# 21 year old 6th degree Blackbelt



## punisher73 (Jan 14, 2011)

I always hear people talk about the McDojo fad etc.  I just came across a young man who started at the age of 13 and after 9 years of study was promoted to 6th degree blackbelt.

 What are your thoughts on this?  Legitimate?  McDojo?

What factors would make it acceptable?  Would it matter if the young man practiced REALLY hard and quickly grapsed the concepts?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 14, 2011)

Even if we only count 1 year between each Dan rank, it means that he got his black belt at age 15 after only 2 years of study. While that seems a bit dodgy already, , don't you think that a mere 1 year between dan ranks is a bit... suspicious?
Especially considering that he'd have to combine his MA studies with school and other activities normally associated with kids?


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 14, 2011)

I`d be interested in knowing a few more things about him. First of all what art does he practice, who graded him, have he taught/graded others and if yes what level of students? Is his plan to pass 10th dan in another 4 years?

Every school is free to set their own standards for grading, but I don`t see 21yr old 6th Dans happening at our dojo.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 14, 2011)

I can only speak to my own style (Isshin-Ryu) and even then, only to my own organization (UIKA) and dojo.  As I understand it, we have time-in-karate requirements as well as time-in-grade requirements that would not be possible to meet at age 21.

Other organizations or styles may have different requirements, and it would not be appropriate for me to say if that is right or wrong.


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 14, 2011)

Some schools might have 20 dan rankings (no joking), and won't hesitate to promote people between dan levels every year or so. It's a rare thing, but it has been known to happen. 

Still, if that's what his school wants to do, then they're free to do so. What system is it? 

What I'm going to say is from my point of view, and this comes with being from a "classical" 10 dan system. 

Assuming that it's a classical 10 dan school, it's possible that if this guy is a real learning prodigy, trains 10+ hours a week, and has a fantastic instructor, I can see someone going from no ranking to maybe even up to a 4th dan ranking in 10 years. The way I figure, 2 years of rigorous training (8+ hours a week) from white belt to shodan, 2-3 years from shodan to nidan, 3-4 years from nidan to sandan, and 4-6 years from sandan to yondan. 

Maybe if he were a very serious individual, and wanted to own his own dojo, and if his teacher died, and if the higher ups decided to give him a quick promotion to godan (5th degree), then I'll concede that it's possible, albeit very, very, minimally, at the age of 21. 

Such combinations are very rare, though, especially when they're at that young of an age, and I suspect that I'd have a better chance of winning the Pow'R'ball lottery...

Usually, you're not going to see someone being promoted to rokudan (6th dan) until they're at least in their 30's, and even then, they'd have to be quite dedicated. Rokudans in their 30's include a list of some impressive names, such as Sensei Clay Morton (Shotokan, under Jimmy Blann), Sensei Tommy Hood (Shuri Ryu, under Ridgely Abele), etc. Those guys are multiple time national champions, world-class competitors, coach for the US National Team, etc., and run solid dojos.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 14, 2011)

LOL. No 6th dan 21 years olds at our association. Wouldnt be happening.


----------



## dowan50 (Jan 14, 2011)

Cirdan said:


> I`d be interested in knowing a few more things about him. First of all what art does he practice, who graded him, have he taught/graded others and if yes what level of students? Is his plan to pass 10th dan in another 4 years?
> 
> Every school is free to set their own standards for grading, but I don`t see 21yr old 6th Dans happening at our dojo.



Good points I agree. How about 35 8th Dan? Time in Rank was originally there for a reason to allow for maturing something you cannot pay for? I hear that KKW is holding up 9th Dans due to the fact they don't want to many 9th Dan's. The young are crowding the seniors so now we hearing terms like Senior GM and Supreme GM I see 11th and 12th Dan's in the future as a way to elevate or create a separation between native born and foreign born?


----------



## searcher (Jan 14, 2011)

For my school and the styles I have trained in, it would be completely impossible for someone to pull this off.    The time in grade is not even possible with any style I have ever seen.    9 years as a BB would not even be long enough to make this rank.

Seems a bit on the dishonest side to me.     But I guess if the head of the school wants to do that, then I guess they can.    I just hope they don't expect anyone outside of their school to recognize the rank.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 14, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> I always hear people talk about the McDojo fad etc. I just came across a young man who started at the age of 13 and after 9 years of study was promoted to 6th degree blackbelt.
> 
> What are your thoughts on this? Legitimate? McDojo?
> 
> What factors would make it acceptable? Would it matter if the young man practiced REALLY hard and quickly grapsed the concepts?


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

There you are: 6th dan.

Daniel


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 14, 2011)

Cirdan said:


> I`d be interested in knowing a few more things about him. First of all what art does he practice, who graded him, have he taught/graded others and if yes what level of students? Is his plan to pass 10th dan in another 4 years?
> 
> Every school is free to set their own standards for grading, but I don`t see 21yr old 6th Dans happening at our dojo.


 
After a bit more reading, it seems that the "founder" of his style was 22 years old and had studied various japanese styles, before starting and declaring the style.


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 14, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> After a bit more reading, it seems that the "founder" of his style was 22 years old and had studied various japanese styles, before starting and declaring the style.


 
Then in that case, it's entirely up to the 22 year old Soke of the system to issue whatever rankings he deems suitable.  

At the same time, though, any such lofty rankings being issued are going to be taken with several scoops of salt, when it comes to recognition by established systems...


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 14, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> I always hear people talk about the McDojo fad etc.  I just came across a young man who started at the age of 13 and after 9 years of study was promoted to 6th degree blackbelt.
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?  Legitimate?  McDojo?
> 
> What factors would make it acceptable?  Would it matter if the young man practiced REALLY hard and quickly grapsed the concepts?




Has anyone ever run into one of these wunderkinds?  I have.  I had a young man in his twenties briefly join my dojo.  He had high ranks in a bunch of eclectic styles, including a 7th dan in "freestyle karate".  

He was athletic and skilled to an extent, enough to be very good at things like strictly stand up sparring.  But he was surprisingly deficient on things like proper stances to avoid being swept... His manner of gripping the bo made him easy to attack and disarm... And the angles in which he framed his blocks made them rather inefficient, even though he made up for it to an extent with his good speed and strength...

There is a reason traditional systems take a long time to promote.  There's a depth in the basics that must be mastered before the student can properly be advanced.  Otherwise, you'll have high dans like this guy.


----------



## Nomad (Jan 14, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> I always hear people talk about the McDojo fad etc.  I just came across a young man who started at the age of 13 and after 9 years of study was promoted to 6th degree blackbelt.
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?  Legitimate?  McDojo?
> 
> What factors would make it acceptable?  Would it matter if the young man practiced REALLY hard and quickly grapsed the concepts?



McDojo.  Don't care how good he is, that's an inflated rank that cannot represent his maturity in the art.  

Perhaps his mother trained really hard, and he inherited her rank at birth?


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 14, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> After a bit more reading, it seems that the "founder" of his style was 22 years old and had studied various japanese styles, before starting and declaring the style.


 
I am guessing his style had an impressive name too, like Diablo-ryu or Protoss-jutsu.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 14, 2011)

The founder's name in this case is Jigaro Kano and the styles name is Judo.  Kano created Judo after only about 5 years of study in various japanese jujitsu styles.

The student in question is none other than.
*Mifune, Kyuzo* (b1883-d1965) He began Judo at age 13 and joined the Kodokan in 1903. By 1912, he was already a Rokudan (6th Degree black belt) and a Kodokan instructor. He was unbelievably energetic and eventually stood at the head of the Kodokan's instructors. The speed with which he mastered the techniques of Judo can only be matched by the rapidity of his promotion. He received the grade of 10th dan on May 25, 1945, was the second youngest man to be promoted to 10th Dan, and he held his rank nearly 20 years, the longest of any 10th Dan. 

It's interesting information I think and makes you rethink how we view rank and what it originally meant when created.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 14, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> The founder's name in this case is Jigaro Kano and the styles name is Judo. Kano created Judo after only about 5 years of study in various japanese jujitsu styles.
> 
> The student in question is none other than.
> *Mifune, Kyuzo* (b1883-d1965) He began Judo at age 13 and joined the Kodokan in 1903. By 1912, he was already a Rokudan (6th Degree black belt) and a Kodokan instructor. He was unbelievably energetic and eventually stood at the head of the Kodokan's instructors. The speed with which he mastered the techniques of Judo can only be matched by the rapidity of his promotion. He received the grade of 10th dan on May 25, 1945, was the second youngest man to be promoted to 10th Dan, and he held his rank nearly 20 years, the longest of any 10th Dan.
> ...


Gee, after knowing what art and who, I'm glad I stopped with my numerology explanation!

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 14, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> The founder's name in this case is Jigaro Kano and the styles name is Judo.  Kano created Judo after only about 5 years of study in various japanese jujitsu styles.
> 
> The student in question is none other than.
> *Mifune, Kyuzo* (b1883-d1965) He began Judo at age 13 and joined the Kodokan in 1903. By 1912, he was already a Rokudan (6th Degree black belt) and a Kodokan instructor. He was unbelievably energetic and eventually stood at the head of the Kodokan's instructors. The speed with which he mastered the techniques of Judo can only be matched by the rapidity of his promotion. He received the grade of 10th dan on May 25, 1945, was the second youngest man to be promoted to 10th Dan, and he held his rank nearly 20 years, the longest of any 10th Dan.
> ...



You can't reach high rank in judo NOW without some substantial achievement in tournament competition.  In this respect, judo maintains a certain level of quality control compared to other martial arts that lack the same type of validation.


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 14, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> The founder's name in this case is Jigaro Kano and the styles name is Judo. Kano created Judo after only about 5 years of study in various japanese jujitsu styles.


 
Again, it all comes down to someone being a prodigy, and meeting all of the criteria. That is such a rare occurrence, that I stand by my statement. Prodigies the likes of Kano and Mifune are exceedingly rare.  For every one of them that come around, I'd imagine that there are quite a few wannabe's out there who have delusions of grandeur.  

Furthermore, the way you worded things, was that it sounded as if a 22 year old Soke promoted a 21 year old to the rank of Rokudan.  

I don't think that anyone here would disagree, that if some 22 year old came along and proclaimed himself a founder / Soke, that we'd be viewing him with suspicion. 

By the time that the prodigy had been awarded that rank, Kano was already in his 50's.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 14, 2011)

I always find it interesting that people use hindsight reasoning to say why Kano/Mifune were the exceptions and make excuses.  Some on the thread did add in clarifiers about being a prodigy and so forth so this observation doesn't apply to them, but many do not and will backpedal when they find out it was Kano. 

There were other japanese styles that did this.  The founder of aikido (to name one) did this with one of his students before he sent them to the US, gave him a spot promotion to 5th degree.

Not making a value judgement, but it used to be fairly common in early times (of the ranking system)to promote quickly and build your organization and spread your style.  Also, it reflect on what the grading system was designed for initially.  It still doesn't mean anything outside of your own school/organization.

Go to a Japanese college and enroll in the karate class.  In one year, you get your blackbelt in Shotokan through the JKF.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 14, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> The founder's name in this case is Jigaro Kano and the styles name is Judo.  Kano created Judo after only about 5 years of study in various japanese jujitsu styles.
> 
> The student in question is none other than.
> *Mifune, Kyuzo* (b1883-d1965) He began Judo at age 13 and joined the Kodokan in 1903. By 1912, he was already a Rokudan (6th Degree black belt) and a Kodokan instructor. He was unbelievably energetic and eventually stood at the head of the Kodokan's instructors. The speed with which he mastered the techniques of Judo can only be matched by the rapidity of his promotion. He received the grade of 10th dan on May 25, 1945, was the second youngest man to be promoted to 10th Dan, and he held his rank nearly 20 years, the longest of any 10th Dan.
> ...





Grenadier said:


> Again, it all comes down to someone being a prodigy, and meeting all of the criteria. That is such a rare occurrence, that I stand by my statement. Prodigies the likes of Kano and Mifune are exceedingly rare.  For every one of them that come around, I'd imagine that there are quite a few wannabe's out there who have delusions of grandeur.
> 
> Furthermore, the way you worded things, was that it sounded as if a 22 year old Soke promoted a 21 year old to the rank of Rokudan.
> 
> ...



who hasnt heard of Mr Kano.  But I am not going to back pedal either. In fact I'm going to agree with Grenadier, since I was gonna write what he said anyway. 

My 2 senseis are Rokudans, but they are both in their 60's, and the other couple of rokudans in our association are in their 50's.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 14, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> I always find it interesting that people use hindsight reasoning to say why Kano/Mifune were the exceptions and make excuses.  Some on the thread did add in clarifiers about being a prodigy and so forth so this observation doesn't apply to them, but many do not and will backpedal when they find out it was Kano.



I am sceptical of high ranking youngsters viewed through the lens of the HERE and NOW.  I don't particularly care how things were done over a century ago by Kano in another country with very different living conditions from what I live in now myself.  That fact is that arts like judo or karate or aikido have built up a body of expectations and customs over the years since they were founded.  I would haphazard to say that most of these are good ones, such as the practice of allowing reasonable time to pass before promoting a student to a higher rank, thus making young 7th dans an unlikely or impossible occurrence.

So pointing out that Kano or Ueshiba or Shimabukuro did it really doesn't mean much to me.  All of their respective arts have moved on since their founding and we know in judo and aikido, you simply won't get a 21 year 6th dan.  Not from a legitimate organization anyway.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 14, 2011)

opps


----------



## MJS (Jan 14, 2011)

There will always be your stand-outs in a school.  I've taught for many years, and I've seen it first hand, with students of all ages.  There are some 6yr olds that pick things up, their parents work with them, and are a part of their journey.  There're other 6yos that in a nutshell, suck.  Sorry to be blunt, just sayin'....

The prodigy such as described here....well, again, people like this are far and few between.  Personally, I'm of the mind, where you should be in your early teens before you even think about training.  12, 13...that IMO, is a good starting age.  4-5yrs for BB, and for each degree you're going for, you wait that many years.  IE: 1st-2nd degree, 2yrs.  2nd-3rd, 3yrs, and so forth.  By the time you're an 8th or 9th degree, you're in your 60s.

Of course, in todays world, or way of thinking, its all about the belt.  Who gives a **** how old you are, what matters more is that you keep getting those belts. LMFAO!!  Sad but true.  Who cares about skill...as long as Joey has that 4th degree at 13yrs old. 

Personally, I'd run, not walk, away from a school, in which I saw a 12yo 2nd degree BB.  

But thats just me.  To each their own I suppose.  I guess some standards are higher, or in certain cases, lower than others. *shrug*


----------



## MJS (Jan 14, 2011)

On another note...heres something interesting.  You have your BJJ standouts like BJ Penn, who got their BB, I've heard, in something like 3 or 4yrs., where on average, AFAIK, its normally something like 10.  So, that being said, why is it that you could walk into a Karate school and ***** if you dont get your BB in 3yrs, yet people flock to BJJ schools all over the world, and are perfectly fine with waiting 10yrs.?


----------



## Carol (Jan 14, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


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



I'm so stealing that.


----------



## Carol (Jan 14, 2011)

MJS said:


> On another note...heres something interesting.  You have your BJJ standouts like BJ Penn, who got their BB, I've heard, in something like 3 or 4yrs., where on average, AFAIK, its normally something like 10.  So, that being said, why is it that you could walk into a Karate school and ***** if you dont get your BB in 3yrs, yet people flock to BJJ schools all over the world, and are perfectly fine with waiting 10yrs.?



I'm guessing its because of how it is emphasized.

The mantra drummed in to karate students is that the belt is the goal.

The mantra drummed in to BJJ students is that proving yourself through competition is the goal.


----------



## chinto (Jan 14, 2011)

not credible at all.  I am sorry but I would not believe some one was qualified  with that level of experiance and training I might buy shodan or nidan. but go dan or higher is not credible!


----------



## Aiki Lee (Jan 14, 2011)

in our system we don't have time restraints, but it is not likely that a person can achieve the necessary level of skill one might expect from a 6th dan in any system in such a short amount of time.

It would depend on what 6th dan means for that organization. Maybe they have a very very short cirriculum.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 14, 2011)

I don't believe in *time in* systems grading!  It should be all about the quality of the skill sets!

*If you look back in martial history* you will see this is not all that uncommon.  Typically a new system like Judo needed exponents to teach and spread the system so a talented individual is promoted to go out and show the masses.  Irregardless at such a young age how much depth did he have to teach?  I don't know I was not there! (though I imagine his teaching skill left a little to be desired)  *Personally I prefer someone with more experience!*  Needless to say I think progressing someone so fast usually ends in failure.  *Usually* being the key word here!  However, when you have an individual like Kano who managed to get it into public schools, etc.  Then there might be a better chance of success.  Yet, go to your local McDojo and see someone promoted so fast that they went right out the door when they got bored!    

*When I look* at ranking in the Martial Sciences few systems in my opinion have gotten in right.  BJJ is one that to this point has primarily been able to maintain quality.  However, with its popularity expanding exponentially there has been a little slippage.  *Unfortunately the "belt" is and should not be the end goal!*  Way to many people miss this! (way to many)  It should and always must be about the skill sets!  If someone has great skill sets then that is their rank!  Not some silly belt or title!


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jan 14, 2011)

I suppose its each style/dojo to their own. I know where I train we just had a 35 year old promoted to 6th dan, he has been training since he could walk and is very very good. He will now have to wait another 7 years before being able to test for 7th dan. Going by this it just doesnt seem possible that you could get a 'reputable' 6th dan at age 21.


----------



## 72ronin (Jan 14, 2011)

I might also add, that it is not a clear cut comparison to compare a modern 21 year old 6th dan to one from 80 - 100 or so years ago.

The lifestyles and training regimen surely are way too different to make any defined comparison of any value. I would go as far as to say that Mifune Sensei would have practicaly lived Judo, whereas a modern student may possibly only train a few nights of an hour or so each a week perhaps.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 15, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> The founder's name in this case is Jigaro Kano and the styles name is Judo. Kano created Judo after only about 5 years of study in various japanese jujitsu styles.
> 
> The student in question is none other than.
> *Mifune, Kyuzo* (b1883-d1965) He began Judo at age 13 and joined the Kodokan in 1903. By 1912, he was already a Rokudan (6th Degree black belt) and a Kodokan instructor. He was unbelievably energetic and eventually stood at the head of the Kodokan's instructors. The speed with which he mastered the techniques of Judo can only be matched by the rapidity of his promotion. He received the grade of 10th dan on May 25, 1945, was the second youngest man to be promoted to 10th Dan, and he held his rank nearly 20 years, the longest of any 10th Dan.
> ...


 
Props for the setup......

Of course one should question anyone who gains rank that fast.........that being said, it can be done, as you illustrated........though I doubt anyone trains today like those guys trained back then, or if it would legal. 

Joe Lewis earned his first black belt in 7 months......though no one would dispute the blood and sweat he left doing it.  So it can be done, obviously.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 15, 2011)

72ronin said:


> I might also add, that it is not a clear cut comparison to compare a modern 21 year old 6th dan to one from 80 - 100 or so years ago.
> 
> The lifestyles and training regimen surely are way too different to make any defined comparison of any value. I would go as far as to say that Mifune Sensei would have practicaly lived Judo, whereas a modern student may possibly only train a few nights of an hour or so each a week perhaps.


 
Exactly!  I'm not sure if a teenage kid today would be allowed to do what he likely did to earn his rank.


----------



## K-man (Jan 15, 2011)

I can think of another prominent martial artist, still alive, who began training at 20 years of age, without kyu or dan grading was promoted to 5th dan at age 22 after only 6 months training with the master.  At age 49 he was elevated to 10th dan and has been one of the most influential people in this style of MA.  In fairness, he had practised a related MA previously but had no high ranking if any.

Have a guess who.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jan 15, 2011)

K-man said:


> I can think of another prominent martial artist, still alive, who began training at 20 years of age, without kyu or dan grading was promoted to 5th dan at age 22 after only 6 months training with the master.  At age 49 he was elevated to 10th dan and has been one of the most influential people in this style of MA.  In fairness, he had practised a related MA previously but had no high ranking if any.
> 
> Have a guess who.


Bob jones.


----------



## 72ronin (Jan 15, 2011)

ralphmcpherson said:


> Bob jones.


 
Bob Jones received rank from Tino Ceberano.. I am pretty sure it wasnt 5th dan.
So it cant be Big Red. Could be Norton for all i know, but i dont think it is either of these two..... Who is it K-Man? 

OK, wild whacky guess here.... Kenji Midori ??
Who is it man LOL


----------



## dbell (Jan 15, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> After a bit more reading, it seems that the "founder" of his style was 22 years old and had studied various japanese styles, before starting and declaring the style.



Who, as in what group, nation, person, recognizes this "new style" as being a valid fighting style out of curiosity?  What does it consist of?

Whole things sounds kinda fishy to me...


----------



## dbell (Jan 15, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> The founder's name in this case is Jigaro Kano and the styles name is Judo.  Kano created Judo after only about 5 years of study in various japanese jujitsu styles.
> 
> The student in question is none other than.
> *Mifune, Kyuzo* (b1883-d1965) He began Judo at age 13 and joined the Kodokan in 1903. By 1912, he was already a Rokudan (6th Degree black belt) and a Kodokan instructor. He was unbelievably energetic and eventually stood at the head of the Kodokan's instructors. The speed with which he mastered the techniques of Judo can only be matched by the rapidity of his promotion. He received the grade of 10th dan on May 25, 1945, was the second youngest man to be promoted to 10th Dan, and he held his rank nearly 20 years, the longest of any 10th Dan.
> ...



But in this case, you also have to understand the time in history, and the amount of time spent training back then.

In today's culture I don't see it as being as valid.

Kano-sensei spent hours each day training, seven days a week.  And in Judo, you have 50 throws to learn, with their variations, and back then some punching and kicking as well, and it can be master a bit quicker than some other arts out there.


----------



## clfsean (Jan 15, 2011)

ralphmcpherson said:


> Bob jones.


 

Who?


----------



## seasoned (Jan 15, 2011)

Well, I remember when I was 21, no wait, I can't remember that far back. Ok, I remember when my son was 21, . I think there is a certain amount of mental responsibility involved there, that only comes with TIME, just saying..............


----------



## MJS (Jan 15, 2011)

Carol said:


> I'm guessing its because of how it is emphasized.
> 
> The mantra drummed in to karate students is that the belt is the goal.
> 
> The mantra drummed in to BJJ students is that proving yourself through competition is the goal.


 
But competition isn't a requirement is it?  When I was actively training BJJ, I really had no desire to compete.  Actually, I had no desire to test either. LOL.  I was there to learn.

