kick, etc, and then they'd go on to pick the art that interested them, ie: TKD, BJJ, etc.?





Chris Parker said:


> Okay, you're willing to be wrong... so, after you were immediately corrected, and given example after example of how wrong you are, why are you still trying to argue?





Xue Sheng said:


> That is what you see at most martial arts schools....... where are you looking?
> 
> I have not seen that at any martial arts school in almost 40 years of training. Don't get me wrong, I have seen some pretty bad schools but if that is what you are using to support your argument, something that appears to be an obvious spoof then you have no support for what you are saying at all
> 
> ...





Xue Sheng said:


> But what about those generic college degrees that are really not generic that you spoke of before?





Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, actually, we'll try it this way.
> 
> Jason, you're wanting to come up with a single set of basic, universal approaches that people would learn (to a level of black belt) before "specializing" in their preferred art, yeah? Then let's look at what that might involve. Let's look at a punch.
> 
> ...





Xue Sheng said:


> And how does that punch apply to BJJ in the Universal approach?





pgsmith said:


> Why? Why will we have to take your word for it about either the legends that you hinted at, or the fact that you don't lie? None of us know you except by the reputation which you've garnered here on this forum, and that reputation does not presuppose anyone to excessive trust.





lklawson said:


> Why would you *want* to "prevent things like this"???
> 
> I find that exceptionally hard to believe. Even at the bad schools I've visited, they're commonly way better than what you have represented here.



If you're unsure of where the questions are, or what they're referring to, just click on the arrow in the quote name tag, and it'll take you to the post itself.

Oh, and who said I'm nice in real life..... damn lie that is...


----------



## K-man (Aug 17, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Oh, and who said I'm nice in real life..... damn lie that is...


OK. Maybe I stretched the truth, but you are acusing me of .. well .. lying.  Now I find that quite distressing and despite the fact that it could be considered a breach of forum rules, I consider that my integrity needs to be upheld. Therefore I have no choice but to challenge you, using rules as laid out in the new universal code, both armed only with our new basic black belt, to a duel. No using your fancy ninja stuff though!   Your place, or mine?  

Alright, if you insist .. we could probably fit in a coffee after.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 17, 2012)

Chuck Norris has the only Universal Black Belt.


----------



## TimoS (Aug 17, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Jason, you're wanting to come up with a single set of basic, universal approaches that people would learn (to a level of black belt) before "specializing" in their preferred art, yeah?



You know, I think the Finnish Karate Federation tried something like that I think in the 80's. It was before I started training, so I can't be sure, but I think the basic idea was to have a universal (well, ok, at least Finland wide) black belt (and color belt) criteria, kind of eliminating the need for styles. I don't know how long that experiment lasted nor how many styles/training groups eventually went along with it, but I know that it has long since been abandoned and my guess is they found out it just didn't work. I think the idea was to give Finnish karate competitors an edge, but as far as I know, the results were pretty much the opposite. 


---
"Look. Listen. Sweat." - Morio Higaonna

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buka (Aug 17, 2012)

I think a universal black belt is a good idea. But first we should have a National Black Belt. Here in the states we could have Congress run the whole thing. 

I hope they give out cookies with the new belts. I like cookies.


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 17, 2012)

K-man said:


> OK. Maybe I stretched the truth, but you are acusing me of .. well .. lying.  Now I find that quite distressing and despite the fact that it could be considered a breach of forum rules, I consider that my integrity needs to be upheld. Therefore I have no choice but to challenge you, using rules as laid out in the new universal code, both armed only with our new basic black belt, to a duel. No using your fancy ninja stuff though!   Your place, or mine?
> 
> Alright, if you insist .. we could probably fit in a coffee after.



Aw, I don't get to use my fancy stuff? Damn... it's all I got, really!



TimoS said:


> You know, I think the Finnish Karate Federation tried something like that I think in the 80's. It was before I started training, so I can't be sure, but I think the basic idea was to have a universal (well, ok, at least Finland wide) black belt (and color belt) criteria, kind of eliminating the need for styles. I don't know how long that experiment lasted nor how many styles/training groups eventually went along with it, but I know that it has long since been abandoned and my guess is they found out it just didn't work. I think the idea was to give Finnish karate competitors an edge, but as far as I know, the results were pretty much the opposite.
> 
> 
> ---
> "Look. Listen. Sweat." - Morio Higaonna



Thing is, if we're looking just at a base criteria for a single art, which might have a range of forms, then there is precedent for that. It's called Seitei Iaido.

Seitei Iaido was created (or formulated) by a group of masters of a range of Iai systems, with the aim of giving Kendoka experience in actually handling a sword, and draws it's kata from Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu/Muso Shinden Ryu (two branches of the same school, really), Hoki Ryu, and Mugai Ryu. As it was originally meant to be little more than basic sword handling, there were a range of changes made to the kata themselves, the cutting method was made a bit bigger, the different grips employed by each of the Ryu were swapped for a more "generic" grip, the position in the obi (belt) where the sword was positioned was altered for easier access, to the point where it was in a less practical position (from a Koryu/combative Iai approach), as there was no space left for the kodachi (short sword), something that would be implied in the older systems, but not needed or present for Seitei Iaido. 

As time has gone on, Seitei Iaido has progressed outside of the position of simply being there for Kendoka to feel what a real sword feels like, and has become a separately taught discipline in and of itself. This has lead to an overly structured and rigid approach to the art, where the techniques now are about precise action, to the point that if your kissaki (tip of your sword) is a few degrees off in your chiburi, it needs to be corrected. That, combined with the overly homogenized approach to Iai that Seitei represents means that, while it'll give you exactly what it's designed to (experience in handling a sword), it's not really the same as the more combative approach in the systems it draws it's techniques from. In fact, in order to put some more "reality" into Seitei Iaido, as well as a means of ensuring continued interest and practice of older methods, performance of Koryu versions of kata are required at higher ranking levels. Of course, that often means going back and removing all the important aspects of the kata the way it is done for Seitei in order to do it properly for the Koryu form... such as the cutting method, the grip, the angling, the timing, the positioning, the distancing, the attitude, and more. Does learning Seitei first make the Koryu kata easier to learn? Well, kinda... but often it's a matter of learning what you shouldn't do from Seitei when doing the Koryu form. By comparison, if you just went straight into the Koryu form, you wouldn't in any way be slowed down by not studying Seitei... in fact, you'd get the Ryu's approach a lot faster with less confusion.

So does it work? For what it was designed for, yes. But it wasn't really designed as a stand-alone art, nor as a jumping off point to then go into further study of Iai. It was assumed that if you wanted to learn Iai, you didn't ask a Kendo teacher, you found an Iai teacher (Koryu), so it's not really the same as having a base form the way things are presented in this thread. Additionally, this is just for one art, which is just one aspect of swordsmanship.... you really couldn't use it as a basis for all martial arts, or even all sword arts. Similarly, you couldn't have a basic "universal black belt" in an unarmed combative approach and think it's anything to do with an art such as this.


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 17, 2012)

Speaking generally, whats the point of a Universal Black Belt when it could take a decade to get a Black Belt in, say, BJJ - But half a decade for Karate or something? The Training is different. The Methodologies are different. They are different, or else They wouldnt have different names and identities and principles and concepts. Emphasis on 'concepts'.

