# white gi vs black gi



## suicide

i know in kenpo we wear the black gi but how would you feel if one of your students took it upon himself to wear a white gi , would it bother you would it depend on his rank ? 

after so many years of wearing a black gi with out asking questions i jumped into a white one for the first time and it felt a lil on the traditional side , i wear a white gi in judo but thats diffrent in a way cause it ways a ton.


----------



## Blindside

I would have to kill him, deviation from the standard uniform code is simply inexcusable.


----------



## Twin Fist

word


----------



## J Ellis

I have my students begin wearing a white gi. They become eligible to wear the black gi at Purple belt. Mixing and matching only happens at black belt.

I have two reasons for assigning white gis to new students:

1) White gis are acceptable in most MA schools. If a new student quits for whatever reason, they have a uniform they can probably use elsewhere. Black gis, however, are not allowed everywhere.
2) The black gi becomes a rite of passage, a mark of distinction as one passes from the beginner to an intermediate stage.

If I had to add a third reason, I would say this:

3) A white belt on a black gi looks silly.

Joel


----------



## Twin Fist

i start my people in black, they have to earn a white uniform.


----------



## Milt G.

Hello,

Traditionally, in Kenpo, all started with white gi's.  You were allowed to wear the black gi at Shodan level.  You could mix and match (white or black) at that point as well.

Everything, it seems, has become more lax of late.  You see many different uniform colors and styles.  Most often, these days, Kenpo practitioners of all levels wear the all black gi.

Well, it does hide the blood better. 

Thank you,
Milt G.


----------



## still learning

Hello, In our school...NO one is allow to wear a White Gi...unless there first time or waiting for there Black gi to arrive...

Normally we tell them to wear gym type clothes...T-shirts and pants till uniform come in.

Our Professor is very strict on this....( our schools only).

Aloha,

PS: It makes it nicer to see everyone wearing the same colors and styles of uniforms...for formally purposes..

underwear- your choice here!


----------



## Milt G.

still learning said:


> underwear- your choice here!


 
Hello,

Amen to that!

  

Thanks,
Milt G.


----------



## Tez3

Is that choice of underwear or whether to chose to wear it lol?


----------



## Milt G.

Tez3 said:


> Is that choice of underwear or whether to chose to wear it lol?


 
Hi,

I hope it was "choice" of what to wear...
Of course, some of the arts can be considered "commando" arts. 

Thanks,
Milt G.


----------



## Carol

Milt G. said:


> Hi,
> 
> I hope it was "choice" of what to wear...
> Of course, some of the arts can be considered "commando" arts.
> 
> Thanks,
> Milt G.



Excellent!!

:roflmao:

Thanks Milt I needed that


----------



## mwd0818

J Ellis said:


> I have my students begin wearing a white gi. They become eligible to wear the black gi at Purple belt. Mixing and matching only happens at black belt.
> 
> I have two reasons for assigning white gis to new students:
> 
> 1) White gis are acceptable in most MA schools. If a new student quits for whatever reason, they have a uniform they can probably use elsewhere. Black gis, however, are not allowed everywhere.
> 2) The black gi becomes a rite of passage, a mark of distinction as one passes from the beginner to an intermediate stage.
> 
> If I had to add a third reason, I would say this:
> 
> 3) A white belt on a black gi looks silly.
> 
> Joel



Joel - my tradition as well.  As for uniform, I also break classes up - Purple Belts and up are considered Intermediate/Advanced students, so they are in one class.  White - Orange are Beginners and wear white.  Option is for the student to wear black or white after purple, mixing colors is fine after Black.  Although different color uniforms (red, blue) are reserved for upper Black Belt ranks (usually 3rd+).  Lavendar and fuscia uniforms are reserved for Black Belts with enough skill that you no longer ask them about their uniforms.  



Tez3 said:


> Is that choice of underwear or whether to chose to wear it lol?



Only with Black Uniforms . . . very dark, very opaque, black uniforms . . .


----------



## girlbug2

Milt G. said:


> Hello,
> 
> Traditionally, in Kenpo, all started with white gi's. You were allowed to wear the black gi at Shodan level. You could mix and match (white or black) at that point as well.
> 
> Everything, it seems, has become more lax of late. You see many different uniform colors and styles. Most often, these days, Kenpo practitioners of all levels wear the all black gi.
> 
> Well, it does hide the blood better.
> 
> Thank you,
> Milt G.


 
Are we referring to traditional Kenpo or EPAK?

Because in EPAK, I thought black *was* "traditional". The reason being that black represents a break with a "pure" (white) traditional style, thus, you have a mixed (black) style. EPAK is supposed to be renegade, not a pure style. It would be improper therefore for an EPAK practitioner to wear white.


----------



## mwd0818

girlbug2 said:


> Are we referring to traditional Kenpo or EPAK?
> 
> Because in EPAK, I thought black *was* "traditional". The reason being that black represents a break with a "pure" (white) traditional style, thus, you have a mixed (black) style. EPAK is supposed to be renegade, not a pure style. It would be improper therefore for an EPAK practitioner to wear white.



I believe in the early early days, Mr. Parker's students did wear white until Shodan.  I think some of the Seniors who were around during the day would be able to clarify.


----------



## Danjo

Once you go black, you never go back.


----------



## Doc

mwd0818 said:


> I believe in the early early days, Mr. Parker's students did wear white until Shodan.  I think some of the Seniors who were around during the day would be able to clarify.



In the early days everyone wore white uniforms. The black uniform was introduced as part of the commercialization of the art for various reasons. One of those reasons was to give students an incentive, and the black uniform was "available" to everyone to wear at brown according to the published guidelines. Another reason was based on teaching requirements at the brown belt level. The black uniform gave the illusion of many teachers on the floor, and made a distinction between "assistant instructors/instructors," and lower division students. For most the distinction of wearing a black uniform was a big deal. However Mr. Parker never demanded anyone follow any of his guidelines. Therefore many "old schoolers" preferred to stay in white, most notably Mr. Bob White's Crew who always took a lot of pride in their well groomed sparkling white uniforms, as they beat the crap out of you in competition.