I'm not into BJJ as others, so manybe some of the regulars can answer this question:  How many BJJ mcdojos are there vs. Karate mcdojos?  Seems like for the most part there is a pretty solid standard across the board with BJJ.  I may be wrong in saying that, but its just an opinion.  

IMHO, the goal should be on learning the art to the best of ones ability, not how many belts you can get in a short amount of time.  Again, thats just my opinion.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 15, 2011)

*I always say respect those who went before you* and appreciate their sacrifices that allowed you to train. (but don't deify them) However, understand that there are people today who train just as hard as the people who went before.  No, some people can achieve a lot in a short time!  Others will never achieve that amount no matter how much time they put in.  Time in grade for rank is not a good measuring standard.  *Quality* of skill set is what it is all about!  This does not mean that time in a system is unimportant because someone can become better with time! (and also a much better instructor)  It just means that time cannot be the overriding factor on why someone is graded to a certain level!  Imagine if BJ Penn was not allowed to be a BJJ blackbelt in 3 years and had to stay the course for 10 years.  That would have been a crime!  No each individual is different!  Having said all the above I am really strict in giving out belts in IRT!  The skill sets must be developed and polished!  *No exceptions under any circumstances!  *No "feel goodies" where someone is given rank because they were there!  You either have it or you don't!  If you don't have it you need to figure out a way to get to a point where you have it!  Otherwise you don't!  I have some people who are ready to test in our system for Associate Instructor and I have others who have trained almost double the amount of time but their *skill set* does not warrant advancement!  *Life some times is just not fair!*


----------



## searcher (Jan 15, 2011)

So, since it has been brought up before, should we look at the total number of hours spent in training for a rank vs. the number of years training for a particular rank?

I believe Terry has brought this question up before in other sub-forums and it does have some pretty good merit.     I am sure the "guys of old" did not train for 2-3 hours per week.


----------



## MJS (Jan 15, 2011)

searcher said:


> So, since it has been brought up before, should we look at the total number of hours spent in training for a rank vs. the number of years training for a particular rank?
> 
> I believe Terry has brought this question up before in other sub-forums and it does have some pretty good merit. I am sure the "guys of old" did not train for 2-3 hours per week.


 
Sure.   IMHO, I think that this is very important. In addition to training, teaching should also be a part of that.  Once I started reaching the upper ranks, I began helping out in class.  Ex: I'd do the warmups and basics, then the regular teacher would take over.  Eventually more and more was added, until one day I was told that the entire class was mine.


----------



## K-man (Jan 15, 2011)

72ronin said:


> Bob Jones received rank from Tino Ceberano.. I am pretty sure it wasnt 5th dan.
> So it cant be Big Red. Could be Norton for all i know, but i dont think it is either of these two..... Who is it K-Man?
> 
> OK, wild whacky guess here.... Kenji Midori ??
> Who is it man LOL


How about Koichi Tohei? He started off learning judo because he had a weak constitution. Somebody invited him to look at aikido and he wasn't impressed ...  until he met Ueshiba Sensei. He joined up, trained for 6 months then was sent off to teach. Two years later he had acquired such an understanding of ki that he was given the rank of 5th dan. Just before Ueshiba Sensei died he offered Tohei Sensei 10th dan. To my mind he is one of the greatest and most underrated martial artists of all time.

Bob Jones trained under Tino until Black Belt then left with Richard. They started up Zendokai to train their people for crowd control and personal protection. 40 years later they are 8th dan and now have fantastic organisation that at one stage was the biggest ma organisation in the world.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jan 15, 2011)

clfsean said:


> Who?


founder of zendokai.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 16, 2011)

dbell said:


> But in this case, you also have to understand the time in history, and the amount of time spent training back then.
> 
> In today's culture I don't see it as being as valid.
> 
> Kano-sensei spent hours each day training, seven days a week. And in Judo, you have 50 throws to learn, with their variations, and back then some punching and kicking as well, and it can be master a bit quicker than some other arts out there.


 
Do we really know that?  Anytime old training and rank is brought up we hear this story as if they did nothing but eat, sleep and train.  I remember reading an interview somewhere of an old school Chinese sifu that talked about this.  He said that they were together most of the day, but that included talking and goofing around, eating together and that the actual training was only about 2-3 hours long.

Many people give reference to Joe Lewis and him training for 7 hours each day to earn his BB in such a short time.  I have read others refute that saying that in the military at the time he couldn't have spent that much time away from the base at the dojo.  I don't know about that, wasn't there at the time and don't know how their day was structured.

My point is that we have no recorded documents of what training actually consisted of all we have are the stories like our grandparents told us about walking to school 5 miles uphill both ways in a foot of snow.

Rank is and always has been super subjective and is only really relavant to the organization/school to help it's own students.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 17, 2011)

I think that it is fair to say that the founders and their immediate successors trained very, very hard.  But to say that nobody today trains like they did is where the falacy begins.  Top level competitive MMA-ists, taekwondoists, boxers, judoka, wrestlers, and karateka most certainly traiin just as hard.  That is what makes them top level.  So too do football players at the high school level.  

The other factor is that old school is not always better.  The understanding of the human body, how to train it, how to maintain it, and how to feed it are much better now than they were in the ninteenth and the former half of the twentieth century.  

Not every founder was a prodigy.  Not every one of a founder's top students were prodigies either.  The assumption that they were all prodigies and therefore deserving of the tenth dan they awarded themselves is simply erroneous.  They were hard working men who trained hard and were very focused on what they were doing.  More importantly, they had the ability to codify a system and train others in said system.  Not every athletic prodigy is capable of doing this.

Don't get me wrong; I don't begrudge founders of assigning themselves the rank that places them at the head of the system that they created.  But dan grade has been around now for about a century, whereas with Kano, it didn't exist in the martial arts until he put it there.  Dan grade requirements with regards to time in grade and in some cases, minimum age for certain grades, are relatively standard in most martial arts (certainly not all) that use the kyu-dan system.  Standard enough that one doesn't need to be practice Aikido, for example, to know that the the Aikikai probably considers 21 to be too young for a hachidan.

The other issue is that dan grade serves to denote a good number of things which are not always related.  Skill level, where one is in training, time in grade, administrative function, and titular.  Many systems require you to tbe fourth dan or higher to write a dan cert.  This is administrative.  One must often be of fourth to sixth dan at a minimum to addressed as "master" and often a minimum of eighth or ninth dan to be addressed as "grandmaster" within an organization.  This is titular.  At a dojang level, there is usually a physical test with specific requirements that a student must pass in order to receive their first dan.  This is skill level and progression in the curriculum.

However, at a dojo level, sometimes an individual with a greater degree of responsibility (say teaching their own classes without supervision) will be promoted more quickly to reflect the responsibilities that they have been given.  

We can sit here and armchair the dan grades of people we've never met and judge their worthiness from our lofty keyboards from dusk until dawn if we so choose, but unless we're training with them, all that we can really say for certain is whether or not a promotion at a given age or for a given time in grade is somewhat normative.

Funny thing is, that after armchairing the worthiness of one for a dan grade, we will all turn around in the next thread and say that rank is unimportant and/or meaningless.

Daniel


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 17, 2011)

I think that in modern times, this sort of stuff more often results in people who are the butt of jokes on Bullshido vs true prodigies like Kano. The internet is rife with em.


----------



## Kacey (Jan 26, 2011)

searcher said:


> So, since it has been brought up before, should we look at the total number of hours spent in training for a rank vs. the number of years training for a particular rank?
> 
> I believe Terry has brought this question up before in other sub-forums and it does have some pretty good merit.     I am sure the "guys of old" did not train for 2-3 hours per week.



This was my thought as well.  I have a copy of The Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do written by Gen. Choi, Hong-Hi... which clearly states that the minimum training time to test in 3 months is 2 hours/day, 5 days/week.  Compare that to attending class 2-4 times/week for 90 minutes/class - not quite the same thing.

I will also add that, IMHO, athletic ability is not the most important factor in achieving higher ranks - *understanding* the technical details of the art is.  The level of understanding necessary to be a trainer of black belts takes a lot longer than achieving physical proficiency.


----------



## Zenjael (Mar 18, 2012)

I have heard ninjutsu has up to 35th dan. When viewing the students, I found that 10th to 15th dan were about what I would consider 1st or 2nd dan level.

How his technique is executed, and depth of insight, matters more than the yellow, red, green, or blue threads on his belt. If you look real close, you can usually tell who is experienced by how weathered their belt is, or if they wear none at all, and teach before others who do wear them. I recall meeting the master of Master Khan, Master Lee who trained under Jhoon Ree, under Bruce Lee wore a belt which was composed of a thread and a single tip still intact. 

I recall him not being the kindest of men, and our 6th dan instructor following at his heels like an enthusiastic teen does the 2nd dan's. It was humbling, and he was worth the attention, but being retired I only had the opportunity to meet him once.


----------



## K-man (Mar 18, 2012)

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


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 18, 2012)

The Bujinkan's ranking system is easily available on-line, and has been discussed here many times.  There are 10 dan rankings; the 10th dan is subdivided into 5 divisions, so that the "top" dan rank is 15th dan.  For more details...  You may wish to check HERE.  Or just do a search on "Bujinkan ranks"


----------



## chinto (Mar 19, 2012)

I would say that it is laughable that he is a 6th Dan.  Sorry I do not buy that one .

I might buy 2nd or 3rd in something like some of the TKD systems. but  No Way  in anything else, especially a rokudan!

By that level you would be at least of the teaching level of understanding all the system at Shehan level.   At 7th Dan normally you understanding is that of Kyoshi.  That takes a lot more then 9 years after shodan to even begin to get to.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 19, 2012)

I suppose it depends upon whom you ask.  For some, a 4 or 5 year old can be a BB so the idea of a 21 year old 6th Dan would be just dandy.  As an example;



			
				Posted by a MT member said:
			
		

> Sinmoo Hapkido GM JI Han Jae was 8th Dan when he was 29. His student, GM MYUNG Kwang Sik, was 6th Dan at 27.



GM JI didn't start till he was 13 I believe, so that is why it took him so long to reach 8th (about 16 years).  

Note that these are not my views on the topic.  Personally, I think it is just fine if one is in a martial sport or perhaps 'psuedo-martial art' would be applicable.  For an actual martia art....well, no this really wouldn't fly.


----------



## puunui (Mar 19, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Funny thing is, that after armchairing the worthiness of one for a dan grade, we will all turn around in the next thread and say that rank is unimportant and/or meaningless.




I can tell you that at least within the realm of korean martial arts, the founders or pioneer or high senior levels don't really discuss or criticize people's ranks and/or whether someone "deserves" rank. Instead, they assess someone's ability and character using "noonchi", which is visual observation and feel. When I am with seniors, no one ever asks or talk about rank. Rank, it seems, at that level, is sort of like asking how much money someone makes. It seems ok if you are relatively low paid, and you are happy when you get a $2/hour raise, or on a salary, but those who make more than this don't really speak actual numbers. That is left for other people to discuss. People ask me all the time, what is the difference between juniors and seniors. This is one of them. Juniors get all obessive about their rank, in comparison to someone elses. Seniors think about and discuss other, more important things. 

I was eating lunch with the head guy in our office. Our bill came out to maybe $30, but he left a $100 bill and didn't wait for the change. Some people would argue that the waitress "didn't deserve" such a tip, that tips should be "earned", that giving such tips to the undeserving undermined the whole tip system, and so forth. To him, that was the smallest bill he had, and it wasn't worth his time to wait for the change. Different people have different perspectives. Which would you aspire to be, the guy criticizing the person who overtipped, or the person who doesn't care what others think and instead left the big tip?


----------



## Kinghercules (Mar 19, 2012)

I wouldnt be surprise if it was an ATA school that he goes to.
LOL!


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 20, 2012)

I think it would be fair to say, in some instances, that seniors may not discuss rank that much due to the questionable nature in which they obtained it i.e. very short time-in-the-arts, organization hopping etc.  And for others, that obtained it through hard work and plenty of training time, it just isn't a big deal.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 20, 2012)

Kinghercules said:


> I wouldnt be surprise if it was an ATA school that he goes to.
> LOL!


What is it with you and the ATA?


----------



## Chuck Johnson (Mar 20, 2012)

As was aforementioned, every style and master has a right to do things the way they see fit... but I would have to think that there needs to be a certain level of emotional and intellectual maturity that goes with the term "master" and I just couldn't see that someone in their early 20s... Granted there are prodigies out there, and I do know one kid in his early 20s running a school, but thats only because of a strange situation where the head master went back to Japan, and he was simply the most qualified person there left to teach, so he took the reigns to keep his school going. Even then however, he certainly never claimed a rank that high. I don't want to judge another MA Ive never personally met before, but that really seems like a stretch to me.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 20, 2012)

chinto said:


> I would say that it is laughable that he is a 6th Dan. Sorry I do not buy that one .
> 
> I might buy 2nd or 3rd in something like some of the TKD systems. but No Way in anything else, especially a rokudan!
> 
> By that level you would be at least of the teaching level of understanding all the system at Shehan level. At 7th Dan normally you understanding is that of Kyoshi. That takes a lot more then 9 years after shodan to even begin to get to.





Kinghercules said:


> I wouldnt be surprise if it was an ATA school that he goes to.
> LOL!


Who the student was, who his teacher was, and what art he was graded in were answered on the first page:



punisher73 said:


> The founder's name in this case is Jigaro Kano and the styles name is Judo. Kano created Judo after only about 5 years of study in various japanese jujitsu styles.
> 
> The student in question is none other than.
> *Mifune, Kyuzo* (b1883-d1965) He began Judo at age 13 and joined the Kodokan in 1903. By 1912, he was already a Rokudan (6th Degree black belt) and a Kodokan instructor. He was unbelievably energetic and eventually stood at the head of the Kodokan's instructors. The speed with which he mastered the techniques of Judo can only be matched by the rapidity of his promotion. He received the grade of 10th dan on May 25, 1945, was the second youngest man to be promoted to 10th Dan, and he held his rank nearly 20 years, the longest of any 10th Dan.
> ...


So why are we speculating about taekwondo?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 20, 2012)

Archangel M said:


> I think that in modern times, this sort of stuff more often results in people who are the butt of jokes on Bullshido vs true prodigies like Kano. The internet is rife with em.


Kano's status as a "_true prodigy_," whatever the heck that means, and the era in which he lived are irrelevant.  

According to many of the replies, high dans are supposed to have all this maturity and wisdom which is unattainable by anyone under the age of forty.

Even if he was a true prodigy, all of those who complain about high rank coupled with relative youth would simply find some other reason to discount his grade and armchair analyze him. 

And having seen the "maturity" that many of those who have received their rank at a proper age display on the internet, maturation is apparently not much of a consideration in grading.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 20, 2012)

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

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

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


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 20, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> The issue boils down to standards. There exists no universal set of standards within the martial arts as a whole, or indeed even within a specific martial art. TKD was mentioned, so it can serve as an example. Within TKD you have the martial _art_ side and the martial _sport_ side. Although the trappings may be similar i.e. uniform, belts, titles, forms (in some cases), the teaching methodologies, focus and goals of each are different. There are those on the sport side that would suggest that there is nothing wrong with a 4 or 5 year old black belt. At the same time, someone on the art side (where the focus is on self-defense as an example) would look upon such as unacceptable. Who is right? Well, they both are. For the purpose of sport, a 5 year old running around as a BB can be acceptable. A 21 year old master is acceptable. Someone claiming GM status in their 20's after only 16 years of training is acceptable.
> 
> Personally, my focus is in the martial arts, therefore none of that directly or indirectly affects me in the slightest. The perception of what a black belt is and can be seen differently between the art and sport side. Both should respect the other and not get bent out of shape as there really is not cross-over. The only real issue I would have is if one tried to portray themselves as the other. This is not only intellectual dishonesty, it does a disservice to the student and could put them at risk. *If one is a martial artist, then be proud to be a martial artist. If one is a martial sportist, then be proud to be a martial sportist. But do not confuse the two. *And don't think that training in one methodology covers for the other. It does not and wasn't designed to have much carry-over.
> 
> We will never have universal guidelines because they are separate entities. Even within one side you will never have universal guidelines as you'll never get a full consensus on what the standard(s) should be.


I think that with very few exceptions, there is no distinction between a martial artist and a martial sportist.  That is because there is no such thing as a martial sportist.


----------



## pgsmith (Mar 20, 2012)

> I always hear people talk about the McDojo fad etc. I just came across a young man who started at the age of 13 and after 9 years of study was promoted to 6th degree blackbelt.
> 
> What are your thoughts on this? Legitimate? McDojo?
> 
> What factors would make it acceptable? Would it matter if the young man practiced REALLY hard and quickly grapsed the concepts?


 
  I really enjoyed the set-up, a truly masterful piece of work! I'll grant you a rokudan for that! 

The reality is ... I don't care. Doesn't matter if it was someone famous or not. Doesn't matter if it was last year or last century. As long as it's not in the art I practice, I don't care. There are bunches of egomaniacs that like to believe they are "martial arts masters!" they regularly invent their own schools, promote themselves, and elect themselves to various martial arts halls of fame. They have absolutely no effect on my own training, so they can do whatever they wish. I do not feel diminished in my knowledge and ranks because some kid names himself founder, or is granted a high rank. 

  I had an older Japanese sensei relate it to me this way when I asked him what he thought about all of the people making up "martial arts" today ... He said "Good for them! It gets people out from in front of their TV. If their art is worthy, it will be around for a long time. If it isn't, it will start to die when they do. So, it is not my problem, I leave it to my great grandchildren to decide."​


----------



## puunui (Mar 20, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> The reality is ... I don't care. Doesn't matter if it was someone famous or not. Doesn't matter if it was last year or last century. As long as it's not in the art I practice, I don't care. There are bunches of egomaniacs that like to believe they are "martial arts masters!" they regularly invent their own schools, promote themselves, and elect themselves to various martial arts halls of fame. They have absolutely no effect on my own training, so they can do whatever they wish. I do not feel diminished in my knowledge and ranks because some kid names himself founder, or is granted a high rank.



I will take it a step further and say I don't care even if it is in my own style or organization. 




pgsmith said:


> I had an older Japanese sensei relate it to me this way when I asked him what he thought about all of the people making up "martial arts" today ... He said "Good for them! It gets people out from in front of their TV. If their art is worthy, it will be around for a long time. If it isn't, it will start to die when they do. So, it is not my problem, I leave it to my great grandchildren to decide."



Perfect answer.


----------



## puunui (Mar 20, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I think that with very few exceptions, there is no distinction between a martial artist and a martial sportist.  That is because there is no such thing as a martial sportist.



In taekwondo there are no exceptions, everyone is included. Further, any attempts to segregate taekwondoin into this category vs. that one shows a true lack of understanding of the pioneer's philosophy and wishes.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 20, 2012)

puunui said:


> In taekwondo there are no exceptions, everyone is included.


Agreed. Personally, I think that if it is an actual martial art, there are no exceptions, but I didn't want to be that definitive. For the record, I differentiate between fight sport (boxing, wrestling, kickboxing, fencing, MMA) and martial art.



puunui said:


> Further, any attempts to segregate taekwondoin into this category vs. that one shows a true lack of understanding of the pioneer's philosophy and wishes.


It actually was deeper study of kendo that made me understand this.


----------



## puunui (Mar 20, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> For the record, I differentiate between fight sport (boxing, wrestling, kickboxing, fencing, MMA) and martial art.



I as a general rule, don't. All of those are martial arts too in my opinion. They all have a training methodology geared towards "fighting" and they all have their own set of acceptable and unacceptable behavior, a code of conduct or philosophy if you will. There is even ranking systems as well. It might be different from what I am used to, but I don't think that is a compelling reason to exclude it from the realm of the martial arts. And I have shelves for all those arts in my martial arts book collection. MMA and BJJ has its own bookcase.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 20, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I think that with very few exceptions, there is no distinction between a martial artist and a martial sportist. That is because there is no such thing as a martial sportist.



I just coined the term


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 20, 2012)

puunui said:


> In taekwondo there are no exceptions, everyone is included. Further, any attempts to segregate taekwondoin into this category vs. that one shows a true lack of understanding of the pioneer's philosophy and wishes.



I fully understand their philosophy and wishes, I'm just not in agreement with it or bound to it.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 20, 2012)

puunui said:


> I as a general rule, don't. All of those are martial arts too in my opinion. They all have a training methodology geared towards "fighting" and they all have their own set of acceptable and unacceptable behavior, a code of conduct or philosophy if you will. There is even ranking systems as well. It might be different from what I am used to, but I don't think that is a compelling reason to exclude it from the realm of the martial arts. And I have shelves for all those arts in my martial arts book collection. MMA and BJJ has its own bookcase.


Nothing wrong with that, though I tend to compartmentalize things a little differently.  For the record also, I don't think that fight sports (as I see them) are inferior to MA; just a different category.  

I have seen debates about whether or not fencing, MMA, boxing, and kickboxing are martial arts or not, and there are compelling arguments for both opinions.  One of the reasons that I tend to err on the spectrum on 'not' is because many times, athletes of such sports do not consider them to be martial arts themselves (this is definitely true of the majority of fencers) and they are generally considered 'sports' by the majority of people, both in the know and out.

I don't really care personally; if your pastime makes you happy and improves your life, then enjoy it to the fullest; how it is categorized by others is unimportant.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 20, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I just coined the term


Please define the term and how it differs from an athlete (if at all).  

Also, in order for your statement about 'martial sportists' representing themselves as martial artists to be meaningful, I'd like to know how you define a martial artist.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 20, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I fully understand their philosophy and wishes, I'm just not in agreement with it *or bound to it*.


Of course you're not bound to it; you practice/teach kong soo do, not taekwondo.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 20, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Please define the term and how it differs from an athlete (if at all).
> 
> Also, in order for your statement about 'martial sportists' representing themselves as martial artists to be meaningful, I'd like to know how you define a martial artist.



My definition would be; martial artist = someone training in the martial arts for their original intended purpose i.e. offensive/defensive combative skills.  Martial sportist = someone training in what was originally a martial art but has been altered for sporting competition.  Although esoteric applications such as physical fitness, discipline, socialization etc can be appropriate for either venue. 



> Of course you're not bound to it; you practice/teach kong soo do, not taekwondo.



Precisely the point.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 21, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> My definition would be; martial artist = someone training in the martial arts for their original intended purpose i.e. offensive/defensive combative skills.


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

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



Kong Soo Do said:


> Martial sportist = someone training in what was originally a martial art but has been altered for sporting competition. Although esoteric applications such as physical fitness, discipline, socialization etc can be appropriate for either venue.



