# Bodan



## BrothersMA (Apr 23, 2016)

Is it to be worn red over black, or black over red?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 24, 2016)

Depends on the organization that issued it. In our system, Chodanbo wears the belt red over black.


----------



## TrueJim (Apr 24, 2016)

We do black on top.


----------



## Balrog (Apr 24, 2016)

We do black on top.  Your goal is to become a Black Belt, not fall back to a Red Belt.


----------



## MI_martialist (Apr 24, 2016)

How long has this different belt been around for Bodan?  I remember Bodan in the 80's when I was training and it was a plain black belt with no embroidery.  When you tested for Il Dan and passed, you were presented with an embroidered belt.  Instead of the ideas of "not falling back" and stuff, could it just be a way to get a student to pay for another belt?


----------



## TrueJim (Apr 24, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> ...could it just be a way to get a student to pay for another belt?



Our school has many students (sometimes 50 or more in a class)...so having _visually distinct_ belts is useful for knowing which students should be working on what. I'm not saying you couldn't teach with less distinct belts...just that it's easier (less wasted time) when you can quickly scan the room and see what's what at a glance.


----------



## MI_martialist (Apr 24, 2016)

Do you ever wonder what they used to do before we came up with the bedazzled multi-colored belts?




TrueJim said:


> Our school has many students (sometimes 50 or more in a class)...so having _visually distinct_ belts is useful for knowing which students should be working on what. I'm not saying you couldn't teach with less distinct belts...just that it's easier (less wasted time) when you can quickly scan the room and see what's what at a glance.


----------



## Azulx (Apr 25, 2016)

Our system uses Red on top. All our second levels are two-toned belts. You wear the color you are on top and what you are striving for on the bottom, because you are NOT that rank yet.


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 28, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> Do you ever wonder what they used to do before we came up with the bedazzled multi-colored belts?



No need for them in the old days when you had only a small group of students training - often under self-direction with the sensei only offering occasional correction.

Some large schools I am familiar with even have their students' names embroidered across their uniform tops.  It makes sense when you have hundreds to keep track of.


----------



## TrueJim (Apr 28, 2016)

dancingalone said:


> Some large schools I am familiar with even have their students' names embroidered across their uniform tops...



We don't embroider the names at our school...just Sharpie...and only for the geup students. English-alphabet version of the name written downward on one side of the collar, then Hangul version on the other side of the collar (so that our Korean interns can more easily know how to pronounce the name). By the time a student is poom/dan, it's assumed that everybody knows the students name by then.

The kids like it, because they get to see what their name looks like in Hangul.

It is handy when you have a class of 50 students and want to call-out some student's name...even if you already know their name, sometimes it takes a moment to recall (especially for newer students) and this completely solves that problem.


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 29, 2016)

[QUOTE="TrueJim, post: 1758646, member: 32472"
It is handy when you have a class of 50 students and want to call-out some student's name...even if you already know their name, sometimes it takes a moment to recall (especially for newer students) and this completely solves that problem.[/QUOTE]

It works the other way too when it's a large school with multiple instructors and the students need a reference other than the generic 'Sir' address.  I used to think special uniforms and lettering and such for the higher dans were a little ostentatious, but it makes impeccable sense under the right circumstances.


----------



## MI_martialist (Apr 29, 2016)

So, let's take a larger Samurai clan from Japanese history, are you saying they were self training and there was no need to understand seniority?

Bedazzled belts and multi-colored always changing based on special program uniforms are a result of marketing and not a need for distinction of seniority in training.



dancingalone said:


> No need for them in the old days when you had only a small group of students training - often under self-direction with the sensei only offering occasional correction.
> 
> Some large schools I am familiar with even have their students' names embroidered across their uniform tops.  It makes sense when you have hundreds to keep track of.


----------



## TrueJim (Apr 29, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> So, let's take a larger Samurai clan from Japanese history, are you saying they were self training and there was no need to understand seniority?



It's a fair question, but I don't know if that's a good analogy? A clan of Samurai would presumably know each other over a period of many years?  ...as opposed to a suburban taekwondo school where there's always a steady stream of new students. But who knows...I was never a medieval Samurai, so maybe there was always a steady stream of new students there too, just like a suburban taekwondo school! Maybe Samurai were constantly struggling to remember each other's names as they came and went.  