Many tails have been spun about various so-called traditions, but most of the reasons were very pragmatic at their roots. I recall someone asking in a group about why the belt knot is worn on one side for men, and another for women. I heard stories of Chinese Sash mimicking, and respect to your teacher who wore his in the center, and challenges to your teacher if you do the same. All kinds of "traditions and stories." The truth was much more pragmatic. At the time the commercial schools begin to take off in the late sixties, long/big hair was the fashion. And as more women poured into the schools, it was discovered that it was often difficult to tell male from female in a uniform. The placement of the belt knot solved the problem, and created another "Kenpo Tradition." "If you concentrate on the finger, you miss all the heavenly gwory."


----------



## Doc

suicide said:


> i know in kenpo we wear the black gi but how would you feel if one of your students took it upon himself to wear a white gi , would it bother you would it depend on his rank ?
> 
> after so many years of wearing a black gi with out asking questions i jumped into a white one for the first time and it felt a lil on the traditional side , i wear a white gi in judo but thats diffrent in a way cause it ways a ton.


"We?"


----------



## Danjo

In Kajukenbo everyone started wearing black in the late 1950's. Not sure, but I have heard various things uncluding that it was due to the death of Sijo Adriano Emperado's brother Joe. Either way, black gi's were not readily availible then and people had to dye them themselves so they came out all different shades of gray to dark black.


----------



## Doc

girlbug2 said:


> Are we referring to traditional Kenpo or EPAK?
> 
> Because in EPAK, I thought black *was* "traditional". The reason being that black represents a break with a "pure" (white) traditional style, thus, you have a mixed (black) style. EPAK is supposed to be renegade, not a pure style. It would be improper therefore for an EPAK practitioner to wear white.



Improper? By whose standards? The big tradition in the sky? The only tradition and standard is the one that the person who teaches you sets in play. Everything else, going all the way back to Mr. Parker was only a "suggestion." We even had schools and groups who were members, who chose to not even wear a Parker Patch, let alone uniform colors. When Larry Tatum was working for Mr. Parker running the West Los Angeles School, his students wore Larry's Patch in a Parker owned school. Tradition? Whose tradition?


----------



## Doc

Danjo said:


> In Kajukenbo everyone started wearing black in the late 1950's. Not sure, but I have heard various things uncluding that it was due to the death of Sijo Adriano Emperado's brother Joe. Either way, black gi's were not readily availible then and people had to dye them themselves so they came out all different shades of gray to dark black.



Yeah black uniforms were really hard to come by because they were all imported from Japan, and nobody was making them. Tokaido's only came in white, then Nozawa, who was the exclusive importer of Tokaido created their own "N.T.I." brand (National Trade Imports), and began selling their own black uniform, followed by the "BUDO" Brand created by Black Belt Magazine and Martial Arts Supply before they split the company in two when they were over at 5160 West Washington Blvd, near Fairfax.

Dam, I'm old.


----------



## mwd0818

Doc said:


> Dam, I'm old.



Experienced, not old.

Ok . . . maybe both.


----------



## mwd0818

Doc said:


> In the early days everyone wore white uniforms. The black uniform was introduced as part of the commercialization of the art for various reasons. One of those reasons was to give students an incentive, and the black uniform was "available" to everyone to wear at brown according to the published guidelines. Another reason was based on teaching requirements at the brown belt level. The black uniform gave the illusion of many teachers on the floor, and made a distinction between "assistant instructors/instructors," and lower division students. For most the distinction of wearing a black uniform was a big deal. However Mr. Parker never demanded anyone follow any of his guidelines. Therefore many "old schoolers" preferred to stay in white, most notably Mr. Bob White's Crew who always took a lot of pride in their well groomed sparkling white uniforms, as they beat the crap out of you in competition.
> 
> Many tails have been spun about various so-called traditions, but most of the reasons were very pragmatic at their roots. I recall someone asking in a group about why the belt knot is worn on one side for men, and another for women. I heard stories of Chinese Sash mimicking, and respect to your teacher who wore his in the center, and challenges to your teacher if you do the same. All kinds of "traditions and stories." The truth was much more pragmatic. At the time the commercial schools begin to take off in the late sixties, long/big hair was the fashion. And as more women poured into the schools, it was discovered that it was often difficult to tell male from female in a uniform. The placement of the belt knot solved the problem, and created another "Kenpo Tradition." "If you concentrate on the finger, you miss all the heavenly gwory."




Damnit Doc . . . I've spent the last 20 minutes trying to find that picture of you in the "old days".  Can't find it on this computer . . . Was trying to find the "big hair" pic . . .


----------



## suicide

Doc said:


> "We?"


 
yeah : we ! why ? 

when i say we i feel part of the kenpo brotherhood is there a problem with that ? im just a nobody that identifies with other kenpo practitioners...


----------



## Doc

mwd0818 said:


> Damnit Doc . . . I've spent the last 20 minutes trying to find that picture of you in the "old days".  Can't find it on this computer . . . Was trying to find the "big hair" pic . . .



Close call.


----------



## Doc

suicide said:


> yeah : we ! why ?
> 
> when i say we i feel part of the kenpo brotherhood is there a problem with that ? im just a nobody that identifies with other kenpo practitioners...



Nothing wrong with that. Your problem is you are taking your Kenpo "experience" or understanding and projecting it as if everyone else does, understands, or has the same experience as you. I'm a Kenpo nobody whose been lucky to live long enough to know better, and stay away from collective pronouns.


----------



## Twin Fist

uh, Doc?

I know that SGM Parker was a very devout LDS.

LDS temple garb IS knotted on the sides, different for men and women.

While i gnerally dont beleive ANYTHING that the Tracy's post about Mr Parker, I am thinking they might be right when they say that the LDS garb is the origin of the side knots. it might just be a coincidence, but there it is.



Doc said:


> Many tails have been spun about various so-called traditions, but most of the reasons were very pragmatic at their roots. I recall someone asking in a group about why the belt knot is worn on one side for men, and another for women.


----------



## mwd0818

Doc said:


> Close call.



Found it . . . but since my name is on my post, and you can see where I live . . . .  I think I'll refrain from posting it . . .

Don't want my first exposure to SL-4 to be my last . . .


----------



## Doc

mwd0818 said:


> Found it . . . but since my name is on my post, and you can see where I live . . . .  I think I'll refrain from posting it . . .
> 
> Don't want my first exposure to SL-4 to be my last . . .