And what would You gain? Youd need to communicate with every organisation and outlet in the world, and convince them all to individually agree to this one standard for Black Belt, despite the fact they all teach different stuff. I wouldnt call Myself a Boxer if Id spent a few years doing Judo, because They arent the same. Theyre different, separate things.

I couldnt be bothered trying to catch up with the debate going on here, but thats My view on the matter.
But I will say that even if You got everyone everywere to agree, what about the perfectly good Outlets, Teachers, and Organisations who wanted no part in it, either due to personal preference, or in the name of Their Traditions? Theyre just deemed to be 'lesser', because Theyre not a part of the mighty Universal Belt Confederation?


----------



## oaktree (Aug 17, 2012)

Hi Jason,
 Martial arts are to different from style to style and even from teacher to teacher to have a universal black belt.
People's focus on what they want to get out of martial arts will also have an impact on how they go about training in it.

If a universal standard is set not every art or teacher may be able to meet that standard.
 If we are to have a universal standard this would mean Taijiquan and MMA fighters would have to be equal at least on a basic term. Meaning the majority 
of who train in Taijiquan would have to spar like MMA fighters or MMA fighters would have to water down to equal the universal level for Taijiquan.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 17, 2012)

> While talking with the group of "legends" the idea that each  respective Master would give the absolute minimum for their arts.  Like a  knife master gives top three things, judo master gives top three things  and so on.


Absolutely, 100% impossible.  There is no way that any art can be effectively represented, even in an "absolute minimum" from the "top three things."  This doesn't give a basic foundation in anything.



> I think the time to get the belt would be the time it took to get the material and demonstrate it effectively (tests).  No exceptions.


Demonstrate effectively the "top three 'things'" from a gazillion different martial arts?  Seriously?



> These Masters would serve on the board that backs up the certifications.  The curriculum would be designed not to overlap yet fit together to develop a nice well rounded base.


You are still suffering from false assumptions that there is a lot of cross over.  There isn't.  Look, even in boxing it's all different.  A Mendoza stance looks nothing like a LPR stance and they function differently.  A LPR "Straight Left Lead" looks nothing like a modern boxing Left Jab.  They function differently and have different goals.  How many hundreds (thousands?) of "Masters" would have to sit on the boards?  Geez, can you even get two "Masters" from different TKD organizations to agree on what is the "top three 'things'" in their arts?  ITF and WTF?  How about their "Sign Wave" methodology?


----------



## lklawson (Aug 17, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> There may very well be 40 different ways and types of punches, but I really only need to train one to an above average level to be more effective than most.  If you are going to shoot aim for the body.


But that's not what you were arguing for and it clearly demonstrates why a "Universal Black Belt" would be impossible.  



> A saying I use all the time when teaching BJJ is "position before submission."


You teach BJJ?  Where?  What credentials?  A BJJ teaching credential is really easy to verify.


----------



## Carol (Aug 17, 2012)

A college degree is only universal when it is being applied to a task outside of its core concentration.


----------



## clfsean (Aug 17, 2012)

Carol said:


> A college degree is only universal when it is being applied to a task outside of its core concentration.



True enough... My degree says on the paper from the school "Bachelor of Science Computer Information Systems", not "Bachelor of Science, whatever..."


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 17, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> In terms of Physics there are only certain valid options to choose.  I base all of my techniques against scientific training and testing and re-training and more testing.  In the end I take the things that work the highest percentage of time and follow the training methods that achieve the most productive and efficient results.
> 
> To determine the "best" punch in my world you take ALL the punches and put them in a test.  The testing is done against what you want to strike.  Since I focus on self defense only, I want to strike the human body.  With anatomy we know there are good spots to hit with a fist and then there are not so good spots.  Now that we have the striking areas defined we strike with all of the punches and measure a) damage we receive by punching and b) damage we deliver.  When you take the results you have one or two that stand out.  Out of the one or two I choose the most versatile punch and start training it.  While this is not the most perfect process it does deliver the highest yielding percentage shots - which is what I bet on.
> 
> ...



Now you're talking about something entirely different from what you originally proposed.  If you want to design a curriculum based on what you think is the most _effective_ way to punch, kick, or whatever then you're just creating your own art.  No problems there.  Other people have done the same for centuries.  There just isn't anything "generic" about it.  For some reason, whenever different people attempt to design the "most effective" curriculum, they come up with different results.

The testing and design process is likely to be more tricky than you seem to realize.  Suppose we do a bunch of tests and determine that punching method A delivers the most impact.  Great!  Only next we discover that the best way to punch without being counter-punched requires punching method B.  Uh oh, it turns out that the best way to punch without being taken down requires punching method C.  The best way to punch and follow up with an immediate kick requires punching method D, and so on.  At some point you have to decide what your priorities are and how to weigh the trade-offs.  Those decisions are the beginnings of a style.

You'll also start to realize that you can't just test each technique in isolation.  Techniques arise out of underlying body structure and mechanics.  Suppose your tests show you that the best techniques for evading an attack come from Bujinkan taijutsu while the best techniques for landing a punch come from Wing Chun.  Now you've got a problem. You can't apply effective Wing Chun punching from a taijutsu stance and you can't apply effective taijustsu evasion methods from a Wing Chun stance.  The body mechanics just won't work.  Whichever techniques you end up deciding to include in your curriculum, they need to work together in terms of the underlying body structure, body mechanics, tactical doctrine, etc.  When you decide how to do that, you're creating a system which is specific and not generic.

You should also remember that, contrary to what many people like to claim about the design of their systems, it isn't really practical to be all that scientific in the process of testing your decisions.  How do you "test all the punches"?  Just try them all?  What if you're just more skilled at one punch than another?  You'd have to take a bunch of beginners and train each person in a different punching method for the same number of hours before testing them.  Of course, you can't have just one person per sample group.  Maybe one person would be naturally stronger or more talented and so the punching method you assigned to him would seem to be the best.  You'd need to randomly assign a fair number of individuals into each experimental condition and carefully control the training so that all other aspects of training (intensity, number of hours trained, supplemental exercises, etc) were exactly the same.  Then you'd have to design your actual tests.  How do you determine the "damage received" by punching?  Do you match all your test subjects up in repeated bare-knuckle fights and observe the results?  What rules do you enforce in these fights and how might those affect the outcomes?

In the end, unless you are a ruthless dictator with the power to draft thousands of your subjects into training and fighting gladiatorial matches for your amusement, you aren't likely to find a "scientific" answer as to the best techniques for a martial art.  (That's assuming there are "best techniques" as opposed to "best techniques for a given individual in a given situation at a given time".)


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 17, 2012)

Carol said:


> A college degree is only universal when it is being applied to a task outside of its core concentration.




But hey... I slept at a Holidy Inn Express last night...


"Universal" anything is pretty much nothing but foolishness.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 17, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> If you're unsure of where the questions are, or what they're referring to, just click on the arrow in the quote name tag, and it'll take you to the post itself.
> 
> Oh, and who said I'm nice in real life..... damn lie that is...



What the hell is that all about. All that did was quote others, me included, and answer nothing at all. Is this a poor attempt misdirection and/or subterfuge or are you in the "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with..... mode

Sorry but that is how this is begining to look to me

Now this



jasonbrinn said:


> If you didn't like the idea then you could have just said you didn't and left it at that like Steve did.