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

The art vs. sport disconnect is that most people don't understand the reason that there is a sportive element in the martial arts in the first place. Kendo, taekwondo, judo, and other martial arts that have a 'sport' element have this element in order to cultivate a vigorous spirit, not to simulate combat. That's what kata and other elements of training are for.

And what arts have been altered for competition?  Most of the supposedly altered arts were never 'martial' to begin with.  There aren't possibly enough altered arts to account for the sport/art debate.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Precisely the point.


Then why give rebuttal to Glenn's comments in our conversation? It is the equivalent of me telling you that I am not bound by your definitions of KSD because I practice sword arts.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 21, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


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



Just a few arts off the top of my head that are still practiced primarily for _offensive/defensive combative skills.
_
Okinawan Goju-ryu karate
Uechi-ryu karate
hapkido (unless you'd care to argue this?)
Bajiquan
Krav Maga
Hakko-ryu jujutsu
Any iteration of the Vee-Jitsu systems
Plenty of the southeastern Asian systems including silat, kali, kun tao
Arnis
Arguably Jun Fan/Jeet Kune Do

While it is possible to 'do-ify' any martial art and make it more about mental and spiritual development, I don't think it inaccurate to say that some systems have traveled less on that path if at all. 

And framing 'martial art' as training for war is playing word games IMO.  The majority of the people here think of a martial art as a fighting system of some type, perhaps with a spiritual dimension added.  It seems to me we should just go by the commonly used definition. 



Daniel Sullivan said:


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



Does a modern martial art have to be about guns and rifles?  I don't think so.  Feet and hands remain relevant weapons for fighting, especially when the attacker is likewise unarmed.  I believe styles like karate, jujutsu, TKD fit the definition of a fighting system just fine if trained as such.




Daniel Sullivan said:


> And what arts have been altered for competition?  Most of the supposedly altered arts were never 'martial' to begin with.  There aren't possibly enough altered arts to account for the sport/art debate.



Karate in the main is an excellent example of where kata has been modified for tournament aesthetics.  Dramatic pauses have been added along with crazy loud kiai.  Stances have been deepened for visual flair, even hand movement have changed in certain cases.

And that's fine if this is the aspect one wishes to train in.  On the other hand, training (dare I say it?) old school karate is very much still a possibility if one wants to and makes an effort to seek out qualified instruction from good lineage.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Then why give rebuttal to Glenn's comments in our conversation? It is the equivalent of me telling you that I am not bound by your definitions of KSD because I practice sword arts.



Because there is more than one shape and size of TKD.  I've said before I wouldn't have batted an eye if KSD chose to call what he is doing TKD instead of KSD.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 21, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> Just a few arts off the top of my head that are still practiced primarily for _offensive/defensive combative skills.
> _
> Okinawan Goju-ryu karate
> Uechi-ryu karate
> ...


I'd agree with you on the above; Hapkido traditionally does not have a sport element, though at least two federations have 'sparring rules.' 



dancingalone said:


> While it is possible to 'do-ify' any martial art and make it more about mental and spiritual development, I don't think it inaccurate to say that some systems have traveled less on that path if at all.


Nor do I.



dancingalone said:


> And framing 'martial art' as training for war is playing word games IMO. The majority of the people here think of a martial art as a fighting system of some type, perhaps with a spiritual dimension added. It seems to me we should just go by the commonly used definition.


Absolutely. That was my point.



dancingalone said:


> Does a modern martial art have to be about guns and rifles? I don't think so. Feet and hands remain relevant weapons for fighting, especially when the attacker is likewise unarmed. I believe styles like karate, jujutsu, TKD fit the definition of a fighting system just fine if trained as such.


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

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



dancingalone said:


> Karate in the main is an excellent example of where kata has been modified for tournament aesthetics. Dramatic pauses have been added along with crazy loud kiai. Stances have been deepened for visual flair, even hand movement have changed in certain cases.


I consider that the more 'arty' element of the martial arts. I don't have a problem with it, but I do consider it an artistic sub-element.



dancingalone said:


> And that's fine if this is the aspect one wishes to train in. On the other hand, training (dare I say it?) old school karate is very much still a possibility if one wants to and makes an effort to seek out qualified instruction from good lineage.


I think that there is plenty of room for and equal value in both. 



dancingalone said:


> Because there is more than one shape and size of TKD. I've said before I wouldn't have batted an eye if KSD chose to call what he is doing TKD instead of KSD.


There is more than one shape and size to TKD and I wouldn't bat an eye either if he called his KSD TKD instead. But neither of those are why I questioned the rebuttal.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 21, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


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



I'm not sure the classification is entirely accurate either but I would not be totally dismissive of it either.  In my earliest practice of martial arts in TKD, I preferred to focus on sparring.  I never practiced hyung unless forced to.  I never practiced any of the basics that weren't relevant to sparring, so pretty much just the standard kicks, back fists and punches on a heavy bag.  Oh, I trained a lot of jump kicks because those were fun and the chicks dug them.   

I trained in a very narrow fashion primarily for success in a ring (point-sparring at that most of the time - gak!).  Fair to call me a sportist if I had stopped and quit there and never grown further?  Maybe so.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 21, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> I'm not sure the classification is entirely accurate either but I would not be totally dismissive of it either. In my earliest practice of martial arts in TKD, I preferred to focus on sparring. I never practiced hyung unless forced to. I never practiced any of the basics that weren't relevant to sparring, so pretty much just the standard kicks, back fists and punches on a heavy bag. Oh, I trained a lot of jump kicks because those were fun and the chicks dug them.
> 
> I trained in a very narrow fashion primarily for success in a ring (point-sparring at that most of the time - gak!). Fair to call me a sportist if I had stopped and quit there and never grown further? Maybe so.


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

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



Kong Soo Do said:


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


To say that there is is no crossover is incorrect. There actually is plenty. There also a lot that is unique to preparing for tournament fighting that is different from simply trying to train to take care of yourself in an unscripted encounter.  Same polyhedron, different sides.

Secondly, I find that the guys who cry the loudest about putting students at risk by teaching a sport style of sparring (WTF sparring often is on the receiving end of such shots) really have a poor understanding of the sportive element of martial arts that have it. 

And I know first hand because I used to make the same arguments. You may remember them. For those who don't, dig through my old posts and you'll find that I had a very different perspective two to four years ago. 

When I found that that perspective was flawed, I had to change it.

Where I see a difference between fight sport and martial art is that a martial art is generally more multifaceted (in my opinion). But I won't call a boxing coach intellectually dishonest for calling boxing martial arts.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 21, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


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


Can you do karate without kata?  Can you do kendo without sparring?  Can you do aikido without falling?Specific martial arts have immutable parts to them.  We can choose to focus on certain aspects to the possible exclusion of the others for periods of time, and that can be a good thing occasionally.  However, this can't stand permanently.  If you train karate with kata, arguably you're not doing karate.  You're doing something else, no matter how much it can resemble karate.  





Daniel Sullivan said:


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


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


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 21, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> Can you do karate without kata? Can you do kendo without sparring? Can you do aikido without falling?Specific martial arts have immutable parts to them. We can choose to focus on certain aspects to the possible exclusion of the others for periods of time, and that can be a good thing occasionally. However, this can't stand permanently. If you train karate with kata *(don't you mean without?)*, arguably you're not doing karate. You're doing something else, no matter how much it can resemble karate.


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

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



dancingalone said:


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


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



dancingalone said:


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


Yes.



dancingalone said:


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


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

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


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 21, 2012)

Wow what a very interesting thread....


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 21, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


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



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


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 21, 2012)

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



Kong Soo Do said:


> The issue boils down to standards. There exists no universal set of standards within the martial arts as a whole, or indeed even within a specific martial art. TKD was mentioned, so it can serve as an example. Within TKD you have the martial _art_ side and the martial _sport_ side. Although the trappings may be similar i.e. uniform, belts, titles, forms (in some cases), the teaching methodologies, focus and goals of each are different. There are those on the sport side that would suggest that there is nothing wrong with a 4 or 5 year old black belt. At the same time, someone on the art side (where the focus is on self-defense as an example) would look upon such as unacceptable. Who is right? Well, they both are. For the purpose of sport, a 5 year old running around as a BB can be acceptable. A 21 year old master is acceptable. Someone claiming GM status in their 20's after only 16 years of training is acceptable.
> 
> Personally, my focus is in the martial arts, therefore none of that directly or indirectly affects me in the slightest. The perception of what a black belt is and can be seen differently between the art and sport side. Both should respect the other and not get bent out of shape as there really is not cross-over. The only real issue I would have is if one tried to portray themselves as the other. This is not only intellectual dishonesty, it does a disservice to the student and could put them at risk. If one is a martial artist, then be proud to be a martial artist. If one is a martial sportist, then be proud to be a martial sportist. But do not confuse the two. And don't think that training in one methodology covers for the other. It does not and wasn't designed to have much carry-over.
> 
> We will never have universal guidelines because they are separate entities. Even within one side you will never have universal guidelines as you'll never get a full consensus on what the standard(s) should be.


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

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

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


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 21, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


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



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

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 21, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Totally agree. But if you're going to draw an imaginary line between arts that have a competitive element and arts that do not and then call one group martial artists and the other martial *sport*ists, then you are engaging in snobbery and creating a false dichotomy in order to lessen the value of or be dismissive of martial arts that have that competitive element.
> 
> So, if you're going to engage in that kind of snobbery (and no offense to Kong Soo Do, but that is exactly what it is), then you'd better be doing something that is actually 'martial' and put your money where your mouth is. While he didn't couch it this way, what it amounts to is implying that he and those who train the way that he does are "true" martial artists, while everyone else is doing dumbed down sport stuff. He may not intend for it to come across that way, and he may not even feel that way, but that is where that line of thought ultimately goes.


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

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

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


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 21, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


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


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

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



chrispillertkd said:


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


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


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 21, 2012)

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

Edit: 

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


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 21, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


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



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



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



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



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



Hey, if you say so.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 21, 2012)

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



Daniel Sullivan said:


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



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



> If you want to practice a modern martial art, get out of the dojo/dojang  and either enlist or find someone to teach you military rifle use,  including all of the marching and gun twirling (kata) and whatever hand  to hand that soldiers are taught.  I understand that anyone can go and  take 'basic training' from groups that offer it as a course all its own  and not as part of the military.  That is martial art....
> 
> ...Totally agree. But if you're going to draw an imaginary line between  arts that have a competitive element and arts that do not and then call  one group martial artists and the other martial *sport*ists, then  you are engaging in snobbery and creating a false dichotomy in order to  lessen the value of or be dismissive of martial arts that have that  competitive element.
> 
> So, if you're going to engage in that kind of snobbery (and no offense  to Kong Soo Do, but that is exactly what it is), then you'd better be  doing something that is actually 'martial' and put your money where your  mouth is.  While he didn't couch it this way, what it amounts to is  implying that he and those who train the way that he does are "true"  martial artists, while everyone else is doing dumbed down sport stuff.   He may not intend for it to come across that way, and he may not even  feel that way, but that is where that line of thought ultimately goes.



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

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

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



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



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

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


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 21, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


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


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

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



chrispillertkd said:


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


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



chrispillertkd said:


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


Meaning?


----------



## pgsmith (Mar 21, 2012)

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


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

Just my opinion ...


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 21, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


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


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



Kong Soo Do said:


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


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



Kong Soo Do said:


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


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

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

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



Kong Soo Do said:


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


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

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



Kong Soo Do said:


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


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



Kong Soo Do said:


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


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



Kong Soo Do said:


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


I appreciate the honesty, though I disagree with you.



Kong Soo Do said:


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


I think you hit on the meat of the subject.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 21, 2012)

pgsmith said:


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


And that is what sparked this conversation.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 21, 2012)

pgsmith said:


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



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


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 21, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


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



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

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

Would that be more easy to acccept?


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 21, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



> Meaning?



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

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Randy Strausbaugh (Mar 21, 2012)

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


----------



## puunui (Mar 21, 2012)

dancingalone said:


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



Yes. Yes. and yes.


----------



## puunui (Mar 21, 2012)

pgsmith said:


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



The bottom line is, who cares if other judge whether or not you are or are not a "martial artist", whatever that term means. It makes even less sense if the person doing the judging isn't even from the same style. Whenever I hear those kinds of comments, I think of some potbeliied beer drinker sitting in an arm chair in front of his tv in a wife beater criticizing peyton manning. Does peyton manning really care, or is he functioning at a much higher, much different level? And which would you rather be, the beer belly guy in the wife beater commenting on nfl players or peyton manning playing in the nfl?


----------



## puunui (Mar 21, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> Frankly, I don't care one way or the other about what people call what they do.



Then why would you care what other people call what they don't do?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 22, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


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


In your response to my posts, you phrased it differently than you did in your initial post. The way that you phrased it the second time around, 'if you aren't teaching SD, don't claim to,' essentially, I agree with. The first phrasing was that there are martial artists and martial sportists and that if one claims to be the other than they are being intellectually dishonest.

The problem there is that you are using a definition wherein only SD oriented schools are martial arts and schools where the application is focused on point fighting (be it striking or grappling, somone is keeping track of who is doing what in order to determine a winner) are martial sports.  

The problem with that definition is that not everyone views it as an either/or and most consider the schools that have a competition rather than a street oriented SD focus to very much be part of the martial arts.  Judo is a prime example.  If I'm not mistaken, grading is actually tied to your competion record to some extent (judoka, please clarify if I am mistaken or not accurate).  To your credit, you applied your definition to judo and its founder, something that takes a measure of guts to do on an MA forum, but even most of the 'hard core' members would not agree with you.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 22, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


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


It isn't dishonest at all, and nobody said that it was.  But if you imply that someone _not of that group _who applies the term to what they do is somehow intellectually dishonest, then you are engaging in a form of snobbery, be it intentional or not.



chrispillertkd said:


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


Actually, what I described is the accepted viewpoint.  It isn't my terminology and I'm not forcing them to use it.  A quick look at the categories on this board should tell that.



chrispillertkd said:


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


Sure.  And someone might even be correct.  Depends on what the distinction is and how it is being made.  In the case of this conversation, it isn't the distinction that was at issue, but the comment that followed it. 



chrispillertkd said:


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


You are focusing on the perception of the distinction.  The snobbery comment was not in response to the making of the distinction, as has been explained multiple times in several posts.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 22, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> It isn't dishonest at all, and nobody said that it was. But if you imply that someone _not of that group _who applies the term to what they do is somehow intellectually dishonest, then you are engaging in a form of snobbery, be it intentional or not.



I see what you're saying. I just disagree with your conclusion. 



> Actually, what I described is the accepted viewpoint. It isn't my terminology and I'm not forcing them to use it. A quick look at the categories on this board should tell that.



Accepted viwepoint? Maybe by some, but not all. Which was kind of my point. If people have discussions but use different definitions for the same words then the best thing to do is to at least realize that.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 22, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


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



Sounds a lot like pitching in baseball without a batter.  Useful, even essential for development of skill, but ultimately without meaning given the full context of the game of baseball where there is certainly an adversarial component.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 22, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I enjoy discussing things with you because neither of us puts it, or takes it personally. I respect that.
> 
> If we're going to lump everyone into 'martial artist', I still think some sort of catagorization needs to be generally put into place. Will it happen? No. But I'd like to see it happen.


But don't we already have that?  We have geographical and cultural categories; WMA, JMA, KMA, CMA, etc.  We have chronological categories; koryu and gendai budo (old school and modern martial way).  We have philosophical categores; science/skill and path (jutsu/sul and do).  We have functional categories of striking art, grappling arts, hybrid arts, weapon arts, and internal internal arts.  Then we have subcategories, and finally names of specific arts.

Every art will hit multiple categories.  People who practice martial arts already know this and train accordingly.  People who actually know enough of what they want prior to training but are unfamiliar with what art is the best fit for what they want to do have a wealth of information available to them and it is easily accessable via the internet.  There really isn't any excuse for showing up at an ATA school and wondering why you aren't learning judo, and there hasn't been for a long time.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Perhaps *martial arts* for the sport crowd and *martial discipline* for the SD crowd. A 'system' could have both an art side and a discipline side, but they are different in there methodology.
> 
> Would that be more easy to acccept?


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

Then you need to address weapon arts.  Most are not suitable for self defense, but most do not have a competitive element.  What crowd are those for?  You could argue that fencing is sport and you could kind of argue that for kendo, but kenjutsu and iai don't really lend themselves to being called SD.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 22, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> Sounds a lot like pitching in baseball without a batter. Useful, even essential for development of skill, but ultimately without meaning given the full context of the game of baseball where there is certainly an adversarial component.


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

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


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 22, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Not entirely.  There are also seven tachi kata and three kodachi kata, as well as bokuto waza.  In theory, you could learn all of the shinai waza, bokuto waza (Bokuto Ni Yoru Kendo Kihon-waza Keiko-ho), and kata without ever donning bogu.  In practice, unless you have some special arrangement with the sensei, you probably won't learn any more than the bokuto waza and the first three kata, depending on the club.
> 
> But in terms of what the art contains, there is actually plenty that you can do without shiai.  But again, your kendo will not develop if you leave that element out and you'd be better off finding an iai or koryu kenjutsu school.



Are there many people who enrolled in a kendo program yet specifically plan to never participate in shiai, even casual ones within a class?  

I agree that there are better options for people like that, just like I would suggest someone unwilling to take ukemi find another art than aikido or someone uninterested in kata practice something else than karate.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 22, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> I see what you're saying. I just disagree with your conclusion.


Fair enough.



chrispillertkd said:


> Accepted viwepoint? Maybe by some, but not all. Which was kind of my point. If people have discussions but use different definitions for the same words then the best thing to do is to at least realize that.


Realizing that is not the issue.  In fact, that is precisely my point; people do use different definitions for the same word.  Hence, I don't take issue with the cute girl teaching tai chi in the yoga center with the sole intent of helping middle aged and elderly people maintain their health for calling it a martial arts class, even I might be inclined to call it a low impact fitness class.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 22, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> Are there many people who enrolled in a kendo program yet specifically plan to never participate in shiai, even casual ones within a class?
> 
> I agree that there are better options for people like that, just like I would suggest someone unwilling to take ukemi find another art than aikido or someone uninterested in kata practice something else than karate.


Not that I have seen.  People come to kendo class and see a bunch of loud, screaming people with flying nun style fencing masks, composite breastplates, and padded gloves wearing blue dresses and armed with bamboo canes striking eachother and screaming loudly (kendo classes are loud!).  This is generally off putting to people who want a different kind of class.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 22, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> But don't we already have that?  We have geographical and cultural categories; WMA, JMA, KMA, CMA, etc.  We have chronological categories; koryu and gendai budo (old school and modern martial way).  We have philosophical categores; science/skill and path (jutsu/sul and do).  We have functional categories of striking art, grappling arts, hybrid arts, weapon arts, and internal internal arts.  Then we have subcategories, and finally names of specific arts.
> 
> Every art will hit multiple categories.  People who practice martial arts already know this and train accordingly.  People who actually know enough of what they want prior to training but are unfamiliar with what art is the best fit for what they want to do have a wealth of information available to them and it is easily accessable via the internet.  There really isn't any excuse for showing up at an ATA school and wondering why you aren't learning judo, and there hasn't been for a long time.
> 
> ...



How do you address diversity within umbrella martial arts like karate and taekwondo where the content is very much dependent on the instructor?  You can walk into one Shito-ryu school and find them very much focused on WKF tournaments while in another you'll see them working more traditional methods.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 22, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> How do you address diversity within umbrella martial arts like karate and taekwondo where the content is very much dependent on the instructor? You can walk into one Shito-ryu school and find them very much focused on WKF tournaments while in another you'll see them working more traditional methods.


Personally I don't.  There comes a point where you need to just go in and look at the class.  Not everything needs to be categorized.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 22, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Personally I don't.  There comes a point where you need to just go in and look at the class.  Not everything needs to be categorized.



Categorization is useful when discussing things on larger, more aggregate levels.  Such as we are all doing on MT right now.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 22, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> Categorization is useful when discussing things on larger, more aggregate levels. Such as we are all doing on MT right now.


Absolutely. But if I'm addressing the diversity within a single art, some of that may already be done for me; taekwondo; KKW/WTF, ITF, ATA, independents and small orgs. Karate; Okinawan, Japanese; hundreds of ryus. Once you get into diversity within a subset, such as KKW, you're really looking at differences between instructors, at which point the question is whether or not he or she is a good fit for you. The only time that I see categorization at that level as being useful for a discussion such as this is if we're talking about a school or instructor that is particularly noteworthy outside of its own student body. 

Jean Lopez, for example, coaches the US TKD team. So there is more information readily available about his school (?) and what kind of students he produces, given that they're on display at an international level. 

Panda Karate in Derwood MD? I see their ads in sidebar on this site and they're about ten minutes from home. Couldn't tell you where their curriculum stacks up, but based on their website, I'd say it looks like your typical suburban studio. Since they said that the owner was trained by John Bussard of Kicks Karate, I know that they are TSD based (Bussard came out of Kim's Traditional Studio in Rockville, which is TSD) and that they do point/stop fighting. Beyond that, I don't know if they're competition focused, have an SD program, hoshinsul, belong to an org or ar independent or put black belts on children. I'd have to go to the school to find that out.

So the only categorization that I could offer without a visit is: martial arts> karate> TSD. Then we could discuss whether or not TSD is karate.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 22, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Absolutely.  But if I'm addressing the diversity within a single art, some of that may already be done for me; taekwondo; KKW/WTF, ITF, ATA, independents and small orgs.  Karate; Okinawan, Japanese; hundreds of ryus.  Once you get into diversity within a subset, such as KKW, you're really looking at differences between instructors, at which point the question is whether or not he or she is a good fit for you.  The only time that I see categorization at that level as being useful for a discussion such as this is if we're talking about a school or instructor that is particularly noteworthy outside of its own student body.



But dividing TKD, for example, into KKW, ITF, ATA, etc. really means nothing for the majority of people out there.  Neither does telling a complete layman that I do Okinawan Goju-ryu instead of Shotokan karate.  

Broad class categories that described primary activities ARE useful and as I don't think they're insulting in any way, why not use them?  If someone asked me what ATA TKD is, I would respond with something along the lines of 'kid-friendly tournament-oriented karate with light contact and lots of positive personal trait reinforcement'.  Although it's a generalization, it's accurate and it tells the listener the general vicinity he is inquiring about.  