MI_martialist said:


> ...are a result of marketing...



Even if that were true (which I'm not sure it is), *there's nothing wrong with marketing*! Those attractive photos of food on the cover of the restaurant menu are "just there for marketing", and the pretty pictures of hairstyles at the salon are "just there for marketing". 
_
Marketing is good. Marketing is your friend. _Marketing is how you get new students.

But let's go back to the larger point...



MI_martialist said:


> Bedazzled belts and multi-colored always changing based on special program uniforms are a result of marketing and not a need for distinction of seniority in training.



So at our school geup rank have solid-white uniforms, and dan rank have black-trimmed collars. I think that's pretty typical of Kukkiwon/WTF-style schools. I don't think that's really _marketing_, but I'd be curious to know if you consider the black-trim collars for the dan rank to be marketing-motivated?

Likewise we also have a Poomsae Team, so they get the white-top / colored-bottom uniforms that you see at poomsae competitions in tournaments. The Poomsae Team students are allowed to wear those uniforms to class as well if they want. Again though, I don't consider that _marketing_ so much as just being in accord with common tournament attire.

And we also have a Demo Team, so like most Demo Teams they get a special uniform to wear at tournaments as well. Likewise our Demo Team is allowed to wear those uniforms as well to class if they want.

(It should be noted that we're a school that likes to compete often in tournaments.)

I don't think any of these uniforms were chosen for "marketing" -- they're just in accord with the guidelines of the types of tournaments that we attend. But you're right...it is four different types of uniforms for the students. But they're each in-place for a reason...just like the 10 different belt colors for the 10 different geup -- I don't think that's done for _marketing _purposes, so much as convenience.


----------



## dancingalone (May 2, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> So, let's take a larger Samurai clan from Japanese history, are you saying they were self training and there was no need to understand seniority?



I'm alluding more towards karate as trained in the Ryukyu islands pre-WWII, specifically through accounts of what it was like to train with Chojun Miyagi in his garden dojo where students came and went according to their individual schedules and there wasn't really a concept of a set 1 hr block for training where tuition was given by a single teacher.  In that situation, where the numbers are low and there is no set 'bow in' time, training tends to be more individual.  

Dunno about samurai as karate was never a pursuit of samurai, but I would venture to say that seniority as is typically discussed on a TKD board is probably a relatively modern concept.


----------



## BrothersMA (May 8, 2016)

I was told it was black over red because in rank black is over red. But then i saw our Master (my instructors instructor) tie one on red over black. Perhaps they changed it over time? The Master is not one to make such a mistake i think he is 8 or 9th degree bbelt. Im just gonna ask him next time i see him.


----------



## MI_martialist (May 8, 2016)

Now there is some confusion.  Of course, we know that KARATE is a modern invention that was brought from Okinawa.  Karate did not exist in Okinawa, so it is important to use proper vocabulary at appropriate times.

Of course Samurai did not pursue studies in Karate.  Karate is a modern Japanese adaptation of Okinawa fighting.  In Japan before Budo, there was Bujutsu.  My reference is to what happened before modern martial arts schools invented all of these belts, ranking, etc...what was done at that time?




dancingalone said:


> I'm alluding more towards karate as trained in the Ryukyu islands pre-WWII, specifically through accounts of what it was like to train with Chojun Miyagi in his garden dojo where students came and went according to their individual schedules and there wasn't really a concept of a set 1 hr block for training where tuition was given by a single teacher.  In that situation, where the numbers are low and there is no set 'bow in' time, training tends to be more individual.
> 
> Dunno about samurai as karate was never a pursuit of samurai, but I would venture to say that seniority as is typically discussed on a TKD board is probably a relatively modern concept.


----------



## MI_martialist (May 8, 2016)

The progression of these colors is an arbitrary modern invention...who says black is over red?  Who says white is first?  Where did that come from?  Was it always that way?  If so, why?  If not, why was it changed?  What was originally done to denote seniority...never rank?



BrothersMA said:


> I was told it was black over red because in rank black is over red. But then i saw our Master (my instructors instructor) tie one on red over black. Perhaps they changed it over time? The Master is not one to make such a mistake i think he is 8 or 9th degree bbelt. Im just gonna ask him next time i see him.