I have seen this before from you and this seems to be your response to people here on MT when you can no longer defend your position and you have been pretty much proven wrong based on the evidence.

I could just as easily say is you don't like the responses don't post.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 17, 2012)

clfsean said:


> True enough... My degree says on the paper from the school "Bachelor of Science Computer Information Systems", not "Bachelor of Science, whatever..."



But even the BS in Computer Information Systems from your college is not exactly the same as the BS in Computer Information Systems from another college. Other than the degree (BS) and title of that degree (Computer Information Systems) it is not generic or universal. The curriculum varies from college to college. Heck even Calculus one at a SUNY (State University of NY) is not exactly the same as Calculus one at MIT


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 17, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> What the hell is that all about. All that did was quote others, me included, and answer nothing at all. Is this a poor attempt misdirection and/or subterfuge or are you in the "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with..... mode
> 
> Sorry but that is how this is begining to look to me



Sorry for any confusion, Xue. Jason said that he had either directly or indirectly answered all questions, and that was a list of questions posed in this thread by myself and others that I would be interested in hearing answers to.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 17, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> I have talked about this subject many times with friends, some of which are considered legends in the Martial Arts community, and it seems most people think that there could be but politics will probably never allow for it.
> 
> What I mean by Universal Black Belt is really a universally agreed upon set of curriculum that should one learn and demonstrate they would be acknowledged worldwide as a "general Black Belt". After this people could have specialties in specific arts.
> 
> ...



Politics, ego, greed and simple reality would prevent this from happening.  For example, who is going to set the curriculum?  Who is going to set the TIG necessary to achieve the Dan rank?  Who is going to enforce it?  Is there money involved?  If so, who gets it?  

There is no universal agreement on what defines a BB.  Is it a 5 year old child?  Is it a 16 year old?  Does it take one year to earn a BB or five?  There simply will never be an agreement amoung the many arts on these, and other issues.


----------



## Carol (Aug 17, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> But even the BS in Computer Information Systems from your college is not exactly the same as the BS in Computer Information Systems from another college. Other than the degree (BS) and title of that degree (Computer Information Systems) it is not generic or universal. The curriculum varies from college to college. Heck even Calculus one at a SUNY (State University of NY) is not the same as Calculus one at MIT



Much like a B.Mus from Berklee College of Music produces a very different musician than a B.Mus from New England Conservatory.  Two world-class music schools, offering the same degree, in the same city, within walking distance of each other.  Yet if the school's respective seniors were to trade places with one another, they would be woefully out of place.


----------



## Instructor (Aug 17, 2012)

elder999 said:


> I could see such a thing happening  for instructors if it martial arts instruction came to be regulated by the government.
> 
> 
> It would suck.



Oh man...don't even give them the idea....it would suck, utterly.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 17, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Sorry for any confusion, Xue. Jason said that he had either directly or indirectly answered all questions, and that was a list of questions posed in this thread by myself and others that I would be interested in hearing answers to.



Chiris

My apologies to you and to Jason on that one. 

I was reading though this train wreck of a thread and I got confused as to who posted that. I thought it was Jason. I can only plead that it is early here, I am tired at work and wishing I was back in the MA class I was in last night. 

I was not paying attention, the confusion was all me and I thought Jason had posted that when in fact he had not. 

My comments were aimed a Jason, not you and obviously I should have been more careful since Jason was not posting quotes for no reason and you were posting quotes as examples of questions that have gone unanswered

I fully agree with what you posted since they are questions that have been put to him that he has not answered. It was obviously your post and not Jason&#8217;s so all I can say is it is my bad and sorry :asian:


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 17, 2012)

Eh, it's all good, my friend.


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 17, 2012)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Now you're talking about something entirely different from what you originally proposed.  If you want to design a curriculum based on what you think is the most _effective_ way to punch, kick, or whatever then you're just creating your own art.  No problems there.  Other people have done the same for centuries.  There just isn't anything "generic" about it.  For some reason, whenever different people attempt to design the "most effective" curriculum, they come up with different results.
> 
> The testing and design process is likely to be more tricky than you seem to realize.  Suppose we do a bunch of tests and determine that punching method A delivers the most impact.  Great!  Only next we discover that the best way to punch without being counter-punched requires punching method B.  Uh oh, it turns out that the best way to punch without being taken down requires punching method C.  The best way to punch and follow up with an immediate kick requires punching method D, and so on.  At some point you have to decide what your priorities are and how to weigh the trade-offs.  Those decisions are the beginnings of a style.
> 
> ...



Thank you.  This is well thought out (not to say others didn't have great posts too or anything), very honest and very true.


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 17, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> I have seen this before from you and this seems to be your response to people here on MT when you can no longer defend your position and you have been pretty much proven wrong based on the evidence.
> 
> I could just as easily say is you don't like the responses don't post.



You are right, my apologies.  For some reason you and Chris just seem to really frustrate me with your posts most of the time.  I think it is the voice in my head I use when reading both of your posts.  I need to clear my past thoughts and simply take both of your posts from a point of view that you are not ever trying to put me down or attack me personally.

In the past Chris has posted links to other places that attacked me untruthfully and since then I have somehow decided not to like him.  I will let that go from here on out.  

You and I disagreed on a few things on another thread that got all jacked up as well.  I will let that go from here on out.

I really do appreciate both you and Chris taking the time to interact with my ideas here even though I almost always either take offense to both of your posts, maybe reading too much into them.  I seem to be a very defensive person online for some reason.  I will think about this and try to improve.


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 17, 2012)

Hmm. There have been other threads that I've been involved in with you that others have linked to threads on other forums about you, but I don't remember doing so myself.... typically I'd only link to something like that if it's relevant to the discussion at hand.


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 17, 2012)

lklawson said:


> You teach BJJ?  Where?  What credentials?  A BJJ teaching credential is really easy to verify.



I teach what I know with NO credentials, excuses or apologies.  My training is easy enough to list and independently verify;

- 1994 started training BJJ (friend, Devon Goda, taught me who had trained with Matt Hume)
- 1995 trained in the military with a student of Royce Gracie
- 1998 trained via tapes (Panther)
- 2000 became member of Carlos Machado BJJ Association and trained through seminars with Carlos
- 2002 trained directly under Carlos Lemos (Gracie Barra)
- 2008 trained directly with Rubens Rodriguez (Gracie Barra)

All the time in between and every moment during I trained with DVDs and various seminars.  Since I started in 1994 I have trained BJJ in each and every class, which were a minimum of 5 days a week 2.5 hours a night or more for most of that time.  I have NO rank, due mostly to various life circumstances (getting my spine fused, two daughters, travel, blah blah blah).  I have to say though - rank was/is never something I am after.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 17, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> I teach what I know with NO credentials, excuses or apologies.  My training is easy enough to list and independently verify;
> 
> - 1994 started training BJJ (friend, Devon Goda, taught me who had trained with Matt Hume)
> - 1995 trained in the military with a student of Royce Gracie
> ...


So how are you qualified to teach BJJ?



> I have NO rank, due mostly to various life circumstances (getting my spine fused, two daughters, travel, blah blah blah).  I have to say though - rank was/is never something I am after.