Daniel Sullivan said:


> Panda Karate in Derwood MD?  I see their ads in sidebar on this site and they're about ten minutes from home.  Couldn't tell you where their curriculum stacks up, but based on their website, I'd say it looks like your typical suburban studio.  Since they said that the owner was trained by John Bussard of Kix Karate, I know that they are TSD based (Bussard came out of Kim's Traditional Studio, which is TSD) and that they do point/stop fighting.  Beyond that, I don't know if they're competition focused, have an SD program, hoshinsul, belong to an org or ar independent or put black belts on children.  I'd have to go to the school to find that out.
> 
> So the only categorization that I could offer without a visit is: martial arts> karate> TSD.  Then we could discuss whether or not TSD is karate.



But if you were familiar with Panda Karate personally, it'd be appropriate for you to explain to another what the activities are there as a broad categorization.  If they do a lot of tournaments, there's no problem in saying such.  Tang Soo Do like karate and taekwondo is another one of those arts where what the training comprises of can vary greatly by school owner.  Just saying that they do TSD doesn't really impart much either to the layman who doesn't know what TSD is in the first place or to a more savvy person who realizes that TSD dojang can vary a lot.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 22, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> But dividing TKD, for example, into KKW, ITF, ATA, etc. really means nothing for the majority of people out there. Neither does telling a complete layman that I do Okinawan Goju-ryu instead of Shotokan karate.
> 
> Broad class categories that described primary activities ARE useful and as I don't think they're insulting in any way, why not use them? If someone asked me what ATA TKD is, I would respond with something along the lines of 'kid-friendly tournament-oriented karate with light contact and lots of positive personal trait reinforcement'. Although it's a generalization, it's accurate and it tells the listener the general vicinity he is inquiring about.


Oh, I don't think they're insulting at all; I just don't use them past an organizational level unless I am personally familiar with the school.  

Based on what ATA folks have said, I'd say that it's a fair generalization.  But that doesn't address differences between individual ATA schools.



dancingalone said:


> But if you were familiar with Panda Karate personally, it'd be appropriate for you to explain to another what the activities are there as a broad categorization. If they do a lot of tournaments, there's no problem in saying such. Tang Soo Do like karate and taekwondo is another one of those arts where what the training comprises of can vary greatly by school owner. Just saying that they do TSD doesn't really impart much either to the layman who doesn't know what TSD is in the first place or to a more savvy person who realizes that TSD dojang can vary a lot.


Yes.


----------



## Zenjael (Mar 22, 2012)

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


----------



## K-man (Mar 22, 2012)

Zenjael said:


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


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


----------



## K-man (Mar 22, 2012)

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

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

Sorry!  :bs:


----------



## frank raud (Mar 22, 2012)

Zenjael said:


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


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


----------



## puunui (Mar 22, 2012)

frank raud said:


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



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


----------



## Zenjael (Mar 22, 2012)

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

But yes, as puunui said.



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



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


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 22, 2012)

Zenjael said:


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


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

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


----------



## Zenjael (Mar 23, 2012)

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



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


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 23, 2012)

K-man said:


> I had to re-read the hole thread to work out where we are up to.
> 
> So, a 21 year old 6th Dan in this day and age? :lfao:
> 
> Sorry! :bs:


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

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

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


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 23, 2012)

Zenjael said:


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



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

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

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


Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Zenjael (Mar 23, 2012)

> It is already pretty well established that a young athletic practitioner  can certainly have the technical skill, particularly if they've been  practicing since they were children.  It always comes down to the  supposed lack of maturity and wisdom in such practitioners, as maturity  and wisdom can _only _be had by those over thirty or whatever number you choose to insert.
> 
> No offense, but a sixth grader could have made your post.  If those of  us who are of the supposedly appropriate age cannot conduct ourselves in  a manner that befits our supposed maturity and wisdom, then why are we  throwing stone at those who don't meet our arbitrary requirments?   Requirements that, may I remind you, many of the founders and their  early students were not subjected to.



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

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



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



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

That being said, 





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


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

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

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

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


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 23, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Not diction. Word. A word you made up. Good rule of thumb: if you don't actually know the meaning of the word, don't use it, and don't make up words.
> 
> Equivocable, the word you made, might have the definition of "able to be made to have multiple meanings, be ambiguous, or be uncertain". If it were a real word.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 23, 2012)

Zenjael said:


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


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


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 23, 2012)

Zenjael said:


> Love it. I recall reading in a Casca novel the recognizance that those who begin youngest are those most likely to excel and evolve the art. When you think of the great martial art legends, and look at when they began and where, it is not hard to see it is not age which imparts rank, it is experience. And you can get experience through fighting on the front, or studying in a classroom. To disagree would be to find our entire military system at the same fault.
> 
> I agree with it though- I have seen 13 year old 3rd dan, and myself received a dan at 7. Who's to say if I really deserved it, I probably didn't, objectively, but subjectively I see no err in my technique then for the Moo Duk Kwan I practiced.
> 
> ...



Recognizance

Obfuscate

Using 10 dollar words is not scholarship; it's obfuscation of scholarship unless those are the best and most effective words to use.  For example, I frequently write "The magistrate released the suspect on his own recognizance."  There, it's the proper word.  Using made up words or using words improperly just confuses people; it's only very rarely the mark of genius.  Perhaps you're familiar with Lewis Carroll:_   I dont know what you mean by glory,  Alice said.
    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. Of course you donttill I  tell you. I meant theres a nice knock-down argument for you! 
    But glory doesnt mean a nice knock-down argument, Alice objected.
    When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meanneither more nor less.
    The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
    The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master      thats all.
    Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty  Dumpty began again. Theyve a temper, some of themparticularly verbs,  theyre the proudestadjectives you can do anything with, but not  verbshowever, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! Thats what I say![
_​
You're often leaving us in Alice's shoes...


----------



## Zenjael (Mar 23, 2012)

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



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

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

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

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


----------



## Zenjael (Mar 23, 2012)

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



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


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 23, 2012)

Zenjael said:


> Love it. I recall reading in a Casca novel the recognizance that those who begin youngest are those most likely to excel and evolve the art. When you think of the great martial art legends, and look at when they began and where, it is not hard to see it is not age which imparts rank, it is experience. And you can get experience through fighting on the front, or studying in a classroom. To disagree would be to find our entire military system at the same fault.
> 
> I agree with it though- I have seen 13 year old 3rd dan, and myself received a dan at 7. Who's to say if I really deserved it, I probably didn't, objectively, but subjectively I see no err in my technique then for the Moo Duk Kwan I practiced.
> 
> ...



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

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

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

Stick to George Orwell's rules for effective writing.

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

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

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

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


----------



## K-man (Mar 23, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> And what makes _this_ day and age so special?  A cutsey graphic and an animated 'bs' flag without any intelligent addition to the topic actually undermine your statement.
> 
> It is already pretty well established that a young athletic practitioner can certainly have the technical skill, particularly if they've been practicing since they were children.  It always comes down to the supposed lack of maturity and wisdom in such practitioners, as maturity and wisdom can _only _be had by those over thirty or whatever number you choose to insert.
> 
> No offense, but a sixth grader could have made your post.  If those of us who are of the supposedly appropriate age cannot conduct ourselves in a manner that befits our supposed maturity and wisdom, then why are we throwing stone at those who don't meet our arbitrary requirments?  Requirements that, may I remind you, many of the founders and their early students were not subjected to.


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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 23, 2012)

Zenjael said:


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## chinto (Mar 23, 2012)

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


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 23, 2012)

K-man said:


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


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

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


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 23, 2012)

chinto said:


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


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


----------



## K-man (Mar 24, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Apparently Kano thought differently.  And I will say that I disagree with you; I think that if you train from an early age and are focused and driven, you can be a masterful technician by twenty one.  But most will not train that hard or that consistently, and most are not that focused or driven.  Thus such a person would be the exception, not the rule.
> 
> And before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not talking about prodigies.  Just years of hard work.  Yes, some kids are capable of focusing, working towards, and achieving goals that are normally achieved by older people.


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

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

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


----------



## Gnarlie (Mar 24, 2012)

Zenjael said:


> English is a language which has over 1,000,000 words, and you want to nitpick when 'tivoing' is a verb? Sheesh, I thought I was anal... I said sorry, if you'd like to keep harping, feel free. But at that point I'd like to see your linguistic degree, and study history in relation to English. I happen to be taking it as a minor, so if you want to get into that side of things I'd be happy to.
> 
> English is a language where we use words which don't exist, until 'recognized' by some group which decides what words to 'add' to the language.
> 
> Would you like me to go on about language? Or can we let the matter drop?



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

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

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

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

Here's what the OED has to say:

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

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


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 24, 2012)

K-man said:


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



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



Zenjael said:


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Zenjael said:


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



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



dancingalone said:


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



Hmm. Show your work.

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

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



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Not entirely.  There are also seven tachi kata and three kodachi kata, as well as bokuto waza.  In theory, you could learn all of the shinai waza, bokuto waza (Bokuto Ni Yoru Kendo Kihon-waza Keiko-ho), and kata without ever donning bogu.  In practice, unless you have some special arrangement with the sensei, you probably won't learn any more than the bokuto waza and the first three kata, depending on the club.
> 
> But in terms of what the art contains, there is actually plenty that you can do without shiai.  But again, your kendo will not develop if you leave that element out and you'd be better off finding an iai or koryu kenjutsu school.



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

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



Daniel Sullivan said:


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



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


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 24, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


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


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

Regarding kendo, see the response you quoted.



Chris Parker said:


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


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

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



Chris Parker said:


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


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


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 25, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


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



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

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



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Regarding kendo, see the response you quoted.



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



Daniel Sullivan said:


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


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



Daniel Sullivan said:


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



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



Daniel Sullivan said:


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



Yeah, but I always prefer limiting confusion...


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 26, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


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


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



Chris Parker said:


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


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



Chris Parker said:


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



I will repeat what I said in my last post: 

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

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



Chris Parker said:


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


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



Chris Parker said:


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


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



Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, but I always prefer limiting confusion...


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

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


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 26, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


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



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



Daniel Sullivan said:


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



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



Daniel Sullivan said:


> I will repeat what I said in my last post:
> 
> _You don't spar right away, but you are still training in the system. However, if you never spar, then you will be stuck at a beginner level. As I said earlier, sure you can practice waza and kata, both shinai and bokuto, but if you never spar, then your kendo will always be that of a rank beginner. It's still kendo, and if you never spar, you will never grade for ikyu (the AUSKF has organizational gradings for ikyu and higher grades). So if you practice for fifty years and stay at a beginner level, yes, you're doing kendo, but you are not progressing in the system.
> 
> _So, yes, you're training in it, but you are not progressing, and if a student prolongs their non-participation in keiko, then as an instructor, I'd like to know why. It could be as simple as being unable to afford bogu. The student could have a medical condition that precludes participation, though that should be disclosed at the outset of training. If they just 'don't feel like doing that', then sure, I'd say that they're still training in kendo, but that they are stunting their own development due to a lack of maturity or some other underlying issue.



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



Daniel Sullivan said:


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



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



Daniel Sullivan said:


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



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



Daniel Sullivan said:


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



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



Daniel Sullivan said:


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



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


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 26, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


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


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



Chris Parker said:


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


Not *you *you, Chris.  The general you.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 26, 2012)

K-man said:


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


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

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



K-man said:


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


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

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



K-man said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## K-man (Mar 26, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Okay: so if _there are not too many 21 year olds that would be capable of carrying that rank_, then you are in essence saying that a 21 year old can be a sixth dan.
> 
> As far as prodigies are concerned, I wasn't excluding them from being able to achieve; only that my statement is not in reference to them.  That, and most so-called prodigies are not prodigies; just people who did the work.  Because they're young, their effort is written off as them being 'prodigies.'
> 
> ...


Perhaps you might re-read the OP. It makes no reference to judo that I can see and I have no idea of *punisher73*&#8203;'s area of interest.  Further, it is posted in the 'General Martial Arts' section. I may have missed the information in a following post but I thought this was a generic discussion. What I know about Judo is pretty basic so if the OP was about judo then fair enough. It fits my category of sport and achievement through sporting results.

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


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 26, 2012)

K-man said:


> Perhaps you might re-read the OP. It makes no reference to judo that I can see and I have no idea of *punisher73*&#8203;'s area of interest. Further, it is posted in the 'General Martial Arts' section. I may have missed the information in a following post but I thought this was a generic discussion. What I know about Judo is pretty basic so if the OP was about judo then fair enough. It fits my category of sport and achievement through sporting results.


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



K-man said:


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


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

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

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



K-man said:


> You are saying it would be most unlikely in BJJ


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

Earlier, you said this:


K-man said:


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


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

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

In the post above, you said this:


K-man said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## puunui (Mar 27, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


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



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


----------



## puunui (Mar 27, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


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



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


----------



## puunui (Mar 27, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm. Show your work.



What does that mean? 



Chris Parker said:


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



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

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

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

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



Chris Parker said:


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



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




Chris Parker said:


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



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


----------



## puunui (Mar 27, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


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



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


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 27, 2012)

puunui said:


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


Personally, I don't exclude them.  

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

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

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


----------



## K-man (Mar 27, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


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



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



Daniel Sullivan said:


> I read the OP and the follow up posts, so we do know that the 21 year old yukdan that he was talking about in the OP was revealed a few posts later to be one of Kano's students in the art of judo.
> 
> You are quite correct. I missed that post but I was on the money when I said not this day and age.  Now, knowing that that, let's look at the facts.
> 
> ...


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

:bs1:


----------



## Kenlee25 (Mar 27, 2012)

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

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

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


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 28, 2012)

K-man said:


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



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



K-man said:


> You are quite correct. I missed that post but I was on the money when I said not this day and age. Now, knowing that that, let's look at the facts.
> 
> Kyuzo Mifune, born 1883, started judo at age *13*. By my maths that would be about 1896. He joined Kano's Kodokan in 1903. Once again I'll point out the maths. He started with the Kodokan at age 20. After 15 months of training he achieved the rank of *SHODAN*. If you are still with me, 20 plus 1 = 21 . Just to restate the facts Mifune was 1st Dan at 21. From here he progressed rapidly. According to my references he made 6th dan about 1912. Still a remarkable achievement but he was now 29. He was also very good. He was Kodokan champion each year so he could carry the rank. He was awarded 10th Dan at about age 62.




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



K-man said:


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




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

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




K-man said:


> Within the karate I study, it is not the learning of kata or the ability to win tournaments that matter. It is the total understanding of a kata that takes a lot of study and needs some excellent guidance. Multiply that by about 10 kata to be at that level and you have spent a lifetime, not just a few years or even decades.
> 
> In the Aikido we study, I am trying to learn to use KI. This is not something that you pick up in a year or two. It is not just the biomechanics and angles that you can learn very quickly.




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




K-man said:


> That 6th Dan at 21 is BS.





K-man said:


> That's my opinion.



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



K-man said:


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


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


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 28, 2012)

Kenlee25 said:


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


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

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



Kenlee25 said:


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


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

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


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 28, 2012)

puunui said:


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



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



puunui said:


> What does that mean?



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



puunui said:


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



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



puunui said:


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



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

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



puunui said:


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



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

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

Seriously flawed argument, Glenn.



puunui said:


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



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

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



puunui said:


> Are they not practicing karate, kendo or aikido?



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



puunui said:


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



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



puunui said:


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



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

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

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

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



puunui said:


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



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


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 28, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


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


Except that kendo isn't geared totally around shiai.  Some people who practice kendo never compete.  Nor is keiko geared entirely around preparation for shiai.  

Again, this is all hypothetical, but essentially, the element of sparring would be jigeiko, not shiai geiko.  Ji geiko is free sparring where the student can practice techniques with an opponent in undirected practice with no pressure to win.  

_Why_ someone would be unwilling to participate in ji geiko, assuming that affording the bogu is not an issue, is what I would want to know.  Is it a fear factor?  Do they feel unready?  Are they embarrassed?  Do they have severe asthma and are under doctors orders not to do that sort of thing?

Delineating my students into 'he's doing kendo' and 'he's just practicing sword strokes' does not interest me.  Within the art, everything is kendo.  If you practice sword strokes at home to a youtube video, you're practicing sword strokes to a youtube video.  If you are training at a club or under a sensei, or are practicing what you had learned when you did so at some point in the past, then you are doing kendo as far as I am concerned, regardless of how much of the system you have immersed yourself in.


----------



## puunui (Mar 28, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


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



Even within that context, I still don't believe that using hundred dollar words = smart. If anything, it = insecurity and the need to appear smart. Same with using foreign words which people have to look up. I'm not into it. 



Chris Parker said:


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



Gee, thanks. I think.




Chris Parker said:


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



You are using the phrase exclude people from the art, if they fail to train in what you believe are all its key aspects. That is what I mean by exclusive/inclusive. Your definition excludes people. My definition tries to include as many people as possible.



Chris Parker said:


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



There you go again, defining the term to your liking and then excluding others, which in this case are kenpo karate students, at least those who trained under Professor Chow. Professor Chow's karate did not have forms, and yet it is still called karate. Therefore, the practice of kata is not essential to "doing karate". 



Chris Parker said:


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



I figured you to be an apartment renter type, not living in a house. But no matter. I am pretty sure that you have watched more youtube videos than I have, because frankly, I don't really watch that many. I can go months without opening up youtube. You on the other hand liberally cite to many youtube videos in your posts. You even teach or instruct others on how to embed youtube video links into their MT posts. You have clearly cited to more youtube videos in the first three months of this year on MT than I have watched over the last year or more on youtube. There was one particular post that I remember seeing that you posted which had so many links I couldn't get through them all. Some were very long, others on topics which I did not have any interest in. For youtube, the ones that I do tend to watch are those that others have sent links to me, like the ones you link to. I'm just not that into youtube, unlike you, which you demonstrate in your posts. I don't need a video camera at your house. No one does. 



Chris Parker said:


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



His partners were taking falls, but he hasn't. In fact, to use one of your debate tactics, I would say that there is no evidence that Ueshiba Sensei took falls for anyone during the last 40 or more years of his life. But if you wish to do a google or youtube search in an effort to prove me wrong, be my guest. In other words, "show your work". 



Chris Parker said:


> Seriously flawed argument, Glenn.



You do it all the time, with your "there is no evidence" pitch. 



Chris Parker said:


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



My answer (having studied kendo, have you?) as well as that answer of daniel (who teaches kendo) is yes. You say no, as shown below. 




Chris Parker said:


> Provided they are training as the system dictates (kata for karate systems who utilise it... which is all the Okinawan and Japanese ones, sparring for Kendo, and falling for Aikido). They don't have to be doing those exact elements at any given time for it to be considered training in, or "doing" the art, but those aspects have to be present in their training overall.



This is a matter of opinion; there is no right or wrong answer. 



Chris Parker said:


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



Is it? What karate style does not utilize the makiwara? Even Professor Chow used it. In fact, he was famous for it. 




Chris Parker said:


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



It's not passive aggressive, but rather is an assessment of what you do. I can understand how you would be upset about it, especially if your perception of yourself is different from what others think.  



Chris Parker said:


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



Yes, actually you are exclusive. Your opinions on this particular subject is just one example of many you've put out there over the years. Nothing inherently wrong with being exclusive. It just is the way you think. A lot of people think in terms of exclusivity, kids cannot hold black belts, and so forth. 



Chris Parker said:


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



You completely misunderstood what I meant by "unnecessary statements". Swing and a miss, Parker Sensei. 



Chris Parker said:


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



I think we already discussed your propensity to veer off on tangents. And the only thing we have "established" is that koryo is not for me. With respect to you and koryo, I believe you have disclosed that you lead an unauthorized unrecognized "study group" but that you are attempting to maintain certain relationships in the hopes of one day being recognized. I think you also mentioned that you go see someone into another part of australia once a month or so for training. You also pretty much admitted that you don't have any Japanese ancestry, have never been to Japan and don't speak Japanese. One question though, do you have any teaching licenses for any of the koryu you study? I don't think so, which may or may not be the real source of your seemingly constant annoyance and frustrations, at least as your MT posts seem to indicate. Poor alex.




Chris Parker said:


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



No actually I did not miss the point. And I would ask you to "stop with the passive/aggressive digs, you're way off base (as has been explained to you)", but I know you can't help yourself.


----------



## puunui (Mar 28, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Except that kendo isn't geared totally around shiai.  Some people who practice kendo never compete.  Nor is keiko geared entirely around preparation for shiai.
> 
> Again, this is all hypothetical, but essentially, the element of sparring would be jigeiko, not shiai geiko.  Ji geiko is free sparring where the student can practice techniques with an opponent in undirected practice with no pressure to win.



I caulk it up to the exclusive inclusive duality. You and I are trying to include people. Parker Sensei wants to exclude people. That in a nutshell is the issue. It might be a koryu thing. Koryu seems to be pretty exclusive, especially when it comes to teaching licenses and such. But arts such as aikido, kendo, karate and even taekwondo seem to be made for widespread distribution to anyone and everyone, the more the merrier. Not better or "wrong", simply different strokes for different folks.


----------



## K-man (Mar 28, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> [/COLOR]
> [/COLOR]Speaking tongue and cheek is a bit different from calling BS.  One is humor while the other is, regardless of how it is dressed up or worded, disrespectful to both the person who holds the grade and to the person who issued it.  And with the general lack of information given at that point, I wasn't even going to attempt to seriously evaluate the person in question.[/COLOR]
> 
> This is possibly the case, although, at the time of posting that was not my intention.  (I have a different sense of humour obviously.)
> ...


To my mind, there is an enormous difference between a child advancing through junior ranks and an adult. I have seen all sorts of methods employed to keep children at a rank appropriate for their age and ability, yet still impart to he child a recognition of the effort and dedication that the child has exhibited. This includes coloured belts that rival the colours of the rainbow, multiple tips and sometimes even an understanding that if you are an eight year old peewee black belt then you will be awarded 5th kyu as junior with a similar transition to senior ranks. If you are a senior black belt I feel you needs to be able to defend that rank physically, technically and mentally.  I have seen a 13 year old pushed to obtain an adult black belt in an adult black belt grading and it made a mockery of the kumite part of that grading.

The progression through the ranks as a child is totally different to progression through the ranks as an adult.  If someone with a rank of Shodan in my style of karate were to go to Okinawa and have daily hands on training with one of the top practitioners at the Jundokan and he was trained and tested to the appropriate level over a period of say four years and was graded to 6th Dan, then I would have no problem in accepting that.  (I do have a huge problem with the guys that go to Okinawa or Japan and buy their next grade!)

Adult progression through demonstration of ability and understanding could also be accelerated. Someone with competencies in one style of karate transfering to another style might also progress at a more rapid rate than normal. Once again, I feel comfortable with that.  21 year old 6th Dan, I am most uncomfortable.
:asian:


----------



## Kenlee25 (Mar 28, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> So basically, you're saying that its BS because he got there quicker than you did.  No offense, but that really isn't a very good reason for calling BS sight unseen.  Kind of like saying that you left the starting line first so that other faster guy has no business crossing the finish line before you.
> 
> Did you ever consider that maybe he trained twice as hard and was exceptionally interested in the art's philosophy and in learning the depth of the art?  You'll call bs simply because he stared later in life than you did, even though by your own admission, you didn't test for several years??
> 
> ...