Especially since we have one Marine Corps Scout/Sniper, and two SWAT Snipers in the group.


----------



## Doc

Twin Fist said:


> uh, Doc?
> 
> I know that SGM Parker was a very devout LDS.
> 
> LDS temple garb IS knotted on the sides, different for men and women.
> 
> While i gnerally dont beleive ANYTHING that the Tracy's post about Mr Parker, I am thinking they might be right when they say that the LDS garb is the origin of the side knots. it might just be a coincidence, but there it is.



When you start believing the Tracy's on anything, it's a slippery slope. Mr. Parker to my knowledge NEVER mixed his religion with his kenpo teaching. In fact he went so far as to tell me, that "..it would be stupid to do so,.." and ultimately "bad for business." The placement of the knot idea came directly from Tom Kelly and mirrored the dichotomy of the cultural influences of the art. A Chinese Art in origin, that wore a Japanese uniform, and earlier had adopted some Japanese customs before they were dropped. The Chinese wear the sash to the side, and the Japanese wear the belt in the middle. The Tracy's were not the first, or last, to create a back story to something that fit their own agenda. I was constantly bombarded with questions of how Parker got along with "Blacks" because of the vicious rumors of him being "sexist," and "racist" because of his church affiliation. The simplest way I had of countering the lies and rumors was to simply take the person to Mr. Parker, introduce them, and walk away.


----------



## Twin Fist

makes sense to me, but the coincidence is there.


----------



## Doc

Twin Fist said:


> makes sense to me, but the coincidence is there.



Yeah, and according to the Tracy's, Parker was a sexist because there were no women in the schools. Of course any self-defense school where guys consistently beat the crap out of each other and ooze testosterone, blood, and issue bruises as a matter of course, could be called "sexist." After all, there won't be many women enrolled. What a coincidence.


----------



## Flying Crane

Doc said:


> The truth was much more pragmatic. At the time the commercial schools begin to take off in the late sixties, long/big hair was the fashion. And as more women poured into the schools, it was discovered that it was often difficult to tell male from female in a uniform. The placement of the belt knot solved the problem, and created another "Kenpo Tradition."


 
I've heard this explanation before, and to be honest I think someone is trying to pull our collective leg on this one.  I just do not find it believable.  Long/Big hair not withstanding, I simply cannot believe it was that difficult to tell a man from a woman once you put them in a gi, even from behind.  

On top of that, I don't think women really became prevalent in a martial arts school until the 1980s, and even then it took a long time for them to make up a large percentage of the student population.  I suspect the women in the dojos of the 1960s and 1970s were still fairly rare, and I am sure everyone in the dojo knew who was who, especially when it came to the female students in an otherwise testosterone laden activity.

My suspicion is that Mr. Parker simply wanted to establish a tradition that would distinguish him and his students from the masses.  Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## artFling

Twin Fist said:


> I start my people in black; they have to earn a white uniform.


 I think I must have missed that information.


----------



## suicide

whatever doc , didnt know you were so sensitive :angel:


----------



## Twin Fist

artFling said:


> I think I must have missed that information.




sorry, i meant thier first uniform is black. They start is sweats and a t=shirt.

they can, eventually, if they survive, get a white uniform


----------



## just2kicku

Danjo said:


> In Kajukenbo everyone started wearing black in the late 1950's. Not sure, but I have heard various things uncluding that it was due to the death of Sijo Adriano Emperado's brother Joe. Either way, black gi's were not readily availible then and people had to dye them themselves so they came out all different shades of gray to dark black.


 
I read because white was usually a Japanese art, since our system comes from the Sil Lum system, which is Chinese, that is why we wear black.

Besides, Good Guys Wear Black


----------



## Milt G.

Doc said:


> When you start believing the Tracy's on anything, it's a slippery slope. Mr. Parker to my knowledge NEVER mixed his religion with his kenpo teaching. In fact he went so far as to tell me, that "..it would be stupid to do so,.." and ultimately "bad for business." The placement of the knot idea came directly from Tom Kelly and mirrored the dichotomy of the cultural influences of the art. A Chinese Art in origin, that wore a Japanese uniform, and earlier had adopted some Japanese customs before they were dropped. The Chinese wear the sash to the side, and the Japanese wear the belt in the middle. The Tracy's were not the first, or last, to create a back story to something that fit their own agenda. I was constantly bombarded with questions of how Parker got along with "Blacks" because of the vicious rumors of him being "sexist," and "racist" because of his church affiliation. The simplest way I had of countering the lies and rumors was to simply take the person to Mr. Parker, introduce them, and walk away.


 
Hello,
Sadly, too many on the ground floor of Kenpo appear to have an agenda of some sort...

Perhaps the reason it is so difficult to get any REALLY factual accounts of anything that happened.  And if you really were given fact, how would you know it???

It is just sad...  Sad for the students and sad for Kenpo.  

Thanks,
Milt G.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Twin Fist said:


> i start my people in black, they have to earn a white uniform.


 
In Kenpo schools that allow white uniforms, it's usually the opposite. 

Traditionally speaking...white represents purity. Black usually represents a "war art" as black represents bruising and even death...

"Kenpo" is not about fighting fair... it's about doing what is necessary to survive, and that (more often than not) is some pretty dirty stuff. 

At any rate, as I understand it... black was chosen to differentiate kenpo from other, more traditional arts...

Besides, if you wear black gi's then you don't have to wash them as often and that don't show blood stains nearly as bad as a white gi! LOL


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:


> I've heard this explanation before, and to be honest I think someone is trying to pull our collective leg on this one.  I just do not find it believable.  Long/Big hair not withstanding, I simply cannot believe it was that difficult to tell a man from a woman once you put them in a gi, even from behind.


You're free to "believe" what you want, but then, you weren't there when these things went on, and decisions made. I've personally visited schools where I couldn't tell the difference with the long hair and big "fro"s" shared by men and women, especially if they are slight of build, AND you don't know them personally.


> On top of that, I don't think women really became prevalent in a martial arts school until the 1980s, and even then it took a long time for them to make up a large percentage of the student population.  I suspect the women in the dojos of the 1960s and 1970s were still fairly rare, and I am sure everyone in the dojo knew who was who, especially when it came to the female students in an otherwise testosterone laden activity.