Rank is irrelevant except as a marker of skill from an authority independent of the rank holder (that's why self-appointed ranks are meaningless).

That said, I'm a bit thrown off by your two conflicting claims.  First, the whole point of this thread is about a "Universally" recognized rank.  Second, you are now claiming that rank is not something that you care about.  Which is it?

I could see, maybe, a point in saying, "most of the dan ranks out there are meaningless and I really want some sort of *meaningful *rank structure that everyone recognizes is pure awesomeness."  But that doesn't jibe with, "I teach what I know with NO credentials, excuses or apologies. [...] I have to say though - rank was/is never something I am after." because BJJ ranking is highly regulated and meaningful.  It's one of the strengths of the organization.  If a guy has a given BJJ rank, you know he earned it and knows what he's talking about.  BJJ guys take this pretty seriously.


----------



## Carol (Aug 17, 2012)

Jason, if you dont mind me prying a bit...based on your passion for the idea, this seems to be a concept that you are personally interested in developing.

Rather than building a universal BB...how about going in the opposite direction and building a consortium of schools that can help one another?  (My college did this, with other colleges).  Rather than focusing in getting rank rubber stamped as many places as possible, how about looking to see what you can do together to make your respective schools stronger at whatetevr they do?   Perhaps that could mean stronger negotiating and buying power when it comes to business resources or attracting top talent for seminars.   Perhaps you could pool enough students together to have late night tactics classes for the 2nd and 3rd shifters that have to be out at an unpleasant hour....or 7am cardiobox classes for the desk jockeys.  

Martial Arts schools to me seem very silo'ed.  Very few work together...seems like many don't even like each other much.  I don't think many people....instructors or students...want to see their ranksmdiluted (hence the friction) but it strikes me that there is a lot that could be accomplished that wouldn't require changing belt requirements or meaning.

I mention this largely because you strike me as a person with a very good heart.  I think you genuinely care about other people and that you want to do your part to make the world a better place.   If helping others is the drive here, perhaps might be more than one way to do it?


----------



## UKS (Aug 17, 2012)

No, if this happened it would take away the Art from Martial Art.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 17, 2012)

This is a long thread, and I don't right now have the time to read all pages.  From the first page and this one, it looks like some sort of snippy replies, and some very thoughtful replies.  What I say below may very well have already been said, and better.

My own take is that there is and can be no such thing as a universal black belt of any meaning.  It would require masters and grand masters, as well as other long time students to say in effect, "I have studied my current art and style for X-number of years, and taught it for X-number of years.  I have taught students that it was at least a great art and style, if not a superior one.  I have just seen the error of my ways.  I must now examine my art and style to see if there is anything worth keeping, and scour other arts and styles for things that are superior to mine, and incorporate them in to a universal art and style, that will be superior to the one I had learned and taught."

I don't think that is going to happen.


----------



## ACJ (Aug 18, 2012)

I think I read all the replies here, what I didn't see, so I thought I'd add:

For me at the school I teach at, the ranking system is designed to help both the instructors and the students to gauge their progress through learning the system we are teaching them. It is supported by a syllabus designed to coincide with each level. Each level is an extension of the last and builds upon the last, it does not just add new things in. They are both designed to generate the most efficient path for learning; where learning happens quickly, it reinforces good technique, teaches sound principles and is supported by conditioning of the body.

The black belt is an indicator of progress, to my students and to the instructors. It is also linked to the progress in the style, which is internationally certified, but I think this link is perfunctory at best. If a student from another art comes in, they start at white belt. Why? Because white belt is representative of zero progress through the system we are teaching, and that is exactly how much progress they have made. They often will progress a lot quicker than any other student through the ranks. Why? Because they will progress through the syllabus quicker.

So what is my point? To have a universal black belt, you'd need to have a universal syllabus; but to be as non-specific as you are suggesting, then you wouldn't be including things that build on each other, you wouldn't be teaching towards a goal. That isn't a syllabus, that is a collection of information about martial arts.

Now there isn't inherently wrong about a collection of information and teaching that, but you need to consider what would make up this information. Physics, physiology, and psychology as a base; and materials science, criminal psychology, strength and conditioning coaching, neuro and education as progressions from that. Great, who wants to put up their hand to learn all this sort of stuff before you're actually allowed to do any *martial arts.*I have learned a number of things from a few of these fields, and does it make me a better martial artist? Yes. In my opinion, I have benefited greatly from doing these and have a better understanding of myself in relation to the movements, principles and tactics included in martial arts. Now do I suggest that all my students learn heavily from these fields too? No. Because they will benefit much more from just getting in there and training towards their goal in martial arts, whatever that may be. They will still get the benefits of all their instructors' knowledge of these things, as the instructors will pass down what is relevant to their goals as well as they can. More can be gained from these fields than what will be passed on, but that is something to be looked into as they approach closer to their goals, not at the start of their journey.

tl;dr a person should aim directly for their goal and not get lost in learning a database of information that may or may not be relevant to their end goals. This is often best done with a syllabus, which can only occur in a specific martial art. not a generalised one.


----------



## ACJ (Aug 18, 2012)

Two analogous examples:

Firstly from sporting. This actually has a quite good parallel to your idea, so I think it is interesting to look at; Olympic Weightlifting, Powerlifting, and Strongman. All three have the basic idea of moving a heavy weight from point A to point B in a specific fashion. They all rely on the human body's capabilities and the principles of force generation.

For someone looking to enter this realm of strength competition, there are a few fantastic programs that are generalised training programs designed for beginners, which will get you _strong, _sounds great right? But if you had any aspirations to be particularly good at any one of these, there are much better programs that are designed to build upon themselves, eventually reaching the heights of ability at one of these sports. Now if you look at a similar idea, but translated slightly differently; you have someone who wants to be pretty good at everything; this is where the fad of Crossfit comes in. Where the first program I mentioned earlier will get you good at the basics and develop round base, Crossfit is more about doing everything as an end goal (like one big mega mix of martial arts), these people (despite dubbing their best as "the fittest on Earth") end up being mediocre at everything (in an elite sense) and end up not really being impressive at any one thing.

Now it gets a little more complicated, we have all the people who don't join martial arts for the same sorts of reason the martial arts were designed for or that a few people think martial arts should be for. The same thing ends up happening in weightlifting, as the majority of people don't get into lifting heavy things for the sake of it or partake in the more hardcore point of view. These are the people who just want to get fit, or look good, or relieve pain, or any other goal you can think of. Sure a lot of these people will get results from the generalised strength training program, but it hardly the most efficient program for their goals, so why would they pick that?

In the end we have to remember that while these heavy lifting sports can certainly be quite deep, they aren't terribly broad when compare to martial arts, making the creation a generalised syllabus even more difficult and quite possibly more inefficient. Consider the application to all sports, would you have us create a general skill program for every sport? Only start training for your sport of choice once you have completed a certain level of mastery of a round base of skills?