I didn't mean it that way. By street fighting, I meant he has had to use TKD on the street. Most martial artists will never have to use their art. I'm not even sure if my actual master has had to use it. 

and no I'm not mad. Yes he could have gone to more classes than I did, but even so, reaching 6th takes many years. I think a lot more years than someone can reach at 21 only starting at 15. That's just my belief however. I called BS because in TKD at least, it would take upwards of 3 - 4 years just to get to a third degree alone. Even when I was going twice a week testing whenever I could, I only made it to my 4th/6 testings in my second degree in about 3 or 4 years. I was basing the assumption off of my standards which I guess I should not do, sorry.

But you guys now say he's 29, so that sounds a lot better.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 29, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Except that kendo isn't geared totally around shiai.  Some people who practice kendo never compete.  Nor is keiko geared entirely around preparation for shiai.


 
While agreeing that it's not centered entirely around competition (although that is the context of modern Kendo's development... pre-war, well, that's a different story...), I wasn't meaning to refer to competition. But the proper term escaped my mind for a moment.

With regard to keiko being geared entirely around preparation for shiai (that's practice being geared entirely around preparation for competition, for Glenn who doesn't like fancy foreign words...), I can think of a few aspects that aren't, but the overall aim is for application in shiai, whether or not that is realized by the practitioner themselves.  



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Again, this is all hypothetical, but essentially, the element of sparring would be jigeiko, not shiai geiko.  Ji geiko is free sparring where the student can practice techniques with an opponent in undirected practice with no pressure to win.


 
Yeah, that's the term I was searching for... thanks! Now, with that in mind, if you never train in jigeiko, are you really doing Kendo (inclusive), or just bits of it, and missing one of the integral aspects that makes what you're doing actually Kendo in the first place? My take is the latter. 



Daniel Sullivan said:


> _Why_ someone would be unwilling to participate in ji geiko, assuming that affording the bogu is not an issue, is what I would want to know.  Is it a fear factor?  Do they feel unready?  Are they embarrassed?  Do they have severe asthma and are under doctors orders not to do that sort of thing?



Yeah, I'd want to find out as well. It's kinda like going to swimming lessons and not wanting to get in the water. If there are doctors orders regarding their participation, honestly, I'd suggest to them that they can't do Kendo until such time that such problems are overcome.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Delineating my students into 'he's doing kendo' and 'he's just practicing sword strokes' does not interest me.  Within the art, everything is kendo.  If you practice sword strokes at home to a youtube video, you're practicing sword strokes to a youtube video.  If you are training at a club or under a sensei, or are practicing what you had learned when you did so at some point in the past, then you are doing kendo as far as I am concerned, regardless of how much of the system you have immersed yourself in.



Here's where we're getting into some confusion. To stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in the club, then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet. Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring. However, if they don't spar because it's not part of the schools training methods, I'd say no-one in the club is doing Kendo, as they're missing a huge part of it.

Does this make sense now?

Right, Glenn. Honestly, son, I'm getting a little fed up with this.



puunui said:


> Even within that context, I still don't believe that using hundred dollar words = smart. If anything, it = insecurity and the need to appear smart. Same with using foreign words which people have to look up. I'm not into it.



 Then you really didn't get the context.

Alex has been using unusual and convoluted language, often incorrectly, and when questioned on it, gave his reasoning that it's because he's writing academic papers, and he's required to use such language. It was suggested to him that there is no real point in using "$10 words where a 10 cent one will work". His response was that he thought the term "$10 words" was a good one, and that the theory was that using big words = smart (in other words, in order to appear smart in his academic papers, and here as well, he is using more complex language). I pointed out that that would only work if the big words were used correctly, and that to use them incorrectly shows a lack of intelligence, while at the same time, a desire to be seen as intelligent.

You then turn up and try to argue against my comment by repeating the exact same thing that sparked the discussion in the first place, that $10 words aren't needed, which was never argued against by anyone but Alex in justifying his poor use of language.

And when it comes to certain specialist areas, particular jargon (in some cases such as martial arts, foreign terms) actually make for easier communication. If you don't like them, fine. But they do have quite a valid reason for being used.



puunui said:


> Gee, thanks. I think.



 That wasn't a compliment, Glenn. Mind you, it wasn't really an insult either.



puunui said:


> You are using the phrase exclude people from the art, if they fail to train in what you believe are all its key aspects. That is what I mean by exclusive/inclusive. Your definition excludes people. My definition tries to include as many people as possible.



  Firstly, I never used that phrase. Secondly, I'm not excluding anyone, I'm just looking to see whether or not they are actually part of it. If someone isn't training in an art, I'm not about to say they are. You seem to just need them to put on a uniform and pay their enrollment, I'm more concerned with what they're actually doing.



puunui said:


> There you go again, defining the term to your liking and then excluding others, which in this case are kenpo karate students, at least those who trained under Professor Chow. Professor Chow's karate did not have forms, and yet it is still called karate. Therefore, the practice of kata is not essential to "doing karate".



  Good god, Glenn, you know full well what the context of Dancingalone's comment was. "Doing karate" was not meant to infer such exceptions, it was to refer to the more "standard", or common form, meaning the Okinawan and Japanese forms. And I already dealt with the way such things would work for your exception, kata wouldn't be the defining aspect, but there would be others training methods that would be.



puunui said:


> I figured you to be an apartment renter type, not living in a house. But no matter. I am pretty sure that you have watched more youtube videos than I have, because frankly, I don't really watch that many.



That's not your inference, though, Glenn. It's that all my information comes from you-tube, something that you have really no evidence for nor any basis for saying, other than your inaccurate perception and what you would class as circumstantial evidence. You see you-tube clips in some of my posts, so that must be where I got it from... no, Glenn. It isn't.



puunui said:


> I can go months without opening up youtube. You on the other hand liberally cite to many youtube videos in your posts. You even teach or instruct others on how to embed youtube video links into their MT posts.


 
That's part of my role as a Mentor here, Glenn, helping people use the forum and it's software properly. There are a range of reasons that embedding is preferred, some of which I've given, some I haven't, as well as being a range of reasons that there are numerous sticky threads on how to embed videos. It's the preferred method here, coming from the top down. If you don't like it, or my showing people how to do it, talk to Bob.



puunui said:


> You have clearly cited to more youtube videos in the first three months of this year on MT than I have watched over the last year or more on youtube. There was one particular post that I remember seeing that you posted which had so many links I couldn't get through them all. Some were very long, others on topics which I did not have any interest in. For youtube, the ones that I do tend to watch are those that others have sent links to me, like the ones you link to. I'm just not that into youtube, unlike you, which you demonstrate in your posts. I don't need a video camera at your house. No one does.



 I have to say, what does this really have to do with anything? You don't watch a lot of things on you-tube, okay, so what? If you're not interested in some of the topic matter in some of the clips I link, don't watch them. I'm really not sure how on earth my utilising a common device, in a way that the forum software is specifically designed to take advantage of, in order to demonstrate my points where the written word can be fairly limiting, gets to the point where you're using it as some kind of attack on myself.

And you say I go off on tangents... 



puunui said:


> His partners were taking falls, but he hasn't. In fact, to use one of your debate tactics, I would say that there is no evidence that Ueshiba Sensei took falls for anyone during the last 40 or more years of his life. But if you wish to do a google or youtube search in an effort to prove me wrong, be my guest. In other words, "show your work".



 You're kidding, right? Firstly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Secondly, when can you think of any teacher, when teaching or demonstrating the techniques, being the one receiving them in this way? So when you have only seen video of Ueshiba demonstrating, why would you think that that's all he did, or taught? And finally, if he, due to his position, didn't take falls (act as uke) for the last 40 years of his career, does that mean that falling was not part of his Aikido training? Or do you just like putting up non-arguments with no basis?



puunui said:


> You do it all the time, with your "there is no evidence" pitch.



  Citation, please. Relevant to your posting here.



puunui said:


> My answer (having studied kendo, have you?) as well as that answer of daniel (who teaches kendo) is yes. You say no, as shown below.



 Yeah, I say no. To take Alex as an example again, he posted a video of himself doing what he called "Mixed Martial Art sparring", and claimed that there was Wing Chun, Aikido, Judo, "Acujutsu" (sic), Isshin Ryu, Shotokan, Moo Duk Kwan, Muay Thai, Jiu-jitsu, and many more. When pressed, as no Wing Chun guys could see any, no Judo guys could see any, and so on, he claimed that using a vertical fist meant there was Wing Chun in there, a step to avoid a throw meant there was Judo, a swordhand meant there was Isshin Ryu, and so on. Now, if we are looking at these arts and saying that if only one or two parts are actually trained (ignoring the way that Alex did them being completely against the principles of each of those systems he thought he was using), are you actually doing Wing Chun just because you're using some of it's striking methods? Or do you need something more? Such as it's actual training methods?

It's the same here. If you're not training in the methods of the system itself, but more picking and choosing bits of it, then you're not doing the system, you're doing bits and pieces.



puunui said:


> This is a matter of opinion; there is no right or wrong answer.



 And I presented it as my opinion. But, for the record, it's the right one.



puunui said:


> Is it? What karate style does not utilize the makiwara? Even Professor Chow used it. In fact, he was famous for it.



  Makiwara wasn't a part of the karate system I trained in, nor is it that common in Japanese systems (some do use it quite a bit, others don't really use it at all, unless the student wants to). It's far more common in the Okinawan systems.



puunui said:


> It's not passive aggressive, but rather is an assessment of what you do. I can understand how you would be upset about it, especially if your perception of yourself is different from what others think.



 No, Glenn, it's not an assessment of what I do ("using google and youtube"), it's your incorrect take on things. And seriously, "my perception" of where I get my information from is not really up for debate against where others think I get it from. You have less than a leg to stand on there. So quit it.



puunui said:


> Yes, actually you are exclusive. Your opinions on this particular subject is just one example of many you've put out there over the years. Nothing inherently wrong with being exclusive. It just is the way you think. A lot of people think in terms of exclusivity, kids cannot hold black belts, and so forth.



 No, I don't exclude anyone, Glenn, I let them exclude themselves. But I'm not sure you'll get what I mean by that.



puunui said:


> You completely misunderstood what I meant by "unnecessary statements". Swing and a miss, Parker Sensei.



 Back to the usage of Japanese honorifics, Glenn? And I addressed every part of the comment you quoted, and don't feel that any part of it was unnecessary, as it all had a point to make. So unless you're doing what Alex does, and meaning things that aren't present in what you're writing, there's really no other way to take what you posted and quoted.



puunui said:


> I think we already discussed your propensity to veer off on tangents.



Me, Glenn? Seriously? Shall I turn this into a discussion of where you got all your information from, as it seems to me that you have spent time socialising with people, but don't actually have any real personal accomplishments of your own to speak of? And your insistence that you have any understanding of anything to do with a wider range of martial arts shows that your only source of information is your own lack on knowledge and experience? 

Drop the matter, Glenn. You don't have an arguement. Just like I haven't been there with you throughout your training life, you haven't been there during the last 3 decades with me, as I obtained (and continue to obtain) the information I have. 



puunui said:


> And the only thing we have "established" is that koryo is not for me.



Hmm, "koryo"? I kinda figured that'd be more for you than it would for me... 

But if you meant "Koryu", well, we've established more than that... you continue to demonstrate (in conversations with others as well) that you have no clue about Koryu, you don't know what they're about, how they're trained, what they're like, how they're structured, or anything of the kind.



puunui said:


> With respect to you and koryo, I believe you have disclosed that you lead an unauthorized unrecognized "study group" but that you are attempting to maintain certain relationships in the hopes of one day being recognized.



No, that's not really correct. 



puunui said:


> I think you also mentioned that you go see someone into another part of australia once a month or so for training.



That's completely incorrect.



puunui said:


> You also pretty much admitted that you don't have any Japanese ancestry, have never been to Japan and don't speak Japanese.



Japanese ancestry? What on earth does that have to do with anything?

And I've never "admitted", confirmed, or denied any of the kind for all of the above. You've assumed, but that's about it.



puunui said:


> One question though, do you have any teaching licenses for any of the koryu you study? I don't think so, which may or may not be the real source of your seemingly constant annoyance and frustrations, at least as your MT posts seem to indicate. Poor alex.



 Wow, are you out of the ballpark here... holding or not holding teaching licences for my Koryu traditions would have no bearing on my posts, especially when it comes to people such as yourself, or Alex (or any others, really). It would only have relevance if we were discussing the specific Ryu I have experience with. You really aren't that good an armchair psychologist, Glenn. 



puunui said:


> No actually I did not miss the point. And I would ask you to "stop with the passive/aggressive digs, you're way off base (as has been explained to you)", but I know you can't help yourself.



No, you really did miss the point. Completely.


----------



## K-man (Mar 29, 2012)

Kenlee25 said:


> With all of that said, seeing as I started before him, have been training in the same art for longer than him yet STILL do not have a third degree....I CALL BS!
> 
> What we have established is that the OP's reference was Kyuzo Mifune, one of the world's best judo men, not TKD. He trained under the founder of Judo in Kano's dojo.  Even among the best of the best at the time, he was the champion. In Judo, technical ability plays a huge part. They don't have to have an understanding of kata or bunkai as we do in karate and you do to a limited extent in TKD.  In this example there was a misunderstanding regarding the age of the man.  Knowing what we now know about the identity of the person, and the fact that he was actually a fair bit older, I have no problem with his being awarded 6th Dan.
> 
> ...





Kenlee25 said:


> I didn't mean it that way. By street fighting, I meant he has had to use TKD on the street. Most martial artists will never have to use their art. I'm not even sure if my actual master has had to use it.
> 
> Being able to use your MA to defend youself on the street is admirable but IMHO should play absolutely no part in your grade.
> 
> ...


Cheers!  :asian:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 29, 2012)

Kenlee25 said:


> I didn't mean it that way. By street fighting, I meant he has had to use TKD on the street. Most martial artists will never have to use their art. I'm not even sure if my actual master has had to use it.


Or your actual master uses it every day.  Not all elements of taekwondo are physical, after all.  Using the non physical elements to live one's life is actually practicing at a higher level than that of using the physical skills.  I said this over on your 'is sparring essential thread' and I will say it here: the benefits of sparring and of practicing a martial art in general are the cultivation of one's spirit.  If you cultivate that, the rest falls into place.



Kenlee25 said:


> and no I'm not mad. Yes he could have gone to more classes than I did, but even so, reaching 6th takes many years. I think a lot more years than someone can reach at 21 only starting at 15. That's just my belief however. I called BS because in TKD at least, it would take upwards of 3 - 4 years just to get to a third degree alone. Even when I was going twice a week testing whenever I could, I only made it to my 4th/6 testings in my second degree in about 3 or 4 years. I was basing the assumption off of my standards which I guess I should not do, sorry.


Mad never entered the picture; only calling BS.  My point really was that each person's progress will be different based on the peculiarities of their lives.  Some people have the time and inclination to show up for class five days a week.  Some may have the inclination, but not the time.

Also, different arts have different time in grade requirements.  BJJ, from what I understand, has rougly a ten year period from beginner to first dan.  Time enough to reach fourth dan in most arts.



Kenlee25 said:


> But you guys now say he's 29, so that sounds a lot better.


K-Man says he is, and I'm inclined to believe him.  I haven't been concerned enough to fact check it.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 29, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> While agreeing that it's not centered entirely around competition (although that is the context of modern Kendo's development... pre-war, well, that's a different story...), I wasn't meaning to refer to competition. But the proper term escaped my mind for a moment.
> 
> With regard to keiko being geared entirely around preparation for shiai (that's practice being geared entirely around preparation for competition, for Glenn who doesn't like fancy foreign words...), I can think of a few aspects that aren't, but the overall aim is for application in shiai, whether or not that is realized by the practitioner themselves.
> 
> Yeah, that's the term I was searching for... thanks! Now, with that in mind, if you never train in jigeiko, are you really doing Kendo (inclusive), or just bits of it, and missing one of the integral aspects that makes what you're doing actually Kendo in the first place? My take is the latter.


Well, you don't train in jigeiko; you participate in it in order to try out the things that you have been training without the pressure of winning or losing.  Jigeiko is simply undirected practice.  But it is still just practice.  Shiai geiko is training for shiai.  Essentially a scrimmage.

I don't see very many circumstances where Dancingalone's query (kendo without sparring) could realistically occur.  I had mentioned some possibilities in a previous post; unable to afford bogu, medical condition, or some mental block, be it fear, embarrassment, or something else.  
As I had said before; people who don't want to or can't spar are generally put off by kendo anyway.



Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, I'd want to find out as well. It's kinda like going to swimming lessons and not wanting to get in the water. If there are doctors orders regarding their participation, honestly, I'd suggest to them that they can't do Kendo until such time that such problems are overcome.


I disagree.  It would be more like showing up at the pool with the swim team, doing all of the drills and exercises, but never wanting to swim laps with the other swimmer.

The reason that I would want to find out is not so that I can get them sparring, but because I'd like to try to help them overcome the obstacle so that they can live a better life, as such obstacles likely affect more than just kendo practice.  Getting them sparring is a fringe bennefit.



Chris Parker said:


> Here's where we're getting into some confusion. To stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in the club, then yeah, *they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet.* Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring.


The bolded pretty much sums up my opinion.  If it takes them twenty years to get up to sparring, or if they die before they get up to sparring, they've still been doing kendo.  

If they quit before they get up to sparring, then they were still doing kendo, but didn't get that far.



Chris Parker said:


> However, if they don't spar because it's not part of the schools training methods, I'd say no-one in the club is doing Kendo, as they're missing a huge part of it.


Not _ZNKR_ kendo.  I'm not sure if there's sparring in Shin kendo, for example.



Chris Parker said:


> Does this make sense now?


Sure.  It made sense before.  And it isn't so much that I agree or disagree with you, but that I'm looking at it from a different perspective.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 29, 2012)

puunui said:


> I caulk it up to the exclusive inclusive duality. You and I are trying to include people. Parker Sensei wants to exclude people. That in a nutshell is the issue. It might be a koryu thing. Koryu seems to be pretty exclusive, especially when it comes to teaching licenses and such. But arts such as aikido, kendo, karate and even taekwondo seem to be made for widespread distribution to anyone and everyone, the more the merrier. Not better or "wrong", simply different strokes for different folks.


I chalk it up to how people classify things.  Some people tend to compartmentalize things in very specific ways.  These are the people that I want running the book store and the library.  These are the people that I want doing scientific work and historical studies.  There is definitely a need for that type of categorization.  People who categorize like that tend do so in all areas.  I know, because I am one of them.  It made me the best parts guy at the auto parts store when I worked there.  In that business, it's either the correct part or it isn't.

I had to work to remove that mentality from parts of my life where it either wasn't necessary or where it created barriers to healthy interraction with other people.  

RE. Koryu: From my limited time in a Koryu, I haven't found it to be exclusionary.  Personally, I think that the nature of a koryu makes it less appealing to a wider audience without actively excluding anyone.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 29, 2012)

K-man said:


> In Judo, technical ability plays a huge part. They don't have to have an understanding of kata or bunkai as we do in karate and you do to a limited extent in TKD.


I almost never hear bunkai (bunhae) mentioned in taekwondo discussion.  I know that the KKW textbook has some for each form and from what I have gathered, Chang Hon TKD has it, though how developed it is I don't know.  The subject pops up once in a blue moon, but it definitely is not anywhere near as prominent as it is in karate styles.


----------



## puunui (Mar 29, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> With regard to keiko being geared entirely around preparation for shiai (that's practice being geared entirely around preparation for competition, for Glenn who doesn't like fancy foreign words...)



Parker Sensei, what about keiko shiai? What does that mean? And it's not that I don't like "fancy foreign words", I just think that we shouldn't be using them if we can avoid it because they serve to exclude others from following the discussion.



Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, I'd want to find out as well. It's kinda like going to swimming lessons and not wanting to get in the water.



Or it's like taking swimming lessons, and never entering swimming contests. You're still swimming.



Chris Parker said:


> Here's where we're getting into some confusion. To stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in the club, then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet. Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring. However, if they don't spar because it's not part of the schools training methods, I'd say no-one in the club is doing Kendo, as they're missing a huge part of it.



You just conceded the point of the discussion.



Chris Parker said:


> Right, Glenn. Honestly, son, I'm getting a little fed up with this.



Parker Sensei, you tend to get fed up, frustrated and mad a lot, not just at me, but a lot of posters on MT and other forums as well.



Chris Parker said:


> Then you really didn't get the context.



I don't care about the context.



Chris Parker said:


> Alex has been using unusual and convoluted language, often incorrectly, and when questioned on it, gave his reasoning that it's because he's writing academic papers, and he's required to use such language. It was suggested to him that there is no real point in using "$10 words where a 10 cent one will work". His response was that he thought the term "$10 words" was a good one, and that the theory was that using big words = smart (in other words, in order to appear smart in his academic papers, and here as well, he is using more complex language). I pointed out that that would only work if the big words were used correctly, and that to use them incorrectly shows a lack of intelligence, while at the same time, a desire to be seen as intelligent.
> 
> You then turn up and try to argue against my comment by repeating the exact same thing that sparked the discussion in the first place, that $10 words aren't needed, which was never argued against by anyone but Alex in justifying his poor use of language.
> 
> And when it comes to certain specialist areas, particular jargon (in some cases such as martial arts, foreign terms) actually make for easier communication. If you don't like them, fine. But they do have quite a valid reason for being used.



Whatever.



Chris Parker said:


> That wasn't a compliment, Glenn. Mind you, it wasn't really an insult either.



ok.




Chris Parker said:


> Firstly, I never used that phrase. Secondly, I'm not excluding anyone, I'm just looking to see whether or not they are actually part of it. If someone isn't training in an art, I'm not about to say they are. You seem to just need them to put on a uniform and pay their enrollment, I'm more concerned with what they're actually doing.



I'm more concerned with including everyone, or, not excluding someone because they fail to live up to my own arbitrary narrow definition of what is or isn't "doing" whatever martial art.



Chris Parker said:


> Good god, Glenn, you know full well what the context of Dancingalone's comment was. "Doing karate" was not meant to infer such exceptions, it was to refer to the more "standard", or common form, meaning the Okinawan and Japanese forms. And I already dealt with the way such things would work for your exception, kata wouldn't be the defining aspect, but there would be others training methods that would be.