"You don't think." I don't know if you've done a statistical breakdown of all the Ed Parker Lineage kenpo Schools, or not, but I can tell you from my personal experiences we had lots of women in the early seventies. Hell the Yellow Belt and its techniques was created for them in the late sixties because of their numbers.


> My suspicion is that Mr. Parker simply wanted to establish a tradition that would distinguish him and his students from the masses.  Nothing wrong with that.


"I don't believe," Someone is pulling your leg." "My suspicion." Trouble is you don't KNOW anything but like to speak with authority even though you were not there, but entitled to your opinion you are, no matter how you come to your conclusions.


----------



## John Bishop

just2kicku said:


> I read because white was usually a Japanese art, since our system comes from the Sil Lum system, which is Chinese, that is why we wear black.
> 
> Besides, Good Guys Wear Black



The kenpo tradition in the Mitose and Chow schools was to have students wear white, and instructors wear black.  Kajukenbo followed that tradition in it's early years.






Then around 1958 Sijo had everyone in Kajukenbo wear black gi's.  Sijo just told me that he thought the black gi's "looked bad", and that wearing black made the Kajukenbo group instantly recognized at tournaments and martial arts events.  It became our trademark at the time. 

Later in the late 60's when Kajukenbo started to adapt more Chinese techniques into the development of the Chuan Fa and Wun Hop Kuen Do branches, we started replacing our Japanese terminology with Chinese terminology also.  That's when the black gi's were said to be related to our Chinese roots.  That sounds more philosophical then admitting that black gi's just look "bad ***".


----------



## just2kicku

John Bishop said:


> The kenpo tradition in the Mitose and Chow schools was to have students wear white, and instructors wear black.  Kajukenbo followed that tradition in it's early years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then around 1958 Sijo had everyone in Kajukenbo wear black gi's.  Sijo just told me that he thought the black gi's "looked bad", and that wearing black made the Kajukenbo group instantly recognized at tournaments and martial arts events.  It became our trademark at the time.
> 
> Later in the late 60's when Kajukenbo started to adapt more Chinese techniques into the development of the Chuan Fa and Wun Hop Kuen Do branches, we started replacing our Japanese terminology with Chinese terminology also.  That's when the black gi's were said to be related to our Chinese roots.  That sounds more philosophical then admitting that black gi's just look "bad ***".




Thanks Prof.


----------



## Twin Fist

black does indeed look bad ***.

also, it's slimming. that matters to some of us.....lol


----------



## Manny

In my kenpo studio the people can wear what they want and I dislike this cause I like uniformity. The sensei some times wear a black gi, sometimes a red gi, some times black pants and tshirt or polo shirt. The studentes wear almost sport clothes or only the black pants and a tshirt (the color does not matter). Myself, I am wearing white infact the kenpo budies tell the Doctorcause I wear white. I'm a black belt in TKD so the only uniforms I have are a white Century karategi with black lapel or a Black V neck Mooto dobok,so this what I use with a white belt (cause I'm a Kenpo beguiner).

Tonigh I will pay the sensei for the black karategi and it will arrive next week, so maybe I will wearing all black (with white belt) the next week.

This is only me, if I had a dojo/dojang of my own I will ask the students to wear white gi's and only the black till they reach black belt status. 

I know Kenpo wear black karategis that's his trade mark and I will feel weird using a black gi but just because I'am wering white since I was a kid.

Manny


----------



## Danjo

Flying Crane said:


> On top of that, I don't think women really became prevalent in a martial arts school until the 1980s, and even then it took a long time for them to make up a large percentage of the student population.


 
Not true. In my 70's Shotokan class we always had several women training. In fact, my first instructor when I started training in Shotokan was a woman black belt. She taught the beginners while the head instrutor taught the rest.

If you get a chance, watch _The New Gladiators _Which follows the tourney scene in the 70's and you'll see how many women were practicing back then. Heck even a perusal through black belt magazines from the 70's can give you an idea that there were quite a few.

I'd say that the biggest change from the 70's to the 80's was the explosion of kids training. The combination of the Karate Kid movie and the watering down to TKD schools to accomodate them created it IMO.


----------



## Doc

Danjo said:


> Not true. In my 70's Shotokan class we always had several women training. In fact, my first instructor when I started training in Shotokan was a woman black belt. She taught the beginners while the head instrutor taught the rest.
> 
> If you get a chance, watch _The New Gladiators _Which follows the tourney scene in the 70's and you'll see how many women were practicing back then. Heck even a perusal through black belt magazines from the 70's can give you an idea that there were quite a few.
> 
> I'd say that the biggest change from the 70's to the 80's was the explosion of kids training. The combination of the Karate Kid movie and the watering down to TKD schools to accomodate them created it IMO.



Exactly. So many it cause Mr. Parker to modify his commercial program to accommodate them. On another note, we used to see those black gi's in the early days, and always knew we had a tough fight on our hands. The Kaju guys were the first to wear them as a designated uniform. Before that you only had two "gi" options; white or the Okinawan crosshatch gi top. Later someone started making black bottoms, but in the early days they had trouble with the dyes and it took a while to finally get the tops through NTI.


----------



## Doc

Twin Fist said:


> black does indeed look bad ***.
> 
> also, it's slimming. that matters to some of us.....lol



You dam right!


----------



## Carol

Flying Crane said:


> I've heard this explanation before, and to be honest I think someone is trying to pull our collective leg on this one.  I just do not find it believable.  Long/Big hair not withstanding, I simply cannot believe it was that difficult to tell a man from a woman once you put them in a gi, even from behind.



I don't remember if it was here or on KT, but I made a post enquiring about that after watching a kids class at my own Kenpo school.   Sure for many of the kids I could tell, but there were a few children that I could not tell their gender.


----------



## bekkilyn

Just out of curiosity, why would it be important to be able to determine someone's gender in the class? Isn't everyone doing the same thing regardless?


----------



## Twin Fist

i try to make sure i know who has boobs so i can avoid grabbing them when i dont have too


----------



## Carol

If a student collapses on the mat, 911 dispatch and/or EMS is going to ask the gender of the student.