----------



## TrueJim (May 8, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> The progression of these colors is an arbitrary modern invention...who says black is over red?  Who says white is first?  Where did that come from?...



As I understand it, this is attributed to Kanō Jigorō.

Kanō Jigorō - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## MI_martialist (May 9, 2016)

When I say where did it come from, I am not talking about the last 100 years or so.  No one just woke up and said...hey colored belts for ranking...it had to come from somewhere...where is that?  What was done?



TrueJim said:


> As I understand it, this is attributed to Kanō Jigorō.
> 
> Kanō Jigorō - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 9, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> When I say where did it come from, I am not talking about the last 100 years or so.  No one just woke up and said...hey colored belts for ranking...it had to come from somewhere...where is that?  What was done?



Actually, that is pretty much what Kano did. He decided Judo needed some rankings, so he swiped the system used by GO players.


----------



## TrueJim (May 9, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Actually, that is pretty much what Kano did. He decided Judo needed some rankings, so he swiped the system used by GO players.



Agreed. The thing to remember about Kanō is that he wasn't _just_ a martial artist...he was also a professor of economics, then later an academic dean. Given his day-job as an educator, it's not surprising that he might say, "You know...some of the things we do in the classroom during the day when we teach economics or history or whatever...maybe some of those thing would be useful for teaching judo too?" So the idea of having ranks, giving tests to students to promote them to new ranks, giving students some indicator of their new rank...as an educator, all of those ideas probably would have come to Kanō very naturally. Whereas a martial artist who was more old-school might never have had the idea occur to him: "Gee, I wonder if my instruction would be improved by giving my students ranks?" Now even the local Kung Fu schools in my neighborhood give the kids colored "sashes" to denote their rank.


----------



## MI_martialist (May 9, 2016)

Right...he took it from somewhere...from where?  Why?  What was the original way of denoting seniority?



Dirty Dog said:


> Actually, that is pretty much what Kano did. He decided Judo needed some rankings, so he swiped the system used by GO players.


----------



## TrueJim (May 9, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> Right...he took it from somewhere...from where?  Why?  What was the original way of denoting seniority?



I don't know that there was necessarily ANY way of _denoting_ seniority before Kanō, nor did anybody necessarily feel the need to. I suppose it could have just been:

Joe's a better fighter than me, regardless of how long he's been doing this, so he's in charge. Or,
Joe's been here longer than me, and we all just remember that, so he's in charge.
I mean, even think of any movie you've ever seen that portrays "ancient" martial arts...the head of the school or temple or whatever was the guy in charge, he had lieutenants and everybody knew who they were, and then at the bottom there were a bunch of new recruits, and everybody knew who they were too. Nobody wore sashes or belts or had special uniforms to denote rank. Not that movies are necessarily historically accurate, but you get what I mean.

WHERE he took it from is apparently academia. We divide the students into grades. You take tests, if you pass, you graduate to the next grade.


----------



## MI_martialist (May 9, 2016)

Really?  Honestly, does that really make any sense?  Where do Japanese martial systems come from?  They date back to the Feudal days of Japan where there were organized clans or families, warrior compounds.  There was no seniority?  There was no way of denoting levels of comprehension, instructional level, etc???  Do you really believe that?  Do you really believe that out of the blue, Kano said...I will have people wear white suits and have them tie a belt around their waists?



TrueJim said:


> I don't know that there was necessarily ANY way of _denoting_ seniority before Kanō, nor did anybody necessarily feel the need to. I suppose it could have just been:
> 
> Joe's a better fighter than me, regardless of how long he's been doing this, so he's in charge. Or,
> Joe's been here longer than me, and we all just remember that, so he's in charge.
> ...


----------



## TrueJim (May 10, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> Really?  Honestly, does that really make any sense?  Where do Japanese martial systems come from?  They date back to the Feudal days of Japan where there were organized clans or families, warrior compounds.  There was no seniority?  There was no way of denoting levels of comprehension, instructional level, etc???  Do you really believe that?  Do you really believe that out of the blue, Kano said...I will have people wear white suits and have them tie a belt around their waists?



You're suggesting that the idea of rank in a judo school came out of the notion of rank in the military? That theory seems equally plausible to me. Since Kanō was an academic though, and not a soldier, I'd be more inclined to think that his inspiration came from academia. I don't know that there's any way now though that anybody can know for sure what was in Kanō's thoughts back then.