Kenpo karate is not an exception. But thank you Parker Sensei, I will use your quote above when you bring up exceptions to the general rule type points I bring up in the future.




Chris Parker said:


> That's not your inference, though, Glenn. It's that all my information comes from you-tube, something that you have really no evidence for nor any basis for saying, other than your inaccurate perception and what you would class as circumstantial evidence. You see you-tube clips in some of my posts, so that must be where I got it from... no, Glenn. It isn't.



Not "all". I do believe you engage in at least some actual physical practice and training so there is that. But you obviously rely on google and youtube much more than I do, that is clear, much more than others as well.



Chris Parker said:


> That's part of my role as a Mentor here, Glenn, helping people use the forum and it's software properly. There are a range of reasons that embedding is preferred, some of which I've given, some I haven't, as well as being a range of reasons that there are numerous sticky threads on how to embed videos. It's the preferred method here, coming from the top down. If you don't like it, or my showing people how to do it, talk to Bob.



As you would say, "you completely missed the point on that one". I don't care about your mentoring duties. I brought up the fact that you teach others how to embed their posts with youtube links as further evidence of your familiarity with, and use of, youtube.



Chris Parker said:


> I have to say, what does this really have to do with anything? You don't watch a lot of things on you-tube, okay, so what? If you're not interested in some of the topic matter in some of the clips I link, don't watch them. I'm really not sure how on earth my utilising a common device, in a way that the forum software is specifically designed to take advantage of, in order to demonstrate my points where the written word can be fairly limiting, gets to the point where you're using it as some kind of attack on myself.



it goes to my earlier comment that you probably have watched more youtube video of Ueshiba Sensei than I have. You wanted to know I could possibly know that, without having a video camera in your house. So that is my explanation. Now you ask what does this really have to do with anything. I am just "showing my work", like you requested.



Chris Parker said:


> You're kidding, right? Firstly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Secondly, when can you think of any teacher, when teaching or demonstrating the techniques, being the one receiving them in this way? So when you have only seen video of Ueshiba demonstrating, why would you think that that's all he did, or taught? And finally, if he, due to his position, didn't take falls (act as uke) for the last 40 years of his career, does that mean that falling was not part of his Aikido training? Or do you just like putting up non-arguments with no basis?



Thank you Parker Sensei. More rebuttal quotes for me to use when you bring out your "there is no evidence" for this or that when responding to one of my posts. Forgive me if I quote the above in response to you.





Chris Parker said:


> Citation, please. Relevant to your posting here.



Here's one from the post you just wrote:



Chris Parker said:


> That's not your inference, though, Glenn. It's that all my information comes from you-tube, something that you have really no evidence for nor any basis for saying, other than your inaccurate perception and what you would class as circumstantial evidence. You see you-tube clips in some of my posts, so that must be where I got it from... no, Glenn. It isn't.






Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, I say no. To take Alex as an example again, he posted a video of himself doing what he called "Mixed Martial Art sparring", and claimed that there was Wing Chun, Aikido, Judo, "Acujutsu" (sic), Isshin Ryu, Shotokan, Moo Duk Kwan, Muay Thai, Jiu-jitsu, and many more. When pressed, as no Wing Chun guys could see any, no Judo guys could see any, and so on, he claimed that using a vertical fist meant there was Wing Chun in there, a step to avoid a throw meant there was Judo, a swordhand meant there was Isshin Ryu, and so on. Now, if we are looking at these arts and saying that if only one or two parts are actually trained (ignoring the way that Alex did them being completely against the principles of each of those systems he thought he was using), are you actually doing Wing Chun just because you're using some of it's striking methods? Or do you need something more? Such as it's actual training methods?
> It's the same here. If you're not training in the methods of the system itself, but more picking and choosing bits of it, then you're not doing the system, you're doing bits and pieces.



That's your opinion. No problem.



Chris Parker said:


> And I presented it as my opinion. But, for the record, it's the right one.



If you do say so yourself. 



Chris Parker said:


> Makiwara wasn't a part of the karate system I trained in, nor is it that common in Japanese systems (some do use it quite a bit, others don't really use it at all, unless the student wants to). It's far more common in the Okinawan systems.



Then according to dancingalone's teachers (from Okinawa) as well as Chung Do Kwan founder GM LEE Won Kuk (who studied in Japan), you didn't do karate. According to them, no makiwara, no karate.



Chris Parker said:


> No, Glenn, it's not an assessment of what I do ("using google and youtube"), it's your incorrect take on things. And seriously, "my perception" of where I get my information from is not really up for debate against where others think I get it from. You have less than a leg to stand on there. So quit it.



You quit it. And you really don't like people knowing what you do, do you Parker Sensei? Again, it isn't a big secret, in spite of your denials to the contrary.



Chris Parker said:


> No, I don't exclude anyone, Glenn, I let them exclude themselves. But I'm not sure you'll get what I mean by that.



Correction. You set up the narrow definition and when people don't measure up to your narrow definition, in your opinion, they end up "excluding themselves", again in your opinion.



Chris Parker said:


> Back to the usage of Japanese honorifics, Glenn?



Parker Sensei, if you wish me to address you by your screenname, then you should at least have the courtesy to address me by mine.



Chris Parker said:


> And I addressed every part of the comment you quoted, and don't feel that any part of it was unnecessary, as it all had a point to make. So unless you're doing what Alex does, and meaning things that aren't present in what you're writing, there's really no other way to take what you posted and quoted.



Ok, whatever.



Chris Parker said:


> Me, Glenn? Seriously? Shall I turn this into a discussion of where you got all your information from, as it seems to me that you have spent time socialising with people, but don't actually have any real personal accomplishments of your own to speak of? And your insistence that you have any understanding of anything to do with a wider range of martial arts shows that your only source of information is your own lack on knowledge and experience?



If you say so. I will say that I have "socialized" with many seniors, in the form of lessons, in an effort to build relationships with those seniors and teachers. It's the way knowledge is passed on, through social interaction. This is a different sort of learning, than say, reading webpages and watching youtube videos. I will say that the thing I notice about your postings on various subjects is that it seems very impersonal. You can go on and on about this or that in a sort of cold academic fashion, but a lot of times it does not translate as coming from personal training or experience. I and I believe others would enjoy your posts more if you did interject yourself a little more, instead of it reading like it came from a dry historical webpage.




Chris Parker said:


> Drop the matter, Glenn. You don't have an arguement. Just like I haven't been there with you throughout your training life, you haven't been there during the last 3 decades with me, as I obtained (and continue to obtain) the information I have.



You drop the matter Parker Sensei. Again, people are entitled to their opinions. You obviously liberally exercise this when you give opinions about me and everyone else out there. Funny how when it is directed towards you, you get all upset. Do as I say, not as I do seems to be your motto, Parker Sensei.



Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, "koryo"? I kinda figured that'd be more for you than it would for me...



what can I say, typo.



Chris Parker said:


> But if you meant "Koryu", well, we've established more than that... you continue to demonstrate (in conversations with others as well) that you have no clue about Koryu, you don't know what they're about, how they're trained, what they're like, how they're structured, or anything of the kind. No, that's not really correct. That's completely incorrect.



I'll go look up your posts where you said those things. Or maybe your situation has changed since then. If so, good for you. In my opinion, you need a good teacher to guide you.



Chris Parker said:


> Japanese ancestry? What on earth does that have to do with anything?



With ancestry comes the culture attached to that ancestry. mastercole for example is of scottish ancestry, and he has a much better understanding of scottish culture and ways than I do, mainly because it is part of how he was raised.



Chris Parker said:


> And I've never "admitted", confirmed, or denied any of the kind for all of the above. You've assumed, but that's about it.



You didn't deny it either, and you still don't. And in my business, failure to answer a request for admission means that the request is deemed to be admitted. I'll give you credit though, at least you try not to lie, like some other people would, at least in this situation, so there is hope. If you had visited Japan, for example, no doubt you would have made mention of that in your posts. It is a much different experience to read about Musashi's wooden sword and view it on a webpage than it is to actually travel to Japan and see it for yourself. You kind of remind me of the movie Good Will Hunting, where you can tell us all about the Sistine Chapel, when it was built, and all of that, but you don't know what it smells like.



Chris Parker said:


> Wow, are you out of the ballpark here... holding or not holding teaching licences for my Koryu traditions would have no bearing on my posts, especially when it comes to people such as yourself, or Alex (or any others, really). It would only have relevance if we were discussing the specific Ryu I have experience with.



Ok, so no teaching licenses either. 30 years and only a Ninjutsu 3rd Dan to show for it. That says a lot.




Chris Parker said:


> You really aren't that good an armchair psychologist, Glenn.



Don't need to be Parker Sensei.



Chris Parker said:


> No, you really did miss the point. Completely.



I don't know about that, since you were the one who conceded the point of this whole discussion, at least to daniel.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 30, 2012)

Hi Daniel,



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Well, you don't train in jigeiko; you participate in it in order to try out the things that you have been training without the pressure of winning or losing.  Jigeiko is simply undirected practice.  But it is still just practice.  Shiai geiko is training for shiai.  Essentially a scrimmage.



Yeah, I'd still call that training, though. Just a different form of training.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> I don't see very many circumstances where Dancingalone's query (kendo without sparring) could realistically occur.  I had mentioned some possibilities in a previous post; unable to afford bogu, medical condition, or some mental block, be it fear, embarrassment, or something else.
> As I had said before; people who don't want to or can't spar are generally put off by kendo anyway.



Agreed, but that was kinda the point, really. Without sparring, it's not Kendo. 



Daniel Sullivan said:


> I disagree.  It would be more like showing up at the pool with the swim team, doing all of the drills and exercises, but never wanting to swim laps with the other swimmer.



No, I'd put that as doing the sparring, but not competition. 



Daniel Sullivan said:


> The reason that I would want to find out is not so that I can get them sparring, but because I'd like to try to help them overcome the obstacle so that they can live a better life, as such obstacles likely affect more than just kendo practice.  Getting them sparring is a fringe bennefit.



Yeah, I'd be of the same mind. But I'd still say that if they can't participate in the essential methods of Kendo, then Kendo wouldn't be part of them moving to a better life, at least not in the short term.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> The bolded pretty much sums up my opinion.  If it takes them twenty years to get up to sparring, or if they die before they get up to sparring, they've still been doing kendo.
> 
> If they quit before they get up to sparring, then they were still doing kendo, but didn't get that far.



Well, I don't know if I'd be generous enough to give them 20 years, but essentially, yeah. And it comes down to the school and what the training involves, more than an individual's particular practice at any one moment.

Let's take it back to the original quote itself:


dancingalone said:


> Can you do karate without kata? Can you do kendo without sparring? Can you do aikido without falling?Specific martial arts have immutable parts to them. We can choose to focus on certain aspects to the possible exclusion of the others for periods of time, and that can be a good thing occasionally. However, this can't stand permanently. If you train karate without kata, arguably you're not doing karate. You're doing something else, no matter how much it can resemble karate.



As you can see, Dancingalone was saying that the overall training experience needs to include certain traits, or hallmarks, what he called "immutable parts". The comment was made that you can focus on some (even to the exclusion of those immutable aspects, such as sparring/kata/falling in the examples), but the art, if such things are never part of the training, isn't that art.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Not _ZNKR_ kendo.  I'm not sure if there's sparring in Shin kendo, for example.



Hmm, if you mean Shinkendo, then honestly that's rather irrelevant. It's not Shin Kendo (&#26032;&#21091;&#36947; - "New Kendo"), it's Shinken Do (&#30495;&#21091;&#36947; - "True Sword Way"), and has no relation to Kendo (ZNKR) at all.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Sure.  It made sense before.  And it isn't so much that I agree or disagree with you, but that I'm looking at it from a different perspective.



Honestly, Daniel, it's looked like you missed the actual comment that was being made... it hasn't ever been about a single students training in the moment, it's about what the training (overall) is made up of. So while you've had a different perspective, it wasn't really anything to do with the actual comment or point. Which is what I've been trying to clear up.

Glenn, I'm getting rather fed up with this. You're a grown man, and a lawyer no less. Grow up.



puunui said:


> Parker Sensei, what about keiko shiai? What does that mean? And it's not that I don't like "fancy foreign words", I just think that we shouldn't be using them if we can avoid it because they serve to exclude others from following the discussion.



Well, take that as evidence I don't use google to get my information from, Glenn. If it was, I would have simply looked up the term I'd forgotten (jigeiko, for the record, supplied by Daniel).



puunui said:


> Or it's like taking swimming lessons, and never entering swimming contests. You're still swimming.



No, that's the exact opposite of the point... by not having sparring in the training, it's not Kendo, the same way that not getting in the water, even if you practice the strokes on the ground, is not swimming. Try to keep up.



puunui said:


> You just conceded the point of the discussion.



You don't really read any of this, do you? You just look for things to argue. Go back through my posts, starting with Dancingalone's initial comment, and see if I've changed what I've said. My point has consistently been referring to the overall training methods, and I've consistently pointed out the difference between looking at that, and and the way you and Daniel have taken it as referring to the exact moments in time when a student is engaged in something else (that is also part of the training). 



puunui said:


> Parker Sensei, you tend to get fed up, frustrated and mad a lot, not just at me, but a lot of posters on MT and other forums as well.



Oh, but there's a special place for you, Glenn... 



puunui said:


> I don't care about the context.



I suggest caring, it makes your arguments have some weight... at the moment, you're sadly lacking in many regards.



puunui said:


> Whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> ok.



Witty.



puunui said:


> I'm more concerned with including everyone, or, not excluding someone because they fail to live up to my own arbitrary narrow definition of what is or isn't "doing" whatever martial art.



Glenn, frankly, you're being an idiot. If someone is training in a Kendo school, but what the school teaches isn't Kendo, that's hardly applying an "arbitrary narrow definition". 



puunui said:


> Kenpo karate is not an exception. But thank you Parker Sensei, I will use your quote above when you bring up exceptions to the general rule type points I bring up in the future.



Yes it is, Glenn. And again, if you're going to use that quote (go ahead, by the way), make sure you look to the context. I use exceptions to go against specific comments that are applied as hard and fast rules, so I accept that they exist. In fact, I accepted Chow's Kenpo Karate as an exception, and agreed that the hard and fast rule of "no kata" wouldn't apply there... so I don't really see how you're taking any of this as showing any inconsistencies in my comments.



puunui said:


> Not "all". I do believe you engage in at least some actual physical practice and training so there is that. But you obviously rely on google and youtube much more than I do, that is clear, much more than others as well.



No, Glenn, what is clear and displayed is that I have a greater tendency to find supporting material, or demonstrative material for my arguments, not that that is where I source them from. But I've told you that before, and you responded like a despondent child being told that they're wrong.



puunui said:


> As you would say, "you completely missed the point on that one". I don't care about your mentoring duties. I brought up the fact that you teach others how to embed their posts with youtube links as further evidence of your familiarity with, and use of, youtube.



No, Glenn, that shows my familiarity with the software of the forum here. The only thing you need to know about you-tube software is where the URL is so you can copy it.



puunui said:


> it goes to my earlier comment that you probably have watched more youtube video of Ueshiba Sensei than I have. You wanted to know I could possibly know that, without having a video camera in your house. So that is my explanation. Now you ask what does this really have to do with anything. I am just "showing my work", like you requested.



Yeah, I probably have. Not that that means that's where my information comes from, Glenn. This isn't you showing your work, it's you making accusations which have no real evidence. One more time, you have the option of apologising, or not. But stop it. The next one gets reported.



puunui said:


> Thank you Parker Sensei. More rebuttal quotes for me to use when you bring out your "there is no evidence" for this or that when responding to one of my posts. Forgive me if I quote the above in response to you.



Good luck keeping it in context, Glenn. And I note you didn't answer one of the questions in there? Hmm.



puunui said:


> Here's one from the post you just wrote:



How do you gain employment as a lawyer with your lack of ability to discern an argument, Glenn? That quote is not relevant to the context I asked for, nor does it fit with the request for citation. You commented that I argue by saying "there is no evidence", in response to me pointing out that your argument was "seriously flawed". In fact, you said "You do it all the time with your "there is no evidence" argument". I asked for a citation of when I'd given a flawed argument by saying that there was a lack of evidence to support a statement, and you come back with a quote from myself about my own situation, and how your lack of knowledge of what I'm doing lends itself to your flawed take on things? Firstly, if we take this as a courtroom setting, I'm providing a statement on myself, which would be considered first-hand information, and can be taken as evidence. It's being presented to counter claims made on circumstantial evidence, not first hand, second hand, even third hand. Assumptions based on circumstantial evidence.

Seriously, if this is any indication of your skills as a lawyer, I'm not sure you chose the right profession. Politician, I could see.



puunui said:


> That's your opinion. No problem.



Where would you draw the line, Glenn? Is someone a Kendo practitioner when they've paid membership? When they've got a uniform? When they've attained their first rank?

Or is it when they've taken a beginners course?

Or a trial class?

Or called to ask about it?

My point is that there is a point, a moment when you go from not being a practitioner to someone who is a practitioner. Now, that can change from system to system (I know of some systems where you're not considered an actual practitioner/member until first dan, for instance), and school to school, but there is a distinction between practitioners and non. I'm putting forth that there is that distinction, and I really don't see how that can be argued against, so honestly, I'd say no, not opinion there. Observation.



puunui said:


> If you do say so yourself.



Yeah, that's opinion. And I do say so myself.



puunui said:


> Then according to dancingalone's teachers (from Okinawa) as well as Chung Do Kwan founder GM LEE Won Kuk (who studied in Japan), you didn't do karate. According to them, no makiwara, no karate.



And if I was training in those systems, they'd be right. Kinda the point, Glenn.



puunui said:


> You quit it. And you really don't like people knowing what you do, do you Parker Sensei? Again, it isn't a big secret, in spite of your denials to the contrary.



You made an accusation, you were corrected, and you have continued to bring it up in a number of other threads, making the same accusation over and over. I'm correcting you when you do, and I'm getting sick of it. But as long as you keep making baseless accusations, I'll keep correcting you, and, as I said, the next time I'm reporting you for it. So the person who would need to stop is you. Grow up and stop acting like a child whose been told to sit in the corner. 



puunui said:


> Correction. You set up the narrow definition and when people don't measure up to your narrow definition, in your opinion, they end up "excluding themselves", again in your opinion.



Believe me, son, I'm hardly using "narrow" definitions here, nor am I looking for people to measure up to anything. In fact, it's pretty simple, if they're training in karate, then they're training in karate. But for it to be karate, it needs to be karate. Same with Kendo, same with Aikido, and so on and so forth. 



puunui said:


> Parker Sensei, if you wish me to address you by your screenname, then you should at least have the courtesy to address me by mine.



No, I'm asking you to refer to me by my actual name, Glenn, not a false Japanese honorific that I've never used in my life, nor do I intend to ever use, as a way of getting under my skin. I use your real name to show that I'm talking directly to you, person to person. After all, it was you that invited me to investigate who you were and find your actual name in a rather misguided argument about koryu.



puunui said:


> Ok, whatever.



What I love about dealing with lawyers is the well crafted arguments that they present, stimulating the intellect, challenging perceptions and ideals, and leading to growth on both sides. Well, most of the time...



puunui said:


> If you say so. I will say that I have "socialized" with many seniors, in the form of lessons, in an effort to build relationships with those seniors and teachers. It's the way knowledge is passed on, through social interaction. This is a different sort of learning, than say, reading webpages and watching youtube videos. I will say that the thing I notice about your postings on various subjects is that it seems very impersonal. You can go on and on about this or that in a sort of cold academic fashion, but a lot of times it does not translate as coming from personal training or experience. I and I believe others would enjoy your posts more if you did interject yourself a little more, instead of it reading like it came from a dry historical webpage.



Good god, Glenn, you mean your information has come to you the *exact same way I described the way I've gotten mine! *

Let's take Hontai Yoshin Ryu as an example. The majority of my information in that Ryu comes from attending seminars with the Head Instructor in Melbourne, having long conversations with him, training and discussing with one of his students, and training in related lines. This is then topped up with reading material. In fact, if you were to look over my posting history, you'd find that, for probably 90% of the systems I talk about, I either have experience in them, or I have friends who teach or train in them. And that list is pretty damn long... and that's where my information comes from.

My postings being impersonal is more to do with my style of writing, which comes from the position of our organisation against the larger Ninjutsu organisations. I try to keep things to facts as much as possible, and objective observation. Your posting seems to be more about boasting about your name-dropping, with little of real value behind them. Personally, I'd prefer to post something with more information, which can be verified easily, than just talk about other people and try to leech off their achievements. 



puunui said:


> You drop the matter Parker Sensei. Again, people are entitled to their opinions. You obviously liberally exercise this when you give opinions about me and everyone else out there. Funny how when it is directed towards you, you get all upset. Do as I say, not as I do seems to be your motto, Parker Sensei.



Frankly, Glenn, I see no support for your comment here. With regards to yourself, I have not proffered any opinion other than some hypothetical ones earlier in this thread, any other opinions that I have offered for other members have only been on what has been presented at the time. You have not offered any opinion of myself, you have made accusations. You have not been able to back them up, you have not retracted them, and you have continued to repeat them. Again, it is up to you to stop.



puunui said:


> what can I say, typo.



Yep... and the same one just after it. 



puunui said:


> I'll go look up your posts where you said those things. Or maybe your situation has changed since then. If so, good for you. In my opinion, you need a good teacher to guide you.



You really have no idea what my guidance is like in these areas, Glenn. In my opinion, you need to realize when you're talking out of your depth. But that doesn't seem to be your style.



puunui said:


> With ancestry comes the culture attached to that ancestry. mastercole for example is of scottish ancestry, and he has a much better understanding of scottish culture and ways than I do, mainly because it is part of how he was raised.



Again, Glenn, you're being an idiot. Your comments (both here and previously) about Japanese heritage in regard to learning or training in Koryu are so out of whack with reality that it's laughable. All it tells me is that you don't have a clue about anything you're talking about. But, for the record, there are quite a number of people who will argue with you, quite vehemently in many cases (such as Ellis Amdur, Meik Skoss, Dianne Skoss, Steve Delaney, Scott Halls, Phil Relnick, Pascal Krieger, Wayne Muramoto [yep, he's going to argue that Japanese ancestry wasn't really a boon for him as well], Ron Beaubien, Rennis Butchner, Russ Ebert, and many, many, many others who are far more informed than you are in every regard here).



puunui said:


> You didn't deny it either, and you still don't. And in my business, failure to answer a request for admission means that the request is deemed to be admitted. I'll give you credit though, at least you try not to lie, like some other people would, at least in this situation, so there is hope. If you had visited Japan, for example, no doubt you would have made mention of that in your posts. It is a much different experience to read about Musashi's wooden sword and view it on a webpage than it is to actually travel to Japan and see it for yourself. You kind of remind me of the movie Good Will Hunting, where you can tell us all about the Sistine Chapel, when it was built, and all of that, but you don't know what it smells like.