----------



## John Bishop

John Bishop said:


>




There was a question about the identity of the people in this picture.  
The picture was taken at the Wahiawa YMCA in the 50's.  

L to R
Top row:  Frank Ordanez, Adriano Emperado, Joe Emperado
2nd row: unk, Ken Funakoshi, unk, Henry Mandac
1st row:  Manuel Patino, Tony Ramos, Algene Caraulia.


----------



## Milt G.

John Bishop said:


> There was a question about the identity of the people in this picture.
> The picture was taken at the Wahiawa YMCA in the 50's.
> 
> L to R
> Top row: Frank Ordanez, Adriano Emperado, Joe Emperado
> 2nd row: unk, Ken Funakoshi, unk, Henry Mandac
> 1st row: Manuel Patino, Tony Ramos, Algene Caraulia.


 
Mr. Bishop,

Thanks for the trip down "memory lane".  I had forgotten who many of those practitioners are.

Truly an historic photo.

Milt G.


----------



## Flying Crane

Doc said:


> You're free to "believe" what you want, but then, you weren't there when these things went on, and decisions made. I've personally visited schools where I couldn't tell the difference with the long hair and big "fro"s" shared by men and women, especially if they are slight of build, AND you don't know them personally.
> 
> "You don't think." I don't know if you've done a statistical breakdown of all the Ed Parker Lineage kenpo Schools, or not, but I can tell you from my personal experiences we had lots of women in the early seventies. Hell the Yellow Belt and its techniques was created for them in the late sixties because of their numbers.
> 
> "I don't believe," Someone is pulling your leg." "My suspicion." Trouble is you don't KNOW anything but like to speak with authority even though you were not there, but entitled to your opinion you are, no matter how you come to your conclusions.


 
By perpetuating this story what you are telling me is that you, yourself, could not tell the men from the women back in the 60s and 70s?  really?

My sources who also began training in the early 1960s have stated that there were really few women in the dojos of that time.  Now, whether or not that point is true, I think the real issue is the perpetuation of the notion that by putting on a gi, one's gender was suddenly and magically concealed.  It also implies that class size was so large that the teacher and students didn't really know each other and had no familiarity with each other, more like a 101 level class in a Big-Ten University with 400 students in a lecture hall.  I don't buy it.  It's a silly position to take.

Carol Kaur mentioned difficulty in being able to tell a boy from a girl in children, and I can see how that might be so in some cases.  But among adults, as the general norm and outside of rare androgenous cases, I don't buy it.

I did notice in Mr. Parker's early book, I believe it is Secrets of Chinese Karate, or something, published in around 1963 or so, he made a reference to this.  In that book he states that the CHinese traditionally wore the knot of their sash on the side, different sides for men and women.  I don't know if that statement is historical fact, but apparently Mr. Parker noticed this tradition in the CHinese culture.  I would be willing to bet that that is the true genesis of his decision to have students move the knot to the side. 

Somewhere along the line he may have stated the gender issue as the reason, but I doubt if it was sincere.  It's really a silly notion.  I've got a couple of bridges for sale, cheap...


----------



## Flying Crane

Danjo said:


> Not true. In my 70's Shotokan class we always had several women training. In fact, my first instructor when I started training in Shotokan was a woman black belt. She taught the beginners while the head instrutor taught the rest.
> 
> If you get a chance, watch _The New Gladiators _Which follows the tourney scene in the 70's and you'll see how many women were practicing back then. Heck even a perusal through black belt magazines from the 70's can give you an idea that there were quite a few.
> 
> I'd say that the biggest change from the 70's to the 80's was the explosion of kids training. The combination of the Karate Kid movie and the watering down to TKD schools to accomodate them created it IMO.


 
Of course there were always the exceptions, but what would you say was the percentage of women in the class, at that time?  And more to the point, did you have any difficulty telling the men from the women?  Even when you couldn't see their faces?

I also studied in an unusual capoeira school, with a woman instructor and probably 60-70% of the students being women also.  This was in the early to late 1990s, however.  My first kenpo school, in the early 1980s also had women in it, but they were fewer than the men.  Of course we were always a small group, training in our teacher's living room, and later, when we moved into a converted garage, we had no women for the next few years until the school closed.


----------



## Danjo

Flying Crane said:


> Of course there were always the exceptions, but what would you say was the percentage of women in the class, at that time? And more to the point, did you have any difficulty telling the men from the women? Even when you couldn't see their faces?
> 
> I also studied in an unusual capoeira school, with a woman instructor and probably 60-70% of the students being women also. This was in the early to late 1990s, however. My first kenpo school, in the early 1980s also had women in it, but they were fewer than the men. Of course we were always a small group, training in our teacher's living room, and later, when we moved into a converted garage, we had no women for the next few years until the school closed.


 
About 25-35% were women/girls on average. But this was the 70's. You changed what you said a bit. Before, you said it wasn't until the 80's that women started training in large numbers, but in your recent reply to Doc you now talk about training in the early 1960s, which is a different time.

I could, however, tell who the women were in my school. You just had to wait to see which bathroom they used.


----------



## mwd0818

Doc said:


> ... but in the early days they had trouble with the dyes ....



Reminds me of my Judo/Jiu-Jitsu school where we dyed our own belts and there were a few guys that got the wrong dye color or didn't read the directions.  Nothing more intimdating than a "baby blue" blue belt . . . or a splotchy brown belt . . .


----------



## Flying Crane

Danjo said:


> About 25-35% were women/girls on average. But this was the 70's. You changed what you said a bit. Before, you said it wasn't until the 80's that women started training in large numbers, but in your recent reply to Doc you now talk about training in the early 1960s, which is a different time.
> 
> I could, however, tell who the women were in my school. You just had to wait to see which bathroom they used.


 
I did change a bit, I was speculating about the 70s vs 80s as to when women became prevalent, as my own entry into the arts came in the early 80s.  I did not, however, deny that women were in the arts at all in the 60s and 70s.  I only speculated that there were rather few of them during that time, and that jives with what I've been told by people I know who trained from the early 60s on.  

I've never had difficulty knowing the men from the women, even when half the men were San Francisco hippy leftovers with long and big hair.  Just never been an issue with me, and we've even got a bit of the gender-bending going on in our neighborhood which actually can make it a bit difficult.  But in the training hall, I've never ever been confused.