Secondly, a more cultural idea. This idea for the universal black belt can be thought of as a similar idea to harmonizing and combining different nations across the globe (NEARLY as difficult a task as doing it for martial arts). There are some great ideas and initiatives for achieving this. A big idea is the UN. Unfortunately, your idea is not like the UN. Your idea is like saying that every person must learn a standardised way of being free from culture, custom and national and local style, and only THEN can you start incorporation of your culture and beliefs into your personality. Seems a bit off to me.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Aug 18, 2012)

I wish I had something more relevant to say but Chris, Iklawson, K-Man, Xue, and others on here have already pretty much summed up anything I would have said.
I will add though, that there are universal principles and ideas inherent in each art, but because of how each art chooses to express those principles the idea of a universal blackbelt does not seem possible. People have tried a similar idea with this when it comes to "Sokeship councils" and IMO that basically boils down to a bunch of men who have nothing to do with what you do judging you based on some made up criteria that they come up with on their own.

Also, to be fair to the comment Jason made about knowing his training was a result of him being safe and Chris stating that "after it, therefore because of it" concept; I see both sides to this. Having been in a SD situation recently myself, I KNOW it was my training that caused me to act the way I did and keep myself safe. However I can see Chris's point (if I understand it correctly) that even without martial training I may have acted in a way that kept myself safe from harm as well. All I know was that my training was reflected in my actions, and my actions kept me safe. Therefore my training kept me safe.


----------



## montecoleman-nar (Aug 18, 2012)

In response it is not just politics it is the issue of whatvarious school consider a Martial artist. My system has a different curriculumfrom Shotokan and Kenpo has a different one then tea kwon do etc. Who wouldcompromise who would sacrifice their system's principles I Think we can have auniversal status like beginner, intermediate, and advance, because we all have similarideals of what that is.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 18, 2012)

Chris,

Trying to PM you.  Your msgbox is apparently full.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Aiki Lee (Aug 18, 2012)

welcome to Martial talk *montecoleman-nar*


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 19, 2012)

lklawson said:


> Chris,
> 
> Trying to PM you.  Your msgbox is apparently full.
> 
> ...



Hey Kirk,

Yeah, saw that.... clearing some room for you (and a few others).


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 19, 2012)

Himura Kenshin said:


> welcome to Martial talk *montecoleman-nar*



Hmm, I'm going to be delicate here. Well, delicate for me.

I had no idea why Monte Coleman was getting any different treatment (greetings outside of the introduction threads, people thanking for that greeting), as there really wasn't anything particularly fantastic (in fact, I'd argue pieces of it myself), so I did some googling. And found a couple of things.

If you're under the impression that this is the Monte Coleman who was a footballer, something I believe you refer to as a "line-backer", uh, no. For one thing, there's a 17 year age discrepancy between the two individuals. Secondly, the footballing Monte Coleman is in no way related to martial arts in any way that I could find.... however, a different Monte Coleman is mentioned as "CEO" of NAR Martial Arts (hence the handle, really). Now, I'm not saying anything one way or the other, yet, and don't wish to diminish the welcome that Monte Coleman has had here, but I might suggest a quick look on you-tube for NAR Martial Arts (there's a part of a "private lesson" posted that I found)... just sayin'....

Oh, and welcome aboard Monte. Please visit our Meet and Greet section and let us know about yourself, and NAR Martial Arts!


----------



## Aiki Lee (Aug 19, 2012)

I greeted him because it was his first post. I don't watch football so I don't know who you are talking about. I figured people put there thanks down simply because I was polite to a new member. I really didn't see much else in it really.

Sent via iPhone


----------



## Zero (Aug 20, 2012)

Wow, what a post to miss the band wagon on. The whole post's proposition is interesting but entirely mad but there is a glimmer of gold from Tony Dismukes:
"_*In the end, unless you are a ruthless dictator with the power to draft thousands of your subjects into training and fighting gladiatorial matches for your amusement, you aren't likely to find a "scientific" answer as to the best techniques for a martial art*_."

Can we get a director and producer on this, I'll write the script and we got the kick-a killer kung-fu powie movie of the century, like an updated verson of Enter the Dragon mixed with The Quest and instead of "Universal Solider", we'll call it...."_Universal Blackbelt_".

:mst:


----------



## Zero (Aug 20, 2012)

Also, as a bit of an aside, how can people with so called many years of experience ask these quesitons? While it is great to debate and keep open minds and to discuss such matters, surely it is obvious the problems a premise such as this op throws up from the get-go? No offense intended but if you have 13 (or combined 26) years rigourous MA experience, how can you say for example that fundamentaly all punches (or even just punches like a WC and goju-ryu punch) are the same, or that they have the same basis? The only similarity is "you stick your arm out, with your fist on the end of it and try to connect to your opponents face" That's were the similarities end. If you were new to arts then sure but to have this level of experience and then, at least initially, be surprised to be so picked apart is, surprising. And I love a devil's advocate but I don't think this was the intention. Again, the concept that you have an art taking/borrowing a basic punch, basic front and back kicks, some simple sweeps/shoots//take-downs and submissions and putting it together, well that's fine, but, again, I don't think this was the proposition here, at least not initially.

It's like (again, no offense intended) that Marcy Shoeberg, with years of TKD experience, asking what does offensive and defensive mean with respect to an art. What is going on here?? Lol! (and by that I mean lots of love, not laugh out loud!!)


----------



## elder999 (Aug 20, 2012)

Zero said:


> Also, as a bit of an aside, how can people with so called many years of experience ask these quesitons? While it is great to debate and keep open minds and to discuss such matters, surely it is obvious the problems a premise such as this op throws up from the get-go? No offense intended but if you have 13 (or combined 26) years rigourous MA experience, how can you say for example that fundamentaly all punches (or even just punches like a WC and goju-ryu punch) are the same, or that they have the same basis? The only similarity is "you stick your arm out, with your fist on the end of it and try to connect to your opponents face" That's were the similarities end. If you were new to arts then sure but to have this level of experience and then, at least initially, be surprised to be so picked apart is, surprising. And I love a devil's advocate but I don't think this was the intention. Again, the concept that you have an art taking/borrowing a basic punch, basic front and back kicks, some simple sweeps/shoots//take-downs and submissions and putting it together, well that's fine, but, again, I don't think this was the proposition here, at least not initially.
> 
> It's like (again, no offense intended) that Marcy Shoeberg, with years of TKD experience, asking what does offensive and defensive mean with respect to an art. What is going on here?? Lol! (and by that I mean lots of love, not laugh out loud!!)




"Preacher Zero," meet *the choir*. :lol: :asian:


----------



## seasoned (Aug 20, 2012)

Himura Kenshin said:


> I greeted him because it was his first post. I don't watch football so I don't know who you are talking about._* I figured people put there thanks down simply because I was polite to a new member.*_ I really didn't see much else in it really.
> 
> Sent via iPhone


This seems like a fair statement.


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 21, 2012)

Himura Kenshin said:


> I greeted him because it was his first post. I don't watch football so I don't know who you are talking about. I figured people put there thanks down simply because I was polite to a new member. I really didn't see much else in it really.
> 
> Sent via iPhone





seasoned said:


> This seems like a fair statement.



Cool. It seemed a little unusual, but nice, so I was just curious. Friendliness is certainly a wonderful thing, so I didn't want to imply that I felt it was misplaced! I'll second the welcome myself... and hope that Monte Coleman does come over to the Meet and Greet to tell us about NAR Martial Arts... I'm a little interested in that.


----------



## chinto (Aug 21, 2012)

I would say no, as there are some real differences in how some arts do even basics from others.