----------



## MI_martialist (May 10, 2016)

Of course there is a way...go to credible sources. Is that not like saying we cannot know why certain things in history happened because we have no one around who was there?

There are credible sources, but I am not saying the military...I am saying warrior clans, families, Samurai clans had a system to denote seniority, and a system to provide instructional credentials.

If ind it interesting that in science, we like sources and in history we like sources, but in martial arts, we seem to like to theorize ourselves, or just accept what is said without sources and confirmation.



TrueJim said:


> You're suggesting that the idea of rank in a judo school came out of the notion of rank in the military? That theory seems equally plausible to me. Since Kanō was an academic though, and not a soldier, I'd be more inclined to think that his inspiration came from academia. I don't know that there's any way now though that anybody can know for sure what was in Kanō's thoughts back then.


----------



## jks9199 (May 10, 2016)

In the traditional Japanese arts, like the koryu styles, there is no rank as such. There are students and teachers. There are people with the license to teach, in a few different forms, and members who learn.  Otherwise, there was caste and social status. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## TrueJim (May 10, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> Of course there is a way...go to credible sources.



Then...what's stopping you? By all means, go to the credible sources! I'm not the one who asked the question.


----------



## MI_martialist (May 10, 2016)

Rank is a modern invention.  In fact, I have only really used the word seniority.



jks9199 said:


> In the traditional Japanese arts, like the koryu styles, there is no rank as such. There are students and teachers. There are people with the license to teach, in a few different forms, and members who learn.  Otherwise, there was caste and social status.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## MI_martialist (May 10, 2016)

You assume I have not and you have?  I know where it comes from, and it wasn't an invention out of the air.



TrueJim said:


> Then...what's stopping you? By all means, go to the credible sources! I'm not the one who asked the question.


----------



## TrueJim (May 10, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> Right...he took it from somewhere...from where? Why? What was the original way of denoting seniority?





MI_martialist said:


> *I know where it comes from*, and it wasn't an invention out of the air.



That's odd...if you already know the answer, then why did you ask the question?

Since you *do* know though, I'd be interested in learning more. Could you tell me more about how the invention came about? I always like to learn.


----------



## MI_martialist (May 10, 2016)

I ask the question to elicit responses, to try to get people to think...to delve deeper into their understanding.  I went and searched it out...what is stopping you from doing the same?



TrueJim said:


> That's odd...if you already know the answer, then why did you ask the question?
> 
> Since you *do* know though, I'd be interested in learning more. Could you tell me more about how the invention came about? I always like to learn.


----------



## MI_martialist (May 10, 2016)

So, maybe I should have approached this differently.  So, here is my new approach:

It is inconceivable that Kano and modern martial arts styles invented on their own this deeply rooted "ranking" system.  I came from older, Feudal systems of denoting seniority in Samurai clans...at least the Japanese iteration.



MI_martialist said:


> I ask the question to elicit responses, to try to get people to think...to delve deeper into their understanding.  I went and searched it out...what is stopping you from doing the same?


----------



## TrueJim (May 10, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> I went and searched it out...what is stopping you from doing the same?



Why would I go out and do research for a question that I didn't ask?  



MI_martialist said:


> I ask the question to elicit responses, to try to get people to think...



You have succeeded!  But I won't divulge what I'm thinking. ;-)

No, seriously...you're saying that:

Kano was teaching judo
He decided that his instruction would benefit from some sort of ranking system
So he took his inspiration from feudal ranking systems and came up with a ranking system for judo
I suppose that seems plausible. Out of curiosity though...how do you know this?


----------



## jks9199 (May 10, 2016)

TrueJim said:


> Why would I go out and do research for a question that I didn't ask?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The problem I see with that chain is that it is pretty well documented that Kano took the go ranking system when he found that he needed a way to know how skilled a group of students that he didn't know personally should be...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## TrueJim (May 10, 2016)

jks9199 said:


> The problem I see with that chain is that it is pretty well documented that Kano took the go ranking system when he found that he needed a way to know how skilled a group of students that he didn't know personally should be...