----------



## J Ellis

> Reminds me of my Judo/Jiu-Jitsu school where we dyed our own belts and there were a few guys that got the wrong dye color or didn't read the directions. Nothing more intimdating than a "baby blue" blue belt . . . or a splotchy brown belt . . .


We had the same tradition at my first jujutsu dojo. You kept the same belt from white all the way through brown. Going to the store to buy the dye after being promoted was a big deal. The only other new belt you received was a black one, and Sensei wore it to several classes before you received it.I love both traditions.Joel


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:


> By perpetuating this story what you are telling me is that you, yourself, could not tell the men from the women back in the 60s and 70s?  really?


OK I see where this is going. We've covered this before on another forum, and you choose to not accept anything other then your own uninformed point of view. Got it. But answering the questions has noting to do with my personal powers of observation. And I am not "perpetuating a story," I'm recounting what I know from being there. For you it is a story, for me it is a memory.


> My sources who also began training in the early 1960s have stated that there were really few women in the dojos of that time.  Now, whether or not that point is true, I think the real issue is the perpetuation of the notion that by putting on a gi, one's gender was suddenly and magically concealed.  It also implies that class size was so large that the teacher and students didn't really know each other and had no familiarity with each other, more like a 101 level class in a Big-Ten University with 400 students in a lecture hall.  I don't buy it.  It's a silly position to take.
> 
> Carol Kaur mentioned difficulty in being able to tell a boy from a girl in children, and I can see how that might be so in some cases.  But among adults, as the general norm and outside of rare androgenous cases, I don't buy it.


Once again you choose to "not buy" what you don't want to hear, and talk about "your (unnamed) sources, and extrapolate to the silliest extremes when you have no first hand knowledge. You simply choose to not understand because you don't want to. Fine. Last time. As I explained previously when this issue came up, the commercial system meant lots of schools and lots of students of all ages. During that period long hair and big afros were the norm, but short hair didn't always mean a male, and long hair didn't always mean a female.  Wearing a  unisex uniform made it difficult to tell the differences in sex between some students, especially if you did not know them personally. Younger students have not developed certain gender traits, and some older students don't necessarily display them as well. Then looking across the room and seeing someone from the rear might not reveal their gender until they turned around so you could see, or not see the accessories, and even then there was no guarantee.

When instructors and students would go from school to school, or travel, it was felt the belt knot was a simple way to make a gender distinction. And for the record, yes I have gone to a school where I did not know the students, and did not immediately know the gender of an individual in the room. It happened with Mr. Parker and others as well. In these settings where making training assignments and pairings with physical contact and touching, in a commercial environment is common, it is important to know gender, and it still happens today. In my own school I know 100%, because I personally know the students and their rank so it makes it a "tradition." But outside of my own students, it becomes pragmatically important as a senior instructor to be able to spot the differences immediately. I guess you're just better than the rest of us if you can always "just tell."


> I did notice in Mr. Parker's early book, I believe it is Secrets of Chinese Karate, or something, published in around 1963 or so, he made a reference to this.  In that book he states that the CHinese traditionally wore the knot of their sash on the side, different sides for men and women.  I don't know if that statement is historical fact, but apparently Mr. Parker noticed this tradition in the CHinese culture.


The tradition is correct but gender was not a part of it.


> I would be willing to bet that that is the true genesis of his decision to have students move the knot to the side. Somewhere along the line he may have stated the gender issue as the reason, but I doubt if it was sincere.  It's really a silly notion.  I've got a couple of bridges for sale, cheap...


There you go reading the minds of people that made decisions long before you were around, and making bets on their intentions. You are entitled to speculate all you want, but I'll stick with my PERSONAL conversations with the man in 1963 and beyond, and take him and others who participated at their first-person word seeing how Mr. Parker (or Tom Kelly), had no reason to lie to me. If you had just called me a liar in the beginning, we probably could have avoided this exchange - again. But I understand it is difficult to do that when you don't have any first hand knowledge, nor can produce anyone else who does. I get it. You have unsupported positions and choose to argue for your own personal reasons. I'm surprised you didn't work Mitose into the discussion. That would fit perfectly because you didn't know him either. Done.


----------



## Flying Crane

Doc said:


> OK I see where this is going. We've covered this before on another forum, and you choose to not accept anything other then your own uninformed point of view. Got it. But answering the questions has noting to do with my personal powers of observation. And I am not "perpetuating a story," I'm recounting what I know from being there. For you it is a story, for me it is a memory.
> 
> Once again you choose to "not buy" what you don't want to hear, and talk about "your (unnamed) sources, and extrapolate to the silliest extremes when you have no first hand knowledge. You simply choose to not understand because you don't want to. Fine. Last time. As I explained previously when this issue came up, the commercial system meant lots of schools and lots of students of all ages. During that period long hair and big afros were the norm, but short hair didn't always mean a male, and long hair didn't always mean a female. Wearing a unisex uniform made it difficult to tell the differences in sex between some students, especially if you did not know them personally. Younger students have not developed certain gender traits, and some older students don't necessarily display them as well. Then looking across the room and seeing someone from the rear might not reveal their gender until they turned around so you could see, or not see the accessories, and even then there was no guarantee.
> 
> When instructors and students would go from school to school, or travel, it was felt the belt knot was a simple way to make a gender distinction. And for the record, yes I have gone to a school where I did not know the students, and did not immediately know the gender of an individual in the room. It happened with Mr. Parker and others as well. In these settings where making training assignments and pairings with physical contact and touching, in a commercial environment is common, it is important to know gender, and it still happens today. In my own school I know 100%, because I personally know the students and their rank so it makes it a "tradition." But outside of my own students, it becomes pragmatically important as a senior instructor to be able to spot the differences immediately. I guess you're just better than the rest of us if you can always "just tell."
> 
> The tradition is correct but gender was not a part of it.
> 
> There you go reading the minds of people that made decisions long before you were around, and making bets on their intentions. You are entitled to speculate all you want, but I'll stick with my PERSONAL conversations with the man in 1963 and beyond, and take him and others who participated at their first-person word seeing how Mr. Parker (or Tom Kelly), had no reason to lie to me. If you had just called me a liar in the beginning, we probably could have avoided this exchange - again. But I understand it is difficult to do that when you don't have any first hand knowledge, nor can produce anyone else who does. I get it. You have unsupported positions and choose to argue for your own personal reasons. I'm surprised you didn't work Mitose into the discussion. That would fit perfectly because you didn't know him either. Done.