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 22, 2012)

Zero said:


> Also, as a bit of an aside, how can people with so called many years of experience ask these quesitons? While it is great to debate and keep open minds and to discuss such matters, surely it is obvious the problems a premise such as this op throws up from the get-go? No offense intended but if you have 13 (or combined 26) years rigourous MA experience, how can you say for example that fundamentaly all punches (or even just punches like a WC and goju-ryu punch) are the same, or that they have the same basis? The only similarity is "you stick your arm out, with your fist on the end of it and try to connect to your opponents face" That's were the similarities end. If you were new to arts then sure but to have this level of experience and then, at least initially, be surprised to be so picked apart is, surprising. And I love a devil's advocate but I don't think this was the intention. Again, the concept that you have an art taking/borrowing a basic punch, basic front and back kicks, some simple sweeps/shoots//take-downs and submissions and putting it together, well that's fine, but, again, I don't think this was the proposition here, at least not initially.
> 
> It's like (again, no offense intended) that Marcy Shoeberg, with years of TKD experience, asking what does offensive and defensive mean with respect to an art. What is going on here?? Lol! (and by that I mean lots of love, not laugh out loud!!)



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

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

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

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

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


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


----------



## elder999 (Aug 22, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> . Great. *Now, just determine the preferred striking areas and then you analyze how each punch performs attacking those areas rating them on 1) how much damage they caused and 2) how much damage was sustained to the puncher. Once you have this data one or a few will stand out and more than likely one punch will take the cake on the "best" general punch. *So, after you have done this across the board you have the most basic set and everything after that is flavor and opinion.



Good luck with that.

Seriously? An example: the foreknuckle punch to the solar plexus. Let's take two styles, and, just to make it easy, we'll make them both Okinawan: Goju ryu and Isshin ryu. After we run them through your little data matrix, are we to fail one practitioner over the other on this portion of their "Universal black belt" examination because they do it differently from the accepted way? 




jasonbrinn said:


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


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 22, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


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







jasonbrinn said:


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


 
I really don't think it was a personal attack, Jason. More a statement of observation. Namely that people with a quarter of the experience you claim can see the immediate issues with the idea which makes the very premise of your concept flat out impossible. Those reasons have been detailed ad nauseum throughout the thread, really. 



jasonbrinn said:


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



Without meaning you to take this personally, there is a saying, used by a number of people (Tim Minchin is a favoured one for me), which essentially is: Don't keep such an open mind your brains fall out.

In other words, there's such a thing as being too open minded, being willing to entertain too many ideas, and having no real critical thinking process that filters out genuine discussion and debate from things which have no basis being floated in the first place.



jasonbrinn said:


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



Except, in this case, you are wrong. Your experience, if it is genuinely as you state (note: that does not imply you don't have the training you say, it's more saying that you might not have picked up on the actual teachings, or that a number of your teachers might have more shaped what they showed you to what you were already doing, rather than giving you their actual versions... if you're looking at modern systems, or just wanting to learn to "fight", then that's quite possibly the way it happened), should have shown you a huge number of problems with that concept in the first place. I teach and train a number of very closely related systems, and each have some very different ideas of pretty much every single aspect of something as simple as how to punch. If you haven't come across this idea, I really have doubts how much you've genuinely learnt of the systems you've trained in.



jasonbrinn said:


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



Come on, Jason, that's like saying that you can give a review of all books, because they all have pages in them, therefore they're all similar.

If you're going to insist on this, though, I again suggest you go back to the questions I had on punching, which should illustrate how far off you are here.



jasonbrinn said:


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



No, no conclusions, Jason. Observation. You floated a deeply flawed idea that has no basis in even the most fundamental understanding of martial arts, and we all stated that. We don't need to jump to any conclusions, we just need to read the post.


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 22, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Good luck with that.
> 
> Seriously? An example: the foreknuckle punch to the solar plexus. Let's take two styles, and, just to make it easy, we'll make them both Okinawan: Goju ryu and Isshin ryu. After we run them through your little data matrix, are we to fail one practitioner over the other on this portion of their "Universal black belt" examination because they do it differently from the accepted way?
> View attachment 17188



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


----------



## elder999 (Aug 22, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


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



If you've determined that there's a "universal" way to form a fist, all others are "wrong," as in not part of a "good base to grow from." Likewise with other fundamentals. So, if it couldn't include Isshin ryu shodans, because they make a fist "wrong," and their fist and arm position at the end of a strike is "wrong," and their hip placement is "wrong," and their shoulder placement is 'wrong," then it wouldn't be a very "Universal" black belt, would it?


Likewise, if it couldn't include Goju ryu shodans, because they make a fist "wrong," and their fist and arm position at the end of a strike is "wrong," and their hip placement is "wrong," and their shoulder placement is 'wrong," then it wouldn't be a very "Universal" black belt, would it?



So you've pretty much answered your question for yourself, and that answer is *no.*


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 22, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Namely that people with a quarter of the experience you claim can see the immediate issues with the idea which makes the very premise of your concept flat out impossible. Don't keep such an open mind your brains fall out. In other words, there's such a thing as being too open minded, being willing to entertain too many ideas, and having no real critical thinking process that filters out genuine discussion and debate from things which have no basis being floated in the first place. Except, in this case, you are wrong. If you haven't come across this idea, I really have doubts how much you've genuinely learnt of the systems you've trained in. Come on, Jason, that's like saying that you can give a review of all books, because they all have pages in them, therefore they're all similar. You floated a deeply flawed idea that has no basis in even the most fundamental understanding of martial arts, and we all stated that. We don't need to jump to any conclusions, we just need to read the post.



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

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

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


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 22, 2012)

Ok,

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

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

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

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







Sincerely thankful,


Jason Brinn


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 22, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> So, you are saying that all punches have similarities then. Great. Now, just determine the preferred striking areas and then you analyze how each punch performs attacking those areas rating them on 1) how much damage they caused and 2) how much damage was sustained to the puncher. Once you have this data one or a few will stand out and more than likely one punch will take the cake on the "best" general punch. So, after you have done this across the board you have the most basic set and everything after that is flavor and opinion.



Jason, back on page 6 of this thread I offered a detailed explanation of the difficulties of this approach and the fact that at the end of the process you would have just created a new (non-universal) style with trade-offs just like any other style. You thanked me for that post and called it "well thought out, very honest and very true." Have you reconsidered your opinion of my analysis? If so, can you explain where you find flaws in my reasoning?


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 22, 2012)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Jason, back on page 6 of this thread I offered a detailed explanation of the difficulties of this approach and the fact that at the end of the process you would have just created a new (non-universal) style with trade-offs just like any other style. You thanked me for that post and called it "well thought out, very honest and very true." Have you reconsidered your opinion of my analysis? If so, can you explain where you find flaws in my reasoning?



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

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


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 22, 2012)

Ah, so your latest comments were just trying to explain what your original thoughts were when you first started the thread.  It kind of seemed that you were still trying to defend those ideas as being correct.  Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 22, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> Can there be a Universal Black Belt?
> 
> Let me think...no
> 
> Since the majority of Chinese martial arts styles do not even use a belt ranking system a black belt would not apply.




I would agree as one fo the systems I teach, does not have a ranking system. It woudl be very difficult to make common. 