Ah yes, but did the Go ranking system itself derive from the feudal ranking of Samurai clans?   I see your _cause_, and raise you an _effect_!   ;-)

And where did the Samurai get their ideas for feudal ranking systems, eh, hmmm?  ;-)


----------



## Tony Dismukes (May 10, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> Of course, we know that KARATE is a modern invention that was brought from Okinawa. *Karate did not exist in Okinawa*, so it is important to use proper vocabulary at appropriate times.
> 
> Of course Samurai did not pursue studies in Karate. Karate is a modern Japanese adaptation of Okinawa fighting.



Say what?!! You might want to double-check your history there. Karate was created (and named) in Okinawa. The Japanese adapted it into their own styles, but Okinawan karate came first.


----------



## TimoS (May 10, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Say what?!! You might want to double-check your history there. Karate was created (and named) in Okinawa. The Japanese adapted it into their own styles, but Okinawan karate came first.


I think what he's referring to is that karate used to be called todi, or simply ti, but that's not wholly accurate. The earliest mention of karate using the kanji for empty hand was, after all, over 100 years ago and presumably since it was written that way in a book, it was already an established term.


----------



## jks9199 (May 10, 2016)

TrueJim said:


> Ah yes, but did the Go ranking system itself derive from the feudal ranking of Samurai clans?   I see your _cause_, and raise you an _effect_!   ;-)
> 
> And where did the Samurai get their ideas for feudal ranking systems, eh, hmmm?  ;-)


Elephants.   In the end, it's all Elephants, all the way down.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Tony Dismukes (May 10, 2016)

TimoS said:


> I think what he's referring to is that karate used to be called todi, or simply ti, but that's not wholly accurate. The earliest mention of karate using the kanji for empty hand was, after all, over 100 years ago and presumably since it was written that way in a book, it was already an established term.


Even if he's just talking about the name and not the art, I believe the first recorded usage of the term "karate" that we know of was by Ankō Itosu - an Okinawan living in Okinawa. Of course the art itself, regardless of what you call it, was developed in Okinawa.


----------



## MI_martialist (May 10, 2016)

Why is it that we insist on thinking that Japanese martial history started with modern (traditional) martial arts?  Why do we not want to look farther back and see the origins of the traditions and customs that everyone drools about?


----------



## jks9199 (May 10, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> Why is it that we insist on thinking that Japanese martial history started with modern (traditional) martial arts?  Why do we not want to look farther back and see the origins of the traditions and customs that everyone drools about?


Just what are you talking about?

I've mentioned and alluded to the koryu martial arts -- the ones with history dating back to and beyond the Japanese feudal era.  Want to talk about sumo?  Hard to go much further back...


----------



## WaterGal (May 10, 2016)

TrueJim said:


> Ah yes, but did the Go ranking system itself derive from the feudal ranking of Samurai clans?   I see your _cause_, and raise you an _effect_!   ;-)
> 
> And where did the Samurai get their ideas for feudal ranking systems, eh, hmmm?  ;-)



Hahaha... well, of course, you can follow that reasoning all the way back to some villages in Mesopotamia deciding the strongest guy is the chief and all the regular shmucks that raise camels have to listen to him.  I don't think many people would say that judo got their belt system from that, though.


----------



## TrueJim (May 10, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> Why is it that we insist on thinking that Japanese martial history started with modern (traditional) martial arts?  Why do we not want to look farther back and see the origins of the traditions and customs that everyone drools about?



Seriously. You asked where color belts come from. You received an answer. You provided an alternative but (as yet) unsupported alternative theory. Then tell us it was all just a test anyway to see if we know as much as you. And now blast everybody for not being expansive enough.

Troll much?


----------



## TrueJim (May 10, 2016)

WaterGal said:


> Hahaha... well, of course, you can follow that reasoning all the way back to some villages in Mesopotamia deciding the strongest guy is the chief and all the regular shmucks that raise camels have to listen to him!



Exactly! It goes like this:

Taekwondo got its belts from karate
Karate got its belts from judo
Judo got its belts from Go
Go got its belts from samurai
Samurai got their belts from Mesopotamia
Mesopotamia got their belts from the elephants
And from there it's elephants all the way down.
Arguably, this is the most succinct and satisfying answer ever provided on MartialTalk.