 
The short answer is that you are right about the fact that I wasn't there, wasn't even born yet if these things happened before 1971, so yup, I'm speculating about what went on and what was said. 

If that's your memory of it, I don't dispute that.  I just think there was another reason that probably makes more sense.  For a man who champion's logical thinking, you have a hard time accepting when someone finds disagreement with you, or when they question the sense behind what you are saying.  To me, the gender-identification reason for the knot doesn't make sense.  So I questioned it and I think I was fairly respectful about how I did it.  But you didn't like that I did it at all.

The jab about Mr. Mitose was a cheap shot.  In the same spirit, I am surpirsed you didn't manage to work some shots at the Tracys into the discussion.  Oh, I forgot: you already did that in your post, #29 of this thread:  



Doc said:


> When you start believing the Tracy's on anything, it's a slippery slope.


 
I've also noticed some inconsistency in your statements:



Doc said:


> Yeah, and according to the Tracy's, Parker was a sexist because there were no women in the schools. Of course any self-defense school where guys consistently beat the crap out of each other and ooze testosterone, blood, and issue bruises as a matter of course, could be called "sexist." *After all, there won't be many women enrolled. What a coincidence*.


 
So were there really enough women in that era to need a special dress code to tell them apart?

Don't answer if you don't want to.  I understand I've turned this point into a sore spot with you.

In the spirit of discussion and keyboard sparring.


----------



## bekkilyn

Feeling a bit mischievous, I'm tempted to find a class where they have this belt knot tradition and then wear my knot on the wrong side. No one would ever suspect I was female! Mwahahaha! (The same as no one could possibly figure out that Clark Kent was superman so long as he wore his glasses.)

Then I would slyly reknot the belt on the other side halfway through the class and everyone would suddenly be soooo confused, "Wow! I thought we had 13 males here, but now only 12. Strange. Looks like we have a new female in the class though. Wonder where she came from. I hope she doesn't make a habit out of showing up late."

Then next week, I'd strut in wearing a belt knotted on *both* sides, hehehe.

Seriously though, if I was a little kid and they had trouble figuring out my gender, I just know I'd have tons of fun with that belt trick while it lasted. *snicker*


----------



## Danjo

bekkilyn said:


> Feeling a bit mischievous, I'm tempted to find a class where they have this belt knot tradition and then wear my knot on the wrong side. No one would ever suspect I was female! Mwahahaha! (The same as no one could possibly figure out that Clark Kent was superman so long as he wore his glasses.)
> 
> Then I would slyly reknot the belt on the other side halfway through the class and everyone would suddenly be soooo confused, "Wow! I thought we had 13 males here, but now only 12. Strange. Looks like we have a new female in the class though. Wonder where she came from. I hope she doesn't make a habit out of showing up late."
> 
> Then next week, I'd strut in wearing a belt knotted on *both* sides, hehehe.
> 
> Seriously though, if I was a little kid and they had trouble figuring out my gender, I just know I'd have tons of fun with that belt trick while it lasted. *snicker*


 :lfao:


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:


> The short answer is that you are right about the fact that I wasn't there, wasn't even born yet if these things happened before 1971, so yup, I'm speculating about what went on and what was said.
> 
> If that's your memory of it, I don't dispute that.  I just think there was another reason that probably makes more sense.  For a man who champion's logical thinking, you have a hard time accepting when someone finds disagreement with you, or when they question the sense behind what you are saying.  To me, the gender-identification reason for the knot doesn't make sense.  So I questioned it and I think I was fairly respectful about how I did it.  But you didn't like that I did it at all.
> 
> The jab about Mr. Mitose was a cheap shot.  In the same spirit, I am surpirsed you didn't manage to work some shots at the Tracys into the discussion.  Oh, I forgot: you already did that in your post, #29 of this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> I've also noticed some inconsistency in your statements:
> 
> 
> 
> So were there really enough women in that era to need a special dress code to tell them apart?
> 
> Don't answer if you don't want to.  I understand I've turned this point into a sore spot with you.
> 
> In the spirit of discussion and keyboard sparring.


You need to quit grasping at straws, and taking things out-of-context. I think it's fairly common knowledge there were few women, and children in classes in the early days that Will spoke about. I clearly spoke about the "commercial era" and how things were changing as the business demanded you reach out to recruit students that previously would be turned off by the rigorous training and atmosphere. Kenpo had to become user friendly to succeed in business, as they created Yellow belts for women and children, and began the "quick easy self defense" sale pitch. No more, "if you haven't bled, you haven't had a good class" perspective, that was limited to only a few hardy individuals. It became about the numbers, cause in business numbers equal profits.

For the record, any search of posts I've made about Al and his brothers will show I've more complimentary than critical. I've stated publicly on many occasions that I never could understand why as successful as they were all on their own, there was a need to take decidedly negative jabs at Ed Parker. Especially since in the early days, they were more successful than he was.

But you've also failed to rebut what I said about how it would have been difficult to identify students gender who were not your own in a strange school, or the business necessity for such in a mixed gender hands-on environment. Truth is, it's not necessary thanks. I don't argue for sake of argument, I really do have better things to do, and that's not my purpose for being here.


----------



## Flying Crane

Doc said:


> You need to quit grasping at straws, and taking things out-of-context. I think it's fairly common knowledge there were few women, and children in classes in the early days that Will spoke about. I clearly spoke about the "commercial era" and how things were changing as the business demanded you reach out to recruit students that previously would be turned off by the rigorous training and atmosphere. Kenpo had to become user friendly to succeed in business, as they created Yellow belts for women and children, and began the "quick easy self defense" sale pitch. No more, "if you haven't bled, you haven't had a good class" perspective, that was limited to only a few hardy individuals. It became about the numbers, cause in business numbers equal profits.