1) Is Common or Universal? 
Try to find common traits in all arts and have that be the teachings? 
Or encompass all arts teachings and then make sure you have all of them understood?

2) Some systems start with weapons and teach empty hand off of that, other start with empty hands and add weapons as specific, some start with weapons and never teach empty hands and some start with empty hands and never teach weapons. 
How would this be addressed? 


Go back and talk to your friends about a utopia while drinking (if legel) a good beer around a table or camp fire. Good friends and good beer are things to share.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 22, 2012)

elder999 said:


> I could see such a thing happening for instructors if it martial arts instruction came to be regulated by the government.
> 
> 
> It would suck.



I actually exchanged some e-mails with a NY State Legislator on this topic when they were discussing it. I brought up some of the issue with my other post and the politics of the boards and people of different arts playing favorites and bribes and such. 

In the end "IT WOULD SUCK" to put it mildly.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 22, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


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




Jason, so your are saying that a person with a BA in English can do the job of a BS in Electrical Engineering or Computer Science? Or to be fair let us say compare a Psychology BS to the other BS I mentioned. They are not the same. They are not equivalent. 

Some colleges have exit exams to make your Degree valid. Others have standard exams offered by accreditation organizations, but the tests are different from one degree to another. Some do not have these the school or university are accreditated.


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 22, 2012)

Rich Parsons said:


> Jason, so your are saying that a person with a BA in English can do the job of a BS in Electrical Engineering or Computer Science? Or to be fair let us say compare a Psychology BS to the other BS I mentioned. They are not the same. They are not equivalent.
> 
> Some colleges have exit exams to make your Degree valid. Others have standard exams offered by accreditation organizations, but the tests are different from one degree to another. Some do not have these the school or university are accreditated.



Rich,

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


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 22, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> Not to mention that a BS degree from University to University and College to College is not all that Generic. The Curriculum for a BS in Chemistry at Harvard is not the same as a BS in Chemistry at MIT nor is it the same ay SUNY Buffalo, UMass, Michigan State, Yale or UCLA either




Heck even within the same college it can very a great amount. 

I took Numerical Analysis, and AI and SImulation and Modeling, and other math based CS courses with my Math Minor, while another woman in the program at the same time, took compiler theory, and ethics, and other non math courses and only too the minimum required. We both graduated with the same degree and one would have to check the transcripts to get that I had a math minor and differnent classes. We both ended up working at the same place. I hit the grourd running, and 9 months later she was still in training and not doing well.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 22, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


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


This is completely at odds with your original assertion of a "Universal Black Belt" who has a solid, if basic, understanding of the various methods of [fill in the blank].  

Let's isolate it to "punching" since that seems to be where you/most-responders want to go.  You are suggesting weeding out some punching methods based on 2 criteria that are important to you, how much "damage" caused and how much "damage" sustained.  However, those may not be the most important consideration in the system which spawned any given punching technique.  For instance, it ignores speed of delivery, distance of delivery, targeting, and many other important factors which are often different based on the circumstances of the "fight" at hand.  Those include many varying components such as what "stance" the opponent is in (what "guard" he is using), what footwork one is available or one is capable of (do you have a broken foot, is the ground smooth and flat with firm footing, is the ground uneven, is it icy or slick footing, etc.), what guard/stance you are using, etc.  And even those are variable.  For instance, when grappling is available, stances tend to be extended and distances tend to be pushed out.  You end up with a stance more similar to modern MMA or historic London Prize Ring boxing stances.  This dramatically affects what punches will be best suited to be delivered from that stance.  There's a reason that the punches used in modern boxing, with hand-wraps and large/heavy gloves, are different from that of MMA, which are different again from that of historic bare-knuckle boxing.  Those punching methods were developed and optimized for the environments which they evolved in.

Of course, you may want to try to restrict it to "street fighting" since that seems to interest you most.  However, be aware that not everyone is in agreement with you that "street fighting" is the penultimate goal of any given martial art.  And, again, of course, it still doesn't take into account differences in terrain, opponents, or personal situations.  Is it extremely cold out and your opponent wearing heavy, cushy clothing?  Is dueling with weapons common in that culture and the opponent may be wearing some form of stiff/hard body armor?  Do you really want to try punching a modern "Warfighter" in the gut if he's wearing a full vest with trauma plates?

No, I'm sorry but your two pronged "best" punch criteria is laughably simplistic.


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 22, 2012)

lklawson said:


> This is completely at odds with your original assertion of a "Universal Black Belt" who has a solid, if basic, understanding of the various methods of [fill in the blank].
> 
> Let's isolate it to "punching" since that seems to be where you/most-responders want to go.  You are suggesting weeding out some punching methods based on 2 criteria that are important to you, how much "damage" caused and how much "damage" sustained.  However, those may not be the most important consideration in the system which spawned any given punching technique.  For instance, it ignores speed of delivery, distance of delivery, targeting, and many other important factors which are often different based on the circumstances of the "fight" at hand.  Those include many varying components such as what "stance" the opponent is in (what "guard" he is using), what footwork one is available or one is capable of (do you have a broken foot, is the ground smooth and flat with firm footing, is the ground uneven, is it icy or slick footing, etc.), what guard/stance you are using, etc.  And even those are variable.  For instance, when grappling is available, stances tend to be extended and distances tend to be pushed out.  You end up with a stance more similar to modern MMA or historic London Prize Ring boxing stances.  This dramatically affects what punches will be best suited to be delivered from that stance.  There's a reason that the punches used in modern boxing, with hand-wraps and large/heavy gloves, are different from that of MMA, which are different again from that of historic bare-knuckle boxing.  Those punching methods were developed and optimized for the environments which they evolved in.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 22, 2012)

lklawson said:


> ...
> Rank is irrelevant except as a marker of skill from an authority independent of the rank holder (that's why self-appointed ranks are meaningless).
> ...



Mr Lawson,

Sorry for the possible off topic question. 

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

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

This is not a baiting question sir. I am honestly interested in your point of view on this. 

Thanks


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 22, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


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



System A teaches method Z for a punch and System B teaches Method Y for a punch. 

Method Z and Y are mutually exclusive. i.e. a punch with index or point finger and middle finger (* also called pointer finger in some cultures - can we get this standardized please?  *) versus the Pinky and the ring and the middle fingers. 

Choose a method at random. Flip a coin. 

Method Z has been chosen for our universal requirements. 

All those who teach Method Y are expected to drop their teachings and start to teach Method Z. 


I do not like this, so I break away and will continue to teach the old ways, as the way I was taught. You can go do what you want. I do not care if my students are not considered a universal black belt. They will have the technique properly for the system I teach.


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 22, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


>


And Simplicity doesnt mean being minimalistic to the point of ignoring the need for more information.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 22, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> And Simplicity doesnt mean being minimalistic to the point of ignoring the need for more information.




There's all kinds of "simple."

View attachment $still retarded.jpg


----------



## James Kovacich (Aug 22, 2012)

Can we vote now for the title holder of Universal Grandmaster? 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 22, 2012)

elder999 said:


> There's all kinds of "simple."
> 
> View attachment 17191


True


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 22, 2012)

elder999 said:


> There's all kinds of "simple."


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 22, 2012)




----------



## K-man (Aug 22, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


>


I think he must be talking about Ueshiba.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 23, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


>


That's nice.