----------



## TimoS (May 11, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I believe the first recorded usage of the term "karate" that we know of was by Ankō Itosu - an Okinawan living in Okinawa


Not quite. The first known mention with the current kanji was in a book by Hanashiro Chomo, Karate Shoshu Hen, published in 1905. He was, apparently, a student of Itosu, though.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 2, 2016)

Well, based on the (actual) topic of this thread, it passed me by… but considering some of the content, I feel that some things might be clarified here… 



MI_martialist said:


> So, let's take a larger Samurai clan from Japanese history, are you saying they were self training and there was no need to understand seniority?



As dancingalone said, no, that's not what they meant or were referring to… but I'd ask what you mean by a "larger samurai clan" here… as, when it comes down to it, that image is largely inaccurate as well…  



MI_martialist said:


> Bedazzled belts and multi-colored always changing based on special program uniforms are a result of marketing and not a need for distinction of seniority in training.



In modern application, particularly in more "business-oriented" schools (being diplomatic here…), sure. But the original intention of differentiated apparel to distinguish levels of experience and skill? Not quite the same thing… 



TrueJim said:


> It's a fair question, but I don't know if that's a good analogy? A clan of Samurai would presumably know each other over a period of many years?  ...as opposed to a suburban taekwondo school where there's always a steady stream of new students. But who knows...I was never a medieval Samurai, so maybe there was always a steady stream of new students there too, just like a suburban taekwondo school! Maybe Samurai were constantly struggling to remember each other's names as they came and went.



Yeah… there's not really a way to discuss classical traditions in such a fashion… you firstly need to look at the particular period, then the domain… then you have to differentiate between the otomo-ryu and "regular" ryu-ha… who the daimyo was, and what their expectation and desires were… the political affiliations… and so on. 



MI_martialist said:


> Now there is some confusion.  Of course, we know that KARATE is a modern invention that was brought from Okinawa.  Karate did not exist in Okinawa, so it is important to use proper vocabulary at appropriate times.



Er… huh? Well, that's patently incorrect in a couple of ways… namely that, yes, karate (both the art, and the terminology) did exist in Okinawa… was it the most popular term used? No… but it was still there…. and, while there are certainly a number of modern (largely Japanese-based) systems and organisations of karate, it is not what I would class as purely a "modern invention"… 



MI_martialist said:


> Of course Samurai did not pursue studies in Karate.  Karate is a modern Japanese adaptation of Okinawa fighting.  In Japan before Budo, there was Bujutsu.  My reference is to what happened before modern martial arts schools invented all of these belts, ranking, etc...what was done at that time?



Hmm, didn't they? Not familiar with the stories of shared training between Jigen Ryu practitioners and Ryukyu Te practitioners on Okinawa…? 

I'm just saying that things aren't always as cut and dried as some might make them out to be… 



MI_martialist said:


> The progression of these colors is an arbitrary modern invention...who says black is over red?  Who says white is first?  Where did that come from?  Was it always that way?  If so, why?  If not, why was it changed?  What was originally done to denote seniority...never rank?



What is your distinction between rank (which shows a position within a hierarchy) and seniority (which shows a position amongst a group, particularly within a hierarchy)…?

As far as who says white is first, well, Kano Jigoro can lay claim to that… was it always that way? Yep, since he came up with the concept of belt-indicated ranking systems… as far as why, there are a number of theories… but if you can ask Kano himself, let us know which idea is right. The in-yo concept of contrasting with the kuro-obi is my personal favourite, for the record… 



MI_martialist said:


> When I say where did it come from, I am not talking about the last 100 years or so.  No one just woke up and said...hey colored belts for ranking...it had to come from somewhere...where is that?  What was done?



Er… actually….



Dirty Dog said:


> Actually, that is pretty much what Kano did. He decided Judo needed some rankings, so he swiped the system used by GO players.



Yep, this. It's fairly simplified, but accurate.



MI_martialist said:


> Right...he took it from somewhere...from where?



As Dirty Dog said, from the game of Go… specifically to do with dan-i ranking, of course, but that was quickly adopted to the usage of shiro-obi and kuro-obi, as mentioned above, as a reference to the duality concept of in-yo… among other aspects, of course.



MI_martialist said:


> Why?



Because Kano was looking for a way to identify the experience and skill level of students at various university and school clubs that he'd not trained with before, as well as looking to find a way to provide various systems a way to have a more uniform ranking based on skill and application within the context of Kodokan rule-sets and competition.



MI_martialist said:


> What was the original way of denoting seniority?