Frankly Glenn, I don't see the point in providing you with any answers with the way you ask for them.



puunui said:


> Ok, so no teaching licenses either. 30 years and only a Ninjutsu 3rd Dan to show for it. That says a lot.



Only in it's context will it say anything, Glenn. And you don't get that context, despite it being explained to you before.



puunui said:


> Don't need to be Parker Sensei.



And yet you try... 



puunui said:


> I don't know about that, since you were the one who conceded the point of this whole discussion, at least to daniel.



Glenn, go back and re-read it, then try again. But drop the false honorifics and accusations, if you had an argument they'd make you look petty, without one they make you look desperate.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 30, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, I'd be of the same mind. But I'd still say that if they can't participate in the essential methods of Kendo, then Kendo wouldn't be part of them moving to a better life, at least not in the short term.


I wouldn't mind discussing this further. Perhaps in another thread.



Chris Parker said:


> Well, I don't know if I'd be generous enough to give them 20 years, but essentially, yeah. And it comes down to the school and what the training involves, more than an individual's particular practice at any one moment.


If someone wants to support my club for twenty years and isn't disruptive to the class, I'd give them a hundred years. I'd think it really weird, but I'd be happy have them.



Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, if you mean Shinkendo, then honestly that's rather irrelevant. It's not Shin Kendo (&#26032;&#21091;&#36947; - "New Kendo"), it's Shinken Do (&#30495;&#21091;&#36947; - "True Sword Way"), and has no relation to Kendo (ZNKR) at all.



I know the kanji and what it means. Obata's website just writes it out as shinkendo. And yes, it is totally unrelated to ZNKR kendo, which was my point; see below for the rest. 



Chris Parker said:


> Honestly, Daniel, it's looked like you missed the actual comment that was being made... it hasn't ever been about a single students training in the moment, it's about what the training (overall) is made up of. So while you've had a different perspective, it wasn't really anything to do with the actual comment or point. Which is what I've been trying to clear up.


I'm not really sure that Dancingalone's comment was meant in that way and not with regards to the single student (he would have to clarify that), but I can respond to that as well.

So looking at it from the other direction, if the overall training of the art excludes a mainstay practice of the art, is it really the art in question? In terms of the big picture, maybe; depends on the curcumstance. Regarding the kanji &#26032;&#21091;&#36947;, 'new kendo', if someone were to actually call their kendo that and set up a curriculum where wooden swords and dulled practice swords were used and called it that, then it would be 'kendo' (way of the sword) only in the generic sense, but not ZNKR kendo. It wouldn't necesarilly be bad or devoid of merit; it might be great and have lots of merit. But it would be a different art. 

If you're running a taekwondo club and training students for shihap kyorugi only, and elminating pumse, you're a competition club. Yes, I'd still consider it taekwondo. If you run a club that focuses entirely on do, pumse and application, with no shihap kyorugi, then yes, you're still teaching taekwondo.

I won't speak for aikido, but given the quanitity of karate ryu, if you ran a competition sport karate school that only trained for tournament fighting, then in my opinion, you're running a sport karate school. It may be sport karate, but it is still karate. Just don't claim to be any particular ryu.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 30, 2012)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Jim Sheeran
jks9199
MT Assistant Administrator
*


----------



## puunui (Mar 30, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Agreed, but that was kinda the point, really. Without sparring, it's not Kendo.



That is not what Daniel said, and that isn't what you said either. 



Chris Parker said:


> To stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in the club, *then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet*. Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring.






Chris Parker said:


> As you can see, Dancingalone was saying that the overall training experience needs to include certain traits, or hallmarks, what he called "immutable parts". The comment was made that you can focus on some (even to the exclusion of those immutable aspects, such as sparring/kata/falling in the examples), but the art, if such things are never part of the training, isn't that art.



If you go with dancingalone's standard, then you weren't doing karate if your training did not include makiwara training. 



Chris Parker said:


> Honestly, Daniel, it's looked like you missed the actual comment that was being made... it hasn't ever been about a single students training in the moment, it's about what the training (overall) is made up of. So while you've had a different perspective, it wasn't really anything to do with the actual comment or point. Which is what I've been trying to clear up.



That conflicts with your earlier statement:



Chris Parker said:


> To  stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a  solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in  the club, *then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet*.  Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the  basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring.



moving on: 



Chris Parker said:


> Well, take that as evidence I don't use google to get my information from, Glenn. If it was, I would have simply looked up the term I'd forgotten (jigeiko, for the record, supplied by Daniel).



But Parker Sensei, now you are under the gun about using google, so I think that from now on you will be more careful with doing that, reflexively going to google, or youtube for that matter.



Chris Parker said:


> No, that's the exact opposite of the point... by not having sparring in the training, it's not Kendo, the same way that not getting in the water, even if you practice the strokes on the ground, is not swimming. Try to keep up.



Again, that isn't what you said earlier:



Chris Parker said:


> To  stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a  solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in  the club, *then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet*.  Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the  basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring.






Chris Parker said:


> Go back through my posts, starting with Dancingalone's initial comment, and see if I've changed what I've said. My point has consistently been referring to the overall training methods, and I've consistently pointed out the difference between looking at that, and and the way you and Daniel have taken it as referring to the exact moments in time when a student is engaged in something else (that is also part of the training).



Contrast that with this comment from you: 



Chris Parker said:


> To  stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a  solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in  the club, *then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet*.  Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the  basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring.







Chris Parker said:


> I use exceptions to go against specific comments that are applied as hard and fast rules, so I accept that they exist. In fact, I accepted Chow's Kenpo Karate as an exception, and agreed that the hard and fast rule of "no kata" wouldn't apply there... so I don't really see how you're taking any of this as showing any inconsistencies in my comments.



How about this statement by you. Is this an exception as well?



Chris Parker said:


> To  stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a  solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in  the club, *then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet*.  Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the  basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring.



Having wrote that, I don't see what this further discussion is accomplishing, since you have already conceded the point of the discussion between yourself, daniel and I. 



Chris Parker said:


> No, Glenn, what is clear and displayed is that I have a greater tendency to find supporting material, or demonstrative material for my arguments, not that that is where I source them from.



If you say so. 




Chris Parker said:


> No, Glenn, that shows my familiarity with the software of the forum here. The only thing you need to know about you-tube software is where the URL is so you can copy it.



That is another example of attempting to narrowly define something. Why would you know how to do that, embed posts with youtube links, if that isn't something that you do all the time, as evidenced by your posts? 



Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, I probably have [watched more youtube videos on Ueshiba Sensei than you have]. Not that that means that's where my information comes from, Glenn. This isn't you showing your work, it's you making accusations which have no real evidence. One more time, you have the option of apologising, or not. But stop it. The next one gets reported.



Apologize for what? Report what? You just admitted that you "probably have" watched more youtube videos of Ueshiba Sensei than I have. 



Chris Parker said:


> And I note you didn't answer one of the questions in there? Hmm.



You don't answer a lot of my questions. keiko shiai for example. I just move on when you do that. 



Chris Parker said:


> How do you gain employment as a lawyer with your lack of ability to discern an argument, Glenn? That quote is not relevant to the context I asked for, nor does it fit with the request for citation. You commented that I argue by saying "there is no evidence", in response to me pointing out that your argument was "seriously flawed". In fact, you said "You do it all the time with your "there is no evidence" argument". I asked for a citation of when I'd given a flawed argument by saying that there was a lack of evidence to support a statement, and you come back with a quote from myself about my own situation, and how your lack of knowledge of what I'm doing lends itself to your flawed take on things? Firstly, if we take this as a courtroom setting, I'm providing a statement on myself, which would be considered first-hand information, and can be taken as evidence. It's being presented to counter claims made on circumstantial evidence, not first hand, second hand, even third hand. Assumptions based on circumstantial evidence. Seriously, if this is any indication of your skills as a lawyer, I'm not sure you chose the right profession. Politician, I could see.



This is a perfect example of me not really caring what your opinion about me is. In fact, if this one case goes how we think it will go, it might be time to retire. Again. 



Chris Parker said:


> Where would you draw the line, Glenn? Is someone a Kendo practitioner when they've paid membership? When they've got a uniform? When they've attained their first rank? Or is it when they've taken a beginners course? Or a trial class? Or called to ask about it?



I would draw the line where the student is actually training in any aspect of the martial art. For beginners, I would limit it to actual physical training. I wouldn't consider reading up on kendo on the internet or watching kendo videos on youtube as "doing kendo" for example, especially if the person has had no physical training in kendo. However, reading up on kendo online or watching youtube videos could be considered "doing kendo" for an advanced practitioner who is studying up on his opponents prior to a tournament. But for beginners, then if they are learning how to fold their hakama, do suburi, etc., anything but don't spar, then they are doing kendo. And you agree with me. 



Chris Parker said:


> To  stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a  solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in  the club, *then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet*.  Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the  basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring.


  




Chris Parker said:


> My point is that there is a point, a moment when you go from not being a practitioner to someone who is a practitioner. Now, that can change from system to system (I know of some systems where you're not considered an actual practitioner/member until first dan, for instance), and school to school, but there is a distinction between practitioners and non. I'm putting forth that there is that distinction, and I really don't see how that can be argued against, so honestly, I'd say no, not opinion there. Observation.



The issue with that is, who decided you were the one to determine who is or isn't "doing" a particular martial art? It really is your opinion only, and there is no right or wrong answer.



Chris Parker said:


> And if I was training in those systems, they'd be right. Kinda the point, Glenn.



There are no qualification on the part of the opinion givers that their position was based on their art or system only. If you don't do makiwara training, you aren't doing karate. And since your karate training did not include makiwara training, then you were not doing karate either. 




Chris Parker said:


> You made an accusation, you were corrected, and you have continued to bring it up in a number of other threads, making the same accusation over and over. I'm correcting you when you do, and I'm getting sick of it. But as long as you keep making baseless accusations, I'll keep correcting you, and, as I said, the next time I'm reporting you for it. So the person who would need to stop is you. Grow up and stop acting like a child whose been told to sit in the corner.



You must have be confused with one of your students, who listen and do whatever you say. Sorry, but I'm not one of them. 



Chris Parker said:


> Believe me, son, I'm hardly using "narrow" definitions here, nor am I looking for people to measure up to anything. In fact, it's pretty simple, if they're training in karate, then they're training in karate. But for it to be karate, it needs to be karate. Same with Kendo, same with Aikido, and so on and so forth.



Funny how you refer to me as "son", when I am older than you are. Are you in the habit of doing that? As for the rest of your comment, that pretty much get nullified by your earlier comment. 



Chris Parker said:


> To  stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a  solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in  the club, *then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet*.  Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the  basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring.





Chris Parker said:


> No, I'm asking you to refer to me by my actual name, Glenn, not a false Japanese honorific that I've never used in my life, nor do I intend to ever use, as a way of getting under my skin.



Parker Sensei, there is a kajukenbo co-founder that refers to me as "shihan", even though I have never used that title in my life, nor to I intend to ever use that title. It doesn't get under my skin and I certain don't get mad at him about it. Maybe you would have a different reaction to that.



Chris Parker said:


> I use your real name to show that I'm talking directly to you, person to person. After all, it was you that invited me to investigate who you were and find your actual name in a rather misguided argument about koryu.



You have been referring to me by my first name even before that koryu discussion, so that does not help or support you. But if you choose to address me by anything other than my screenname, then I will continue to do the same for you. You are in control on that one, Parker Sensei. 



Chris Parker said:


> What I love about dealing with lawyers is the well crafted arguments that they present, stimulating the intellect, challenging perceptions and ideals, and leading to growth on both sides. Well, most of the time...



What I love about lawyers is that they go to an approved specialized graduate level school and have to pass a somewhat rigorous examination before they can enter their chosen profession. Contrast that to those who do not have not undergone such training and certification and instead choose to defend or advocate for themselves using tactics that they have witnessed on tv, the internet or youtube. The court ends up having to make allowances for this non-lawyer, and the pro se (unrepresented) party ends up losing. Badly. 



Chris Parker said:


> Let's take Hontai Yoshin Ryu as an example. The majority of my information in that Ryu comes from attending seminars with the Head Instructor in Melbourne, having long conversations with him, training and discussing with one of his students, and training in related lines. This is then topped up with reading material. In fact, if you were to look over my posting history, you'd find that, for probably 90% of the systems I talk about, I either have experience in them, or I have friends who teach or train in them. And that list is pretty damn long... and that's where my information comes from.



The exception does not disprove the rule. Or should I yank out your exact quote?



Chris Parker said:


> My postings being impersonal is more to do with my style of writing, which comes from the position of our organisation against the larger Ninjutsu organisations. I try to keep things to facts as much as possible, and objective observation. Your posting seems to be more about boasting about your name-dropping, with little of real value behind them. Personally, I'd prefer to post something with more information, which can be verified easily, than just talk about other people and try to leech off their achievements.



You're entitled to your opinion (if that is truly your opinion), and I am entitled to not care about what your opinion is.  



Chris Parker said:


> Frankly, Glenn, I see no support for your comment here.



Is that similar to having "no evidence"? 



Chris Parker said:


> With regards to yourself, I have not proffered any opinion other than some hypothetical ones earlier in this thread, any other opinions that I have offered for other members have only been on what has been presented at the time. You have not offered any opinion of myself, you have made accusations. You have not been able to back them up, you have not retracted them, and you have continued to repeat them. Again, it is up to you to stop.



That's your opinion. 



Chris Parker said:


> You really have no idea what my guidance is like in these areas, Glenn. In my opinion, you need to realize when you're talking out of your depth. But that doesn't seem to be your style.



Again you are entitled to your opinion Parker Sensei. 



Chris Parker said:


> Again, Glenn, you're being an idiot. Your comments (both here and previously) about Japanese heritage in regard to learning or training in Koryu are so out of whack with reality that it's laughable. All it tells me is that you don't have a clue about anything you're talking about. But, for the record, there are quite a number of people who will argue with you, quite vehemently in many cases (such as Ellis Amdur, Meik Skoss, Dianne Skoss, Steve Delaney, Scott Halls, Phil Relnick, Pascal Krieger, Wayne Muramoto [yep, he's going to argue that Japanese ancestry wasn't really a boon for him as well], Ron Beaubien, Rennis Butchner, Russ Ebert, and many, many, many others who are far more informed than you are in every regard here).



Do you know any of those people personally, and that is what they told you personally, or did you read their opinions somewhere on the internet?  And which opinion are you talking about? I don't think I ever said that you had to be Japanese to study koryu. What I said was that having Japanese ancestry and by extension growing up with japanese culture would certainly help one in one's studies of japanese martial arts, by having a head start on understanding japanese culture and behavior. Do they all disagree with that? Or is there something else that you have in your head that is causing confusion? 




Chris Parker said:


> Frankly Glenn, I don't see the point in providing you with any answers with the way you ask for them.



No problem. Don't answer if you don't want to. 



Chris Parker said:


> Glenn, go back and re-read it, then try again. But drop the false honorifics and accusations, if you had an argument they'd make you look petty, without one they make you look desperate.



Parker Sensei, I don't think anyone here is looking desperate, except maybe you, since you seem to desperately wish for me to refer to you as Parker Sensei. And like I said earlier, if you wish me to address you by your MT screenname, then all you have to do is address me by mine. In fact, you addressing me by my first name just might be some sort of MT violation on the disclosure of personal information.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 2, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> I always hear people talk about the McDojo fad etc.  I just came across a young man who started at the age of 13 and after 9 years of study was promoted to 6th degree blackbelt.
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?  Legitimate?  McDojo?
> 
> What factors would make it acceptable?  Would it matter if the young man practiced REALLY hard and quickly grapsed the concepts?


So, about that OP, are there any systems that currently exist where a 21 year old _could_ be a 6th dan?


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 2, 2012)

Happy one first!



Daniel Sullivan said:


> I wouldn't mind discussing this further. Perhaps in another thread.



Sure, go for it!



Daniel Sullivan said:


> If someone wants to support my club for twenty years and isn't disruptive to the class, I'd give them a hundred years. I'd think it really weird, but I'd be happy have them.



Ha, fair enough! I'd personally be trying to suggest to them that perhaps their time may be better spent elsewhere (for their benefit more than the schools, really), but that's me. Just a different approach.




Daniel Sullivan said:


> I know the kanji and what it means. Obata's website just writes it out as shinkendo. And yes, it is totally unrelated to ZNKR kendo, which was my point; see below for the rest.



Hmm, you lost me. If you were aware that Shinkendo had no relation to the art of Kendo, other than some naming similarities, why was it brought into the discussion? I honestly don't see the relevance.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> I'm not really sure that Dancingalone's comment was meant in that way and not with regards to the single student (he would have to clarify that), but I can respond to that as well.



Re-reading Dancingalone's statement, I can't see how he could have meant something else, really. It reads to me as a rhetorical comment basically asking if you can be said to be training in a particular art if you are missing key, integral parts of what that training needs to contain (sparring for Kendo, kata for Karate, falling/ukemi for Aikido). The use of the word "you" was an argumentative construct for the rhetoric, not asking a specific person about a real situation, as the construct was creating a situation that was not realistic (in the main - some Americanized forms of karate are exceptions for the kata section, as established).



Daniel Sullivan said:


> So looking at it from the other direction, if the overall training of the art excludes a mainstay practice of the art, is it really the art in question?



I think that's what Dancingalone was asking in the first place, really.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> In terms of the big picture, maybe; depends on the curcumstance. Regarding the kanji &#26032;&#21091;&#36947;, 'new kendo', if someone were to actually call their kendo that and set up a curriculum where wooden swords and dulled practice swords were used and called it that, then it would be 'kendo' (way of the sword) only in the generic sense, but not ZNKR kendo. It wouldn't necesarilly be bad or devoid of merit; it might be great and have lots of merit. But it would be a different art.



But the term Kendo, taken in the context, is specific to ZNKR Kendo, not a hypothetical construct designed to get around the question in the first place. And the argument isn't whether or not sparring in Kendo is good, bad, devoid of merit, highly valuable, or anything of the kind, it's that it's a required part of Kendo training. 



Daniel Sullivan said:


> If you're running a taekwondo club and training students for shihap kyorugi only, and elminating pumse, you're a competition club. Yes, I'd still consider it taekwondo. If you run a club that focuses entirely on do, pumse and application, with no shihap kyorugi, then yes, you're still teaching taekwondo.



Hmm, I'd put them down as very limited forms of TKD myself, and by extension, not really TKD (in the complete sense) at all. But I'd class the second form as much more complete than the first.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> I won't speak for aikido, but given the quanitity of karate ryu, if you ran a competition sport karate school that only trained for tournament fighting, then in my opinion, you're running a sport karate school. It may be sport karate, but it is still karate. Just don't claim to be any particular ryu.



The idea of it not being a particular Ryu I don't think really comes into it. If you're just learning a range of kicks and strikes, and then sparring, without the kata that teaches the heart of karate, the purpose and reason of all the individual techniques, then I'd say it's not karate. It's karate derived, yeah. But it's not really karate.

Less happy one now.

Look, Glenn, all your post here tells me is that you haven't understood what I said, as your use of my comment is universally wrong. Let's start with that quote (that you used, what, 7 times? And never once actually got what was being said? Hmm...).



Chris Parker said:


> Here's where we're getting into some confusion. To stick with Kendo, if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a solid grounding in the basics, but sparring is part of what goes on in the club, then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've got up to sparring yet. Mainly because it is still part of the training, and the aim of the basics is to develop the skill to participate in the sparring. However, if they don't spar because it's not part of the schools training methods, I'd say no-one in the club is doing Kendo, as they're missing a huge part of it.



Read the damn quote, Glenn. The entire sentence of relevance is "if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a solid grounding in the basics, BUT SPARRING IS PART OF WHAT GOES ON IN THE CLUB, then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've gotten up to the sparring yet".

Again, the criteria is that sparring is part of the training, not that every instant of training needs to be sparring, and nothing else is Kendo. I really don't see how I can say it any clearer, but you seem to have completely missed the point of my comments, and reposted it over and over again, even though it actually doesn't support a single contention you are making. 

Seriously, you're a lawyer? Then let's begin the cross examination, shall we?



puunui said:


> That is not what Daniel said, and that isn't what you said either.



 Er, yes it is what I said, Glenn. Re-read the quote you put up, it's there right before your highlighted snippet: "if the club doesn't let you spar until you've got a solid grounding in the basics, BUT SPARRING IS PART OF WHAT GOES ON IN THE CLUB, then yeah, they're doing Kendo whether or not they've gotten up to the sparring yet".



puunui said:


> If you go with dancingalone's standard, then you weren't doing karate if your training did not include makiwara training.



 You're like a tiny little dog with a big bone, way too big for you to handle, but refusing to let go, aren't you? I've already said that, in that system, that would be correct. But that wasn't my system. And if you don't understand that, you don't have a clue about anything else being said here.



puunui said:


> That conflicts with your earlier statement:



 You can't tell the difference between extending the hypothetical already put forth and saying that it is about an actual individual? You really can't see what's being said there? Really? 

In short, no it doesn't.



puunui said:


> moving on:
> 
> But Parker Sensei, now you are under the gun about using google, so I think that from now on you will be more careful with doing that, reflexively going to google, or youtube for that matter.



 Little dog with a big bone again, Glenn. I don't "reflexively go to google", or youtube, and you have yet to supply evidence or retract your accusations. I've attained my knowledge and understanding over some 3 decades, Glenn, having you belittle it the way you have been is frankly damn insulting. And yes, it's now being reported for harassment (along with the other traits you're showing).



puunui said:


> Again, that isn't what you said earlier:



  Again, read the quote. It is what I said earlier.



puunui said:


> Contrast that with this comment from you:



  Have you even read what I wrote, Glenn? Or are you just wanting to argue without merit as you've been schooled a little more than you wanted to in recent times by me?



puunui said:


> How about this statement by you. Is this an exception as well?



 What? Is my statement that sparring is required to be part of the training in Kendo an exception to my statement that sparring is required to be part of the training in Kendo? Seriously, read the damn post.



puunui said:


> Having wrote that, I don't see what this further discussion is accomplishing, since you have already conceded the point of the discussion between yourself, daniel and I.



No, Glenn, you haven't read what I wrote properly. There has been no "conceding" of any point the way you're thinking. Seriously, you're the kid running behind everyone else thinking you're actually winning... 



puunui said:


> If you say so.