Any other overly simplistic platitudes you'd like to add?


----------



## lklawson (Aug 23, 2012)

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



Rich Parsons said:


> Mr Lawson,
> 
> Sorry for the possible off topic question.
> 
> If a system does not have a ranking system, and no certification paperwork, and uses word of mouth and the instructor telling the student they are ready to teach, is this a self appointed rank?


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



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


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

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

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

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

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

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Master Dan (Aug 23, 2012)

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

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


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 23, 2012)

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



jasonbrinn said:


> Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.
> 
> Its just an idea to talk about Chris, it does not give anyone any insightful idea about my experience or understanding.  It is correct to doubt the idea and find it flawed, it is deeply over-reaching to make assumptions about the one who posed the hypothetical question based on the merits or lack concerning the question itself.
> 
> You don't like the idea.  I got it.  Thanks.



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

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

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



jasonbrinn said:


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



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

Right, to the point.

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

Then we get this?



jasonbrinn said:


> No.  You were right then and you are right now.  A Universal Black Belt if one could ever exist, which I don't personally believe it could, would have to do just what you say - create a new style in the end.  Your reasoning is sound and your approach and remarks greatly appreciated.  Thanks again!
> 
> The quote you took was me unsuccessfully trying to argue in favor of how the idea could be realized.



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

The OP:


jasonbrinn said:


> I have talked about this subject many times with friends, some of which are considered legends in the Martial Arts community, and it seems most people think that there could be but politics will probably never allow for it.
> 
> What I mean by Universal Black Belt is really a universally agreed upon set of curriculum that should one learn and demonstrate they would be acknowledged worldwide as a "general Black Belt". After this people could have specialties in specific arts.
> 
> ...



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

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

Of course, that was followed by...



jasonbrinn said:


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



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



jasonbrinn said:


> In your opinion Chris, your OPINION. I have a good understanding bro.
> 
> It has always amazed me that some people in martial arts want to make things complicated, mystical or the like. So someone who studies complex sciences through the university process is actually studying something less complex as the martial arts, huh?
> 
> ...



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



jasonbrinn said:


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



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



jasonbrinn said:


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



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



jasonbrinn said:


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



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



jasonbrinn said:


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



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



jasonbrinn said:


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



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



jasonbrinn said:


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



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



jasonbrinn said:


>



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



jasonbrinn said:


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



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



jasonbrinn said:


>



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



jasonbrinn said:


>



And that one.

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


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 23, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


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



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

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


----------



## jasonbrinn (Aug 23, 2012)

Chris,

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

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

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

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

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

_I am curious to read your responses._

_Thank you,_

_Jason Brinn_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 23, 2012)

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



jasonbrinn said:


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



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



jasonbrinn said:


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



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

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



jasonbrinn said:


> Also, by having this kind of thing in place it allows for consistency, quality and progress. Wouldn't it be nice if every art had SOUND concepts of dealing with ground conflict, knife conflict, punching & Kicking, etc.  Wouldn't this make us all better in the end?
> 
> And for those of you who might say but what if I don't agree with the "standard" teaching on punching & kicking? Fine, at least everyone knows you understand the basics that are agreed by the majority and are choosing to go your own way.





jasonbrinn said:


> In your opinion Chris, your OPINION. I have a good understanding bro.
> 
> It has always amazed me that some people in martial arts want to make things complicated, mystical or the like. So someone who studies complex sciences through the university process is actually studying something less complex as the martial arts, huh?
> 
> ...





jasonbrinn said:


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





jasonbrinn said:


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





jasonbrinn said:


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





jasonbrinn said:


> Can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> I am not suggesting Bruce would have agreed, I am not even saying I completely agree with Bruce.* I am saying that by his quotes he seemed to believe there was a core essence to everything that could be taught. It seemed he believed that there was a basic set that we are somewhat limited to as members of the same species. I am of that belief and I also think we could teach these as a basis.*
> 
> Physics, as well as other disciplines, dictate the ways "we" punch not styles. You can flavor the water but in the end it is still H2O.





jasonbrinn said:


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





jasonbrinn said:


> While talking with the group of "legends" the idea that each respective Master would give the absolute minimum for their arts. Like a knife master gives top three things, judo master gives top three things and so on. These Masters would serve on the board that backs up the certifications. The curriculum would be designed not to overlap yet fit together to develop a nice well rounded base.
> 
> There would be nothing from stopping them nor should there be. The fact is though WE all would KNOW exactly what they are teaching and their level and the buyer could be
> WELL INFORMED!
> ...





jasonbrinn said:


> *How can I say what I did about the punches, because for the most part I have found it to be true.* Maybe your experience is different and so you have a different idea about things but that does not mean that others with different ideas are wrong. Even if someone has an idea that is different from the crowd it does not necessarily make that person wrong, just different.
> 
> _The only similarity is "you stick your arm out, with your fist on the end of it and try to connect to your opponents face" That's were the similarities end._
> So, you are saying that all punches have similarities then. Great. Now, just determine the preferred striking areas and then you analyze how each punch performs attacking those areas rating them on 1) how much damage they caused and 2) how much damage was sustained to the puncher. Once you have this data one or a few will stand out and more than likely one punch will take the cake on the "best" general punch. So, after you have done this across the board you have the most basic set and everything after that is flavor and opinion.



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



jasonbrinn said:


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



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



jasonbrinn said:


> Dude, get over yourself.  You have, and not just in this thread mind you, constantly attacked my knowledge of martial arts, my training and even my relationships with my teachers.  Its no doubt that you are a smart fellow but maybe too smart for your own good.  You think you know everything even things you could NEVER know about and you comment as if you are the last say on an issue or that everyone else should just stop cause how could they add anything of value after you have posted.
> 
> The way you post makes me sad.  It makes me even more sad that you have some kind of role with this forum officially it seems.  Don't get me wrong Chris, I have nothing against you personally and I even enjoy a lot of your comments.  I think you probably mean well but at some point mate you might find that you are not the one looking down on everyone - even if you speak as if you are.



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

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



jasonbrinn said:


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



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



jasonbrinn said:


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


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



jasonbrinn said:


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



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



jasonbrinn said:


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



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


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 23, 2012)

Ladies & Gentlemen,

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

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


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 23, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


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


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


----------



## arnisador (Aug 23, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


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



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

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


----------



## K-man (Aug 24, 2012)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 24, 2012)

arnisador said:


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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



arnisador said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## Zero (Aug 24, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> Let's see, how can someone with years of experience ask a QUESTION about an IDEA to see what people think? I guess it is because all of my years of training have taught me to be open-minded and search for NEW things, not to be closed minded and dogmatic.
> 
> Why take a shot at me with the "so called many years" statement? Does the idea attack your rigid thinking this much that you need to go after me personally?
> 
> ...



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

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

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

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


----------



## Steve (Aug 24, 2012)

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


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 25, 2012)

Steve said:


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



It is all about Steve!


----------



## lklawson (Aug 28, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


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


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

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

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

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 28, 2012)

Hi Kirk,

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


----------



## Zero (Aug 28, 2012)

Rich Parsons said:


> It is all about Steve!



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


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 28, 2012)

Zero said:


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


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


----------



## lklawson (Aug 28, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


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


Fair enough.

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

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------