Menyo licencing (menjo), coupled with particular aspects of dojo etiquette and training practices. Thing is, seniority and rank weren't always the same thing… and both were present. The concept of sempai/kohai was a constant, and was based pretty purely on who had been training (involved) the longest… ranking, on the other hand, indicated the particular level to which a person was authorised or licenced within a particular ryu-ha.



TrueJim said:


> I don't know that there was necessarily ANY way of _denoting_ seniority before Kanō, nor did anybody necessarily feel the need to. I suppose it could have just been:
> 
> Joe's a better fighter than me, regardless of how long he's been doing this, so he's in charge. Or,
> Joe's been here longer than me, and we all just remember that, so he's in charge.




Honestly, that's not overtly accurate… it can have a bearing on the foundation of particular systems, but rarely on the idea of ranking within the ryu itself.



TrueJim said:


> I mean, even think of any movie you've ever seen that portrays "ancient" martial arts...the head of the school or temple or whatever was the guy in charge, he had lieutenants and everybody knew who they were, and then at the bottom there were a bunch of new recruits, and everybody knew who they were too. Nobody wore sashes or belts or had special uniforms to denote rank. Not that movies are necessarily historically accurate, but you get what I mean.



Actually, that's not too far from accurate, at least where classical Japanese arts are concerned.



TrueJim said:


> WHERE he took it from is apparently academia. We divide the students into grades. You take tests, if you pass, you graduate to the next grade.



Not overtly, actually. In classical arts, you would be ranked (licenced) based on the level of your introduction and exposure to the teachings of the ryu itself… a particular ryu would licence someone who might not have the physical skills, but had the knowledge and insight into the ryu, based on their years of study. One thing that Kano changed quite dramatically was what the ranking was indicating itself.

Kano's ranking was based very much on skill in application of the methods of Judo (Kodokan) itself. You would be ranked higher as you gained skill, and could beat (in the competitive forms of the Kodokan) other people of similar or higher rank than yourself. It got to the point that, in the early 20th Century, certain martial artists personal card (like a business card, but giving details about yourself only) might read something like "X-Ryu Menkyo Kaiden, Y-Ryu Chuden Menkyo, Kodokan 4th Dan"… indicating the level of licensing in classical systems, as well as the level to which you were tested to apply your skills outside of kata geiko.



MI_martialist said:


> Really?  Honestly, does that really make any sense?  Where do Japanese martial systems come from?



Really? Do you really want to ask such a question? Cause… 



MI_martialist said:


> They date back to the Feudal days of Japan where there were organized clans or families, warrior compounds.



… this is both largely inaccurate, as well as (where you take it next), not anything related to the ranking within martial systems at all… 



MI_martialist said:


> There was no seniority?  There was no way of denoting levels of comprehension, instructional level, etc???  Do you really believe that?



Er… the idea of individual (clan/han) ranking as equal to, or even related to ranking of a martial system? Nope. 

I'll put it this way… if you join the army, you might be a colonel… but you might also be a blue belt in Judo. It was the same thing back then, you know… 



MI_martialist said:


> Do you really believe that out of the blue, Kano said...I will have people wear white suits and have them tie a belt around their waists?



Er… not entirely how it happened, but if we're going to speak in vague generalisations, yeah, he did just decide that for his system. Where he took the uniform from is essentially a form of hard-wearing clothing worn under the kimono, and the belt, well, that's because that's how Japanese jackets are tied… you may also be interested to know that the form of belt has changed over time, as the requirements for it demanded… just so you know… 



TrueJim said:


> You're suggesting that the idea of rank in a judo school came out of the notion of rank in the military? That theory seems equally plausible to me. Since Kanō was an academic though, and not a soldier, I'd be more inclined to think that his inspiration came from academia. I don't know that there's any way now though that anybody can know for sure what was in Kanō's thoughts back then.



It may seem plausible, but it's not correct, or accurate.



MI_martialist said:


> Of course there is a way...go to credible sources. Is that not like saying we cannot know why certain things in history happened because we have no one around who was there?



Okay, what "credible sources" are you citing? Cause, I gotta say, when it comes to the history of Judo and it's ranking systems, you look to the credible sources of Judo… not this fantasy you're promoting here.