 You have no evidence to the contrary, you have nothing but snide, sarcastic, smarmy comments, and accusations with no basis whatsoever. So yes, I do say so. Now drop it, as you have nothing to support you.



puunui said:


> That is another example of attempting to narrowly define something. Why would you know how to do that, embed posts with youtube links, if that isn't something that you do all the time, as evidenced by your posts?



 The directive to embed rather than link, and to guide other members to do the same, came from Bob Hubbard, Glenn. It is not evidence of anything you're trying to make it out to be whatsoever, and the idea of needing an intimate knowledge of the software is frankly laughable.

And how the hell is my saying that the only software knowledge needed from youtube is to be able to copy and paste the URL me "narrowly defining" anything? That comment (well, let's face it, accusation) is just bizarre... 



puunui said:


> Apologize for what? Report what? You just admitted that you "probably have" watched more youtube videos of Ueshiba Sensei than I have.



 Harassment, Glenn. Constant accusation here and on other threads, usage of names that are not my screen name, nor my real name, in an attempt to upset and infuriate me. Whether or not I've watched more clips of Ueshiba is not relevant, nor does it support your claims that youtube is where my information comes from. You're grasping at straws, and I'm sick of it.



puunui said:


> You don't answer a lot of my questions. keiko shiai for example. I just move on when you do that.



 That was answered. You probably just missed it, as it didn't let you argue anymore.



puunui said:


> This is a perfect example of me not really caring what your opinion about me is. In fact, if this one case goes how we think it will go, it might be time to retire. Again.



 Ah, the thing with comments like that, Glenn, is that they really don't impress me. Be a decent person, capable of intelligent debate, and I might be impressed. But this? Sorry, nope.



puunui said:


> I would draw the line where the student is actually training in any aspect of the martial art. For beginners, I would limit it to actual physical training. I wouldn't consider reading up on kendo on the internet or watching kendo videos on youtube as "doing kendo" for example, especially if the person has had no physical training in kendo. However, reading up on kendo online or watching youtube videos could be considered "doing kendo" for an advanced practitioner who is studying up on his opponents prior to a tournament. But for beginners, then if they are learning how to fold their hakama, do suburi, etc., anything but don't spar, then they are doing kendo. And you agree with me.



  I agree with that, provided that sparring is part of the overall training. Again, read the quote. But then again, you don't care about context, do you? Pity, as not caring about context means that you're arguing irrelevant arguments, and not understanding the ones put to you. I really hoped you had more to offer than this, you know. You could have had value.



puunui said:


> The issue with that is, who decided you were the one to determine who is or isn't "doing" a particular martial art? It really is your opinion only, and there is no right or wrong answer.



 For crying out loud, Glenn, where do I state that I am deciding anything of the kind? I'm saying that such a distinction exists, and even give examples which make it plainly obvious that it changes from art to art, from system to system, and from school to school. Really, if you're going to argue, at least try to read what is written.



puunui said:


> There are no qualification on the part of the opinion givers that their position was based on their art or system only. If you don't do makiwara training, you aren't doing karate. And since your karate training did not include makiwara training, then you were not doing karate either.



 Context, Glenn, context. 

Oh, right. You don't care about that.



puunui said:


> You must have be confused with one of your students, who listen and do whatever you say. Sorry, but I'm not one of them.



 Glenn, if you were one of my students, and acting like you are here, you'd be pulled aside and have pointed out just how bad an ambassador you were being... I'm not asking you to do what I say, I'm saying that your behaviour is taking you in a direction that you can avoid. Sad that you don't seem to care how bad you look.



puunui said:


> Funny how you refer to me as "son", when I am older than you are. Are you in the habit of doing that? As for the rest of your comment, that pretty much get nullified by your earlier comment.



  I refer to you as "son" because you're acting like a spoiled, petulant child. And read the damn quote, it doesn't say what you're trying to make it say.



puunui said:


> Parker Sensei, there is a kajukenbo co-founder that refers to me as "shihan", even though I have never used that title in my life, nor to I intend to ever use that title. It doesn't get under my skin and I certain don't get mad at him about it. Maybe you would have a different reaction to that.



 Except that the context and intent is very different between the two examples, Glenn. And I'd like to think that if you asked them to stop, as you didn't like it for whatever reason, you'd expect them to stop as a basic courtesy, and they would. Again, sad that you can't see such behaviour as even being decent.



puunui said:


> You have been referring to me by my first name even before that koryu discussion, so that does not help or support you. But if you choose to address me by anything other than my screenname, then I will continue to do the same for you. You are in control on that one, Parker Sensei.



 That's your argument? You're not addressing the reason I use your name, the difference between using someone's real name and using a created name designed to aggravate and upset?



puunui said:


> What I love about lawyers is that they go to an approved specialized graduate level school and have to pass a somewhat rigorous examination before they can enter their chosen profession. Contrast that to those who do not have not undergone such training and certification and instead choose to defend or advocate for themselves using tactics that they have witnessed on tv, the internet or youtube. The court ends up having to make allowances for this non-lawyer, and the pro se (unrepresented) party ends up losing. Badly.



 Well, I suppose it's just a pity for you, then, that this isn't a court of law (most of what you've said would be removed simply for being irrelevant, though), and that there really is no reason to make any allowances for your lack of argument.



puunui said:


> The exception does not disprove the rule. Or should I yank out your exact quote?



 That's not an exception, though, it's an example. Surely you understand the difference, yeah?

And please try to only use my quotes when you understand the context, Glenn.



puunui said:


> You're entitled to your opinion (if that is truly your opinion), and I am entitled to not care about what your opinion is.



 Then why are you continuing with this? Why, if you don't care about my opinion, are you constantly baiting me with such harassing posts and flawed arguments?



puunui said:


> Is that similar to having "no evidence"?



 No. It's a statement of observable fact.



puunui said:


> That's your opinion.



 No, it's not. That's, again, kinda the point. As well as being evidenced by the, you know, words I wrote...



puunui said:


> Again you are entitled to your opinion Parker Sensei.



 Yes, but the difference between mine and yours is that mine is informed, and yours is not. Something to remember.



puunui said:


> Do you know any of those people personally, and that is what they told you personally, or did you read their opinions somewhere on the internet?  And which opinion are you talking about? I don't think I ever said that you had to be Japanese to study koryu. What I said was that having Japanese ancestry and by extension growing up with japanese culture would certainly help one in one's studies of japanese martial arts, by having a head start on understanding japanese culture and behavior. Do they all disagree with that? Or is there something else that you have in your head that is causing confusion?



Yes, a number of them are friends of mine with whom I converse semi-regularly.

Yes, a lot of my information comes directly from them in personal conversations. Then again, a lot comes in other ways.

You stated that, if "the real traditions were being followed (I and my student) wouldn't be allowed to train in Koryu, but you would be required to". You have also made comments that your Japanese ancestry makes you a better candidate for learning Koryu, and more.

Yes, they disagree with you. For the same reasons that I, Paul (pgsmith), and others have pointed out to you. 



puunui said:


> No problem. Don't answer if you don't want to.



 You haven't really given much reason to, you know.



puunui said:


> Parker Sensei, I don't think anyone here is looking desperate, except maybe you, since you seem to desperately wish for me to refer to you as Parker Sensei. And like I said earlier, if you wish me to address you by your MT screenname, then all you have to do is address me by mine. In fact, you addressing me by my first name just might be some sort of MT violation on the disclosure of personal information.



No, it's not when you tell people to look you up. And addressing people by their real names isn't against any rules, however harassing posting styles by constantly using terms considered unwanted to refer to a member is considered harassment. So you know, on the topic of your actual name, that's covered in the rules this way:



> *2.14 Use of Handles, Aliases and Pseudonyms
> 
> MartialTalk allows its members to post under an alias, or handle, rather than their own name.
> 
> ...


*
*
You have a tendancy to stay just within the rules with your posting, Glenn, avoiding profanity, and putting things in forms that can be taken a few different ways (such as trying to appear respectful while knowing full well how I'm taking the term you're using for me). Of course, you've been requested to stop it, you've been told it's not desired, and you've persisted. So while the words aren't against the rules, your lack of action when the issue is pointed out has revealed what your intent really is. And, in that fashion, it's now reported.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 2, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Ha, fair enough! I'd personally be trying to suggest to them that perhaps their time may be better spent elsewhere (for their benefit more than the schools, really), but that's me. Just a different approach.


Whether or not the time is better spent elsewhere is something that I would definitely cover with the student so that their decision to stay or not is an informed one.  

But some people stay in an art that isn't the best fit because they like the environment, or perhaps the school that teaches a more fitting art is not a good fit for the student for whatever reason.  



Chris Parker said:


> Re-reading Dancingalone's statement, I can't see how he could have meant something else, really. It reads to me as a rhetorical comment basically asking if you can be said to be training in a particular art if you are missing key, integral parts of what that training needs to contain (sparring for Kendo, kata for Karate, falling/ukemi for Aikido). The use of the word "you" was an argumentative construct for the rhetoric, not asking a specific person about a real situation, as the construct was creating a situation that was not realistic (in the main - some Americanized forms of karate are exceptions for the kata section, as established).


'Can you do X without Y?' is a different question in my mind than 'Does X cease to be X if Y is subtracted?'

Regardless, I think our discussion has covered both meanings.



Chris Parker said:


> I think that's what Dancingalone was asking in the first place, really.


Again, he would have to clarify that, but regardless, I think we've covered all bases.



Chris Parker said:


> But the term Kendo, taken in the context, is specific to ZNKR Kendo, not a hypothetical construct designed to get around the question in the first place. And the argument isn't whether or not sparring in Kendo is good, bad, devoid of merit, highly valuable, or anything of the kind, it's that it's a required part of Kendo training.


Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that some enterprising entrepreneur wouldn't do it. 

As I said, they could call it '_kendo_' if they wanted, but it would only be so in the most generic sense, and it would definitely be a _different art_ than what is accepted as kendo, regardless of what they call it.

I don't know if any other Japanese sword arts use or have used the term kendo to describe what they do; I thought that I had read somewhere that the term 'judo' had been used prior to Kano's establishment of judo, but I am not certain enough of that to put it forth as factual, and I have never heard of it being done with kendo.  



Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, I'd put them down as very limited forms of TKD myself, and by extension, not really TKD (in the complete sense) at all. But I'd class the second form as much more complete than the first.


I think that ATC's club is a competition team and does not work at all with pumse (ATC, if my recollection of a conversation we had like three years ago is faulty, please correct me! ).  If that is the case, he'd have to tell you more about the specifics.  As for all pumse and application but no sparring, that is what many of these 'on the street/for the street/we're a martial art not a martial sport' schools do.  I'm not critical of them; they meet the needs of a certain demographic/customer and usually have good retention rates.  If its not what the way you want to learn taekwondo, look at other schools.  There are certainly enough taekwondo schools that that should be an option.

And yes, I would still consider both to be taekwondo without any other pressing reasons to say otherwise.



Chris Parker said:


> The idea of it not being a particular Ryu I don't think really comes into it. If you're just learning a range of kicks and strikes, and then sparring, without the kata that teaches the heart of karate, the purpose and reason of all the individual techniques, then I'd say it's not karate. It's karate derived, yeah. But it's not really karate.


I'll leave that to a karateka to tackle.


----------



## MJS (Apr 2, 2012)

Folks,

I believe the forum rules state that harassment and 'hot pursuit' ie: following people from forum to forum with the sole purpose of harassment, are all against the forum rules.  Its fine to disagree with someone, but if you're going to start name calling and saying things for the sole purpose of insulting them, that is also against the rules.  

Lets keep things civil please.

MJS
MT Asst. Admin


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 2, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> So, about that OP, are there any systems that currently exist where a 21 year old _could_ be a 6th dan?


So, does anybody want to tackle this one?


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 2, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Whether or not the time is better spent elsewhere is something that I would definitely cover with the student so that their decision to stay or not is an informed one.
> 
> But some people stay in an art that isn't the best fit because they like the environment, or perhaps the school that teaches a more fitting art is not a good fit for the student for whatever reason.



Ah, you old softie... It can hit a point where I'd basically invite them to retire. Which is the gentle way of saying "this isn't for you".



Daniel Sullivan said:


> 'Can you do X without Y?' is a different question in my mind than 'Does X cease to be X if Y is subtracted?'
> 
> Regardless, I think our discussion has covered both meanings.



Actually, I think they're both pretty much the same question. "Can you do X without Y?" is really asking if Y is needed for X. But yeah, I think we've covered pretty much all of it.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that some enterprising entrepreneur wouldn't do it.
> 
> As I said, they could call it '_kendo_' if they wanted, but it would only be so in the most generic sense, and it would definitely be a _different art_ than what is accepted as kendo, regardless of what they call it.



But that wouldn't be Kendo in the context that we are discussing, so it's really not relevant at all, yeah?



Daniel Sullivan said:


> I don't know if any other Japanese sword arts use or have used the term kendo to describe what they do; I thought that I had read somewhere that the term 'judo' had been used prior to Kano's establishment of judo, but I am not certain enough of that to put it forth as factual, and I have never heard of it being done with kendo.



Yes, it was used (both Kendo and Judo). In the case of Judo, there are records from about 150 years before Kano using the term.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> I think that ATC's club is a competition team and does not work at all with pumse (ATC, if my recollection of a conversation we had like three years ago is faulty, please correct me! ).  If that is the case, he'd have to tell you more about the specifics.  As for all pumse and application but no sparring, that is what many of these 'on the street/for the street/we're a martial art not a martial sport' schools do.  I'm not critical of them; they meet the needs of a certain demographic/customer and usually have good retention rates.  If its not what the way you want to learn taekwondo, look at other schools.  There are certainly enough taekwondo schools that that should be an option.
> 
> And yes, I would still consider both to be taekwondo without any other pressing reasons to say otherwise.



If anything, I'd refer to them as a subset of TKD, rather than TKD itself... but that's really getting into highly detailed semantics.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Daniel Sullivan said:
> 
> 
> > So, about that OP, are there any systems that currently exist where a 21 year old _could_ be a 6th dan?
> ...



Sure.

Glenn put up a thread recently about "When Does Rank Become Meaningless?", and I was rather tempted to say "when you get rank in the Bujinkan..." Within the Bujinkan, due to the large number of issues with ranking and quality, including the very high ranks that are attained very quickly, there is a common cry from those who want to see some as good and others less than that rank is no indicator of skill, knowledge, experience, understanding, relationships, or anything at all. In other words, the rank is arbitrary if you don't think the person is any good, but it's highly valuable if you think the person is good.

A big part of this has come about because of the incredibly fast promotion rate. For instance, at the fastest end of the scale, there are people like Craig Brogna, who started training at age 23 (with no martial art background), got his Godan (5th Dan) at 25 (after 2 years), and three years later had his Judan (10th Dan... after 5 years training total!). There have been 18 year old 5th Dan's, and far more. So, yeah, the Bujinkan makes it attainable. But not really the same way it was applied with Kano back in the day.


----------



## OKenpo942 (Apr 2, 2012)

What!? You mean I could have bypassed all of this blood, sweat, and pain and just created my own system based on all of the sweet moves I learned and practiced on my little brothers after watching Kung Fu theater as a kid? Man, I got hosed... I could be THE Ultimate Grand Supreme Master by now...Why didn't anyone tell me this was the case... This is just unforgivable... Mr. Mattocks, I think I am going to need an application to that flower arranging school you are going to.


----------



## pgsmith (Apr 2, 2012)

> RE. Koryu: From my limited time in a Koryu, I haven't found it to be exclusionary. Personally, I think that the nature of a koryu makes it less appealing to a wider audience without actively excluding anyone.


They have been getting better as they've begun to emerge from Japan, but the koryu still have an exclusionary outlook at heart. If you attempt to join a koryu dojo in Japan, you'll still need a letter of recommendation in many instances. Many allowances are made for us foreigners, but the higher you go in the ryu the more exclusionary it becomes. This is due to where the koryu originated. They were all, at one time, competitive entities that worked regularly at learning each other's secrets. Each koryu had its own ideology, methodology, and political outlook. They were quite diligent in actively excluding anyone that they thought did not match these outlooks. Then again, it's this very outlook that has allowed them to survive so long that we can have the opportunity to join them ourselves, if we're crazy enough. 



> I got hosed... I could be THE Ultimate Grand Supreme Master by now...Why didn't anyone tell me this was the case...


  If you've ever seen any of the dozens of "martial arts halls of fame", then you already knew that this was possible.


----------



## puunui (Apr 3, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> They have been getting better as they've begun to emerge from Japan, but the koryu still have an exclusionary outlook at heart. If you attempt to join a koryu dojo in Japan, you'll still need a letter of recommendation in many instances. Many allowances are made for us foreigners, but the higher you go in the ryu the more exclusionary it becomes. This is due to where the koryu originated. They were all, at one time, competitive entities that worked regularly at learning each other's secrets. Each koryu had its own ideology, methodology, and political outlook. They were quite diligent in actively excluding anyone that they thought did not match these outlooks. Then again, it's this very outlook that has allowed them to survive so long that we can have the opportunity to join them ourselves, if we're crazy enough.



Maybe we can start a new thread, but how hard is it to get an instructor license in a koryu art? I know you are going for a mid level certification soon, good luck with that, but I get the feeling a lot of people out there have no certification at all. Also, how important do you feel it is to have an understanding of japanese culture when studying koryu? I would think simple stuff like knowing how to bow properly, etc.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 3, 2012)

Which Ryu? Some will only let fully initiated students (who have gone through all the ranks, and covered the entire system in depth) to be instructors, others will let much lower graded persons/students teach, but in a limited way, and some don't allow anyone but the current representative/instructor to teach, no matter how well you know the system. And when it comes to people with no official certification, again what that means will depend on the circumstances, and the Ryu itself. Provided they aren't claiming to hold one, it's not always an issue. For instance, leaders of study groups don't often need to have instructor licencing, as, well, they aren't claiming to be instructors.

With regard to Japanese culture, yeah, it's an important thing to have an overview of. But not only the "regular" culture (as it exists now), what is needed is an appreciation of the culture that the Ryu came from, historically, geographically, politically, and so on. The idea of "simple stuff like knowing how to bow properly" can vary wildly from Ryu to Ryu, so the idea of that coming from an understanding of modern Japanese culture isn't really accurate. Knowledge of the culture of the Ryu, though, will give you that. And you get that from exposure to said Ryu... whichever it is.


----------



## pgsmith (Apr 3, 2012)

> Maybe we can start a new thread, but how hard is it to get an instructor license in a koryu art? I know you are going for a mid level certification soon, good luck with that, but I get the feeling a lot of people out there have no certification at all. Also, how important do you feel it is to have an understanding of japanese culture when studying koryu? I would think simple stuff like knowing how to bow properly, etc.


That's a pretty good question which probably does deserve its own thread. In fact, I'll go and start a new thread in the koryu forum so we don't further derail this one.

  If one of the mods wouldn't mind copying Chris' post over to the new thread, it would be appreciated!


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 3, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> That's a pretty good question which probably does deserve its own thread. In fact, I'll go and start a new thread in the koryu forum so we don't further derail this one.


I think that this one is so derailed that they had to lay down new tracks!


----------



## ks - learning to fly (Apr 3, 2012)

A 21 year old 6th Degree????  Oh, wait - you're serious?!? :BSmeter:   ....while I would certainly not want to step on anybody's toes, no I do not consider that to be legitimate, nor would I take them seriously. My instructor (61 years old) is a 6th Degree Black Belt in TKD and has EARNED that distinction the only way we know how - by working for it.

***bows***   Kris


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 3, 2012)

ks - learning to fly said:


> A 21 year old 6th Degree????  Oh, wait - you're serious?!? :BSmeter:


I'll ask you the same thing that I asked the last guy who put up a cutsie BS graphic: Why?



ks - learning to fly said:


> ....while I would certainly not want to step on anybody's toes, no I do not consider that to be legitimate, nor would I take them seriously.


Did you read the thread in its entirety or just pop in at the last page?  If you haven't read it, you might want to.  There's a good amount of clarifying information.



ks - learning to fly said:


> My instructor (61 years old) is a 6th Degree Black Belt in TKD and has EARNED that distinction the only way we know how - by working for it.


I will pose to you the same scenario that I posed to another poster earlier: suppose a child begins training at three, earns his first dan at five, then tests for each grade right on time (perhaps a parent who is living vicariously through their child, perhaps a future olympian, whatever).  Child in question is in class three days a week, trains an hour or more every day outside of class, and stays in the art through his teen years.  When his buddies are out chasing girls, boozing it up, or digging through their porn stash, this kid is training.  

He's got the time in grade and has worked very hard.  What makes him unqualified?  His grade was issued to him by his master and wasn't forged or faked in any way.  What makes it illegitimate?

Note: I don't endorse awarding rank to practitioners that young (I'm against it for a variety of reasons); I simply like to know why people think that it is illegitimate and/or BS.

One last question: What if he were twenty nine instead of twenty one?


----------



## chinto (Apr 3, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> So, about that OP, are there any systems that currently exist where a 21 year old _could_ be a 6th dan?




Not a valid one that I am aware of.   Most people will never be ranked as a roku-dan in their lifetime.


----------



## ks - learning to fly (Apr 4, 2012)

...as I mentioned - not to step on anyone's toes - but - as stated -  if the kid in the original thread was 13 and earned his 6th degree at 22???? that's only 9 years...I've been training almost 3, and about to test for my 1st degree and I won't be able to test for my 2nd for at least another 3 years...that's 6 years total and I train 4 times a week...nothing against dedication and training, it just doesn't sound feasible...

Respectfully, Kris


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 4, 2012)

ks - learning to fly said:


> ...as I mentioned - not to step on anyone's toes - but - as stated -  if the kid in the original thread was 13 and earned his 6th degree at 22???? that's only 9 years...I've been training almost 3, and about to test for my 1st degree and I won't be able to test for my 2nd for at least another 3 years...that's 6 years total and I train 4 times a week...nothing against dedication and training, it just doesn't sound feasible...
> 
> Respectfully, Kris


Do you know who the original 'kid' in the thread was?  I was trying to discern whether or not you had read that far in (I think the OP revealed it towards the end of the first or second page).


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 4, 2012)

Double post.


----------



## Grasshopper22 (Apr 10, 2012)

That is RIDICULOUS! No matter how good he may be, he should only be a 3rd Dan at the most.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 11, 2012)

Read the thread. Learn who it's referring to. Recognize that the application of rank then was very different to now. 

Sorry to be blunt, but you're just the latest in a line of people who seem to have not even read past the title to the second page where a lot of answers to this are found. Additionally, some later information came out which indicates the age isn't as initially reported. So read the thread. Then see if you still think the same thing.


----------