MI_martialist said:


> There are credible sources, but I am not saying the military...I am saying warrior clans, families, Samurai clans had a system to denote seniority, and a system to provide instructional credentials.



You really need to differentiate between ryu-ha and kumi here… as you're confusing them quite badly.



MI_martialist said:


> If ind it interesting that in science, we like sources and in history we like sources, but in martial arts, we seem to like to theorize ourselves, or just accept what is said without sources and confirmation.



Frankly, speak for yourself. We in martial arts are pretty fond of sources and documentation as well… particularly in Koryu… 



jks9199 said:


> In the traditional Japanese arts, like the koryu styles, there is no rank as such. There are students and teachers. There are people with the license to teach, in a few different forms, and members who learn.  Otherwise, there was caste and social status.



Er… no, not actually true there JKS… some ryu-ha, yeah… others far from it. And, as indicated above, caste and social status are unrelated (in many ways) to ryu-ha ranking.



MI_martialist said:


> Rank is a modern invention.  In fact, I have only really used the word seniority.



No, rank is not a modern invention. Or do you think that generals are only found in armies after WWI? As far as rank in martial arts, again, no, it is far from a modern invention… and seniority is either the same thing, or unrelated entirely (depending on which definition you choose to apply).



MI_martialist said:


> You assume I have not and you have?  I know where it comes from, and it wasn't an invention out of the air.



I, personally, would assume that you haven't… mainly as most of the information and ideas you've been putting forth are inaccurate, or at least, rather flawed. Again, I'd like to know exactly what sources you've been consulting… 



MI_martialist said:


> So, maybe I should have approached this differently.  So, here is my new approach:



Okay… 



MI_martialist said:


> It is inconceivable that Kano and modern martial arts styles invented on their own this deeply rooted "ranking" system.



Why is it inconceivable? I mean… it happened, after all… 



MI_martialist said:


> I came from older, Feudal systems of denoting seniority in Samurai clans...at least the Japanese iteration.



Er… gotta say, it sounds like you come from another in a long line of modern, invented, not-actually-connected-to-Japanese-arts, pseudo-koryu systems that have been cropping up over the last few decades… replete with the common fantasy ideas about what "samurai martial arts" and history are, rather than any actual understanding of either of them.



TrueJim said:


> No, seriously...you're saying that:
> 
> Kano was teaching judo
> He decided that his instruction would benefit from some sort of ranking system
> ...



Plausible, maybe… but wrong. So I'm curious how he "knew" this as well… 



jks9199 said:


> The problem I see with that chain is that it is pretty well documented that Kano took the go ranking system when he found that he needed a way to know how skilled a group of students that he didn't know personally should be...



Yep.



TrueJim said:


> Ah yes, but did the Go ranking system itself derive from the feudal ranking of Samurai clans?   I see your _cause_, and raise you an _effect_!   ;-)



Ha! Nope… it was brought over from China, it is believed… 



TrueJim said:


> And where did the Samurai get their ideas for feudal ranking systems, eh, hmmm?  ;-)



Which ranking system are you talking about? Menkyo ranking for martial traditions, or ranking within the gumi or han itself? They're not the same thing at all… 

That said, han/gumi ranking is a combination of military ranking (fairly common throughout the world), and ryu-ha ranking (licensing) came about with the advent of ryu-ha themselves, starting ostensibly in the mid-15th Century, but really becoming a more commonplace aspect of ryu-ha during the 17th-19th Centuries (hmm… the period of peacetime… not anything to do with military ranking at all… interesting…)



MI_martialist said:


> Why is it that we insist on thinking that Japanese martial history started with modern (traditional) martial arts?



And exactly who do you think insists on thinking anything of the kind?



MI_martialist said:


> Why do we not want to look farther back and see the origins of the traditions and customs that everyone drools about?



Mate, you're really in the wrong place to think you're alone in looking at the older arts… of course, you're probably in the wrong place if you think that's what you're training in and studying as well, for the record… 



jks9199 said:


> Just what are you talking about?



Good question… 



jks9199 said:


> I've mentioned and alluded to the koryu martial arts -- the ones with history dating back to and beyond the Japanese feudal era.  Want to talk about sumo?  Hard to go much further back...



Or we can just send me an invite when these topics come up… ?


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 2, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> Where do *Japanese* martial systems come from?



At a rough guess, I'd say Japan?


----------