 
OK, I'll take that at face value, as far as the commercial business side of the art goes, in that a visiting instructor who is overseeing several schools and isn't able to be at every school all the time would not be expected to be familiar with the students.  I'm not in the habit of attending seminars, and neither does our school tend to bring in guest instructors, so I don't make that circumstantial jump when someone says, "well, it's so the instructor knows the men from the women".  I don't assume that there are visiting instructors who might not know everyone.  All the schools I've been involved with have had small enough groups that the teachers and students all know each other well enough that there is no confusion there.   I think ya gotta admit, without a fairly good bit of extra background info on the specific circumstances in which it might be useful, it really sounds kind of silly to hear someone say this.

I gotta be honest tho, outside of a very few special cases, I just don't see the difficulty in gender identity wrapped in a gi.  But if this was Mr. Parker's stated reason for the rule, and if you've experienced some practical benefit from it on those lines, I'm not gonna argue with that.  I just wonder if the germ of the idea started elsewhere, and the gender ID issue became a good enough reason for implementing it.



> For the record, any search of posts I've made about Al and his brothers will show I've more complimentary than critical. I've stated publicly on many occasions that I never could understand why as successful as they were all on their own, there was a need to take decidedly negative jabs at Ed Parker. Especially since in the early days, they were more successful than he was.


 
yes you have, and I am willing to give credit where credit is due.

Also for the record, you may search all of my posts, and I don't think you will find a single one where I've tried to elevate any of the Tracys above anyone else.  Likewise, I've never ever tried to elevate Mr. Mitose above anyone else, and neither have I ever suggested that the lineages that have distanced themselves from Mitose are missing something that makes them inferior.  In fact I've repeatedly, in one particular thread, stated just the opposite of that.  I've stated that those lineages obviously have done quite well without making what Mr. Mitose had to offer a part of their system.  In that very same thread, I also stated several times that I myself would also have probably acted to distance myself from Mr. Mitose, had I known him at that time. 

My involvement in threads about the Tracys and Mitose generally involve me telling other people bashing on them to lay the hell off.  I don't start those conversations.  I don't bring up the topic.  It's a topic that I actually avoid bringing up if possible.  But somehow other people here feel like it's OK to freely start talking trash about them and they expect everyone here to agree with what they are saying.  Well, I am in the Tracy system, studying under one of the senior-most instructors under Al.  So of course I'm gonna tell detractors to lay off.  And our system sees value in what Mr. Mitose had to offer, regardless of what others felt about the man.  So again, of course I'm gonna tell detractors to lay off.  This happens to be my lineage.  THere are certain things in my lineage that I'm not entirely happy about, but I can't control everybody else.  One's lineage is like Family in that way.  You don't get to choose your family.  You are stuck with who you get, like it or not.  But I've never held it out to be above others.  

Do you think I enjoy those arguments?  I get tired of them, and it pisses me off when I see people starting them up again.  Blanket comments like "when you start believing the Tracys about anything, you are going down a slippery slope" are starting the fight all over again.  Do you think you can throw that out and not get some kind of negative response?



> But you've also failed to rebut what I said about how it would have been difficult to identify students gender who were not your own in a strange school, or the business necessity for such in a mixed gender hands-on environment.


 
I've stated that in my own experience I've never had the difficulty, and this includes when I was new in a school.  And I live in a neck of the woods where gender-bending and altered sexual identity is fairly common.  But that doesn't really matter.  It's only my experience, and I can't expect everyone to have the same experience that I have.  But of course it's important to recognize where you can and cannot touch someone in a hands-on activity.



> Truth is, it's not necessary thanks. I don't argue for sake of argument, I really do have better things to do, and that's not my purpose for being here.


 
Agreed.  I don't come here deliberately looking for fights either and I'm often surprised at how I sometimes get drawn into something that was never intended to be a fight.  I guess we all have triggers that can hit us funny, and suddenly the gloves are coming off.

I apologize if I came across as offensive.  It wasn't deliberate.  It just took a turn down that road.

all the best.


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:


> OK, I'll take that at face value, as far as the commercial business side of the art goes, in that a visiting instructor who is overseeing several schools and isn't able to be at every school all the time would not be expected to be familiar with the students.  I'm not in the habit of attending seminars, and neither does our school tend to bring in guest instructors, so I don't make that circumstantial jump when someone says, "well, it's so the instructor knows the men from the women".  I don't assume that there are visiting instructors who might not know everyone.  All the schools I've been involved with have had small enough groups that the teachers and students all know each other well enough that there is no confusion there.   I think ya gotta admit, without a fairly good bit of extra background info on the specific circumstances in which it might be useful, it really sounds kind of silly to hear someone say this.
> 
> I gotta be honest tho, outside of a very few special cases, I just don't see the difficulty in gender identity wrapped in a gi.  But if this was Mr. Parker's stated reason for the rule, and if you've experienced some practical benefit from it on those lines, I'm not gonna argue with that.  I just wonder if the germ of the idea started elsewhere, and the gender ID issue became a good enough reason for implementing it.
> 
> 
> 
> yes you have, and I am willing to give credit where credit is due.
> 
> Also for the record, you may search all of my posts, and I don't think you will find a single one where I've tried to elevate any of the Tracys above anyone else.  Likewise, I've never ever tried to elevate Mr. Mitose above anyone else, and neither have I ever suggested that the lineages that have distanced themselves from Mitose are missing something that makes them inferior.  In fact I've repeatedly, in one particular thread, stated just the opposite of that.  I've stated that those lineages obviously have done quite well without making what Mr. Mitose had to offer a part of their system.  In that very same thread, I also stated several times that I myself would also have probably acted to distance myself from Mr. Mitose, had I known him at that time.
> 
> My involvement in threads about the Tracys and Mitose generally involve me telling other people bashing on them to lay the hell off.  I don't start those conversations.  I don't bring up the topic.  It's a topic that I actually avoid bringing up if possible.  But somehow other people here feel like it's OK to freely start talking trash about them and they expect everyone here to agree with what they are saying.  Well, I am in the Tracy system, studying under one of the senior-most instructors under Al.  So of course I'm gonna tell detractors to lay off.  And our system sees value in what Mr. Mitose had to offer, regardless of what others felt about the man.  So again, of course I'm gonna tell detractors to lay off.  This happens to be my lineage.  THere are certain things in my lineage that I'm not entirely happy about, but I can't control everybody else.  One's lineage is like Family in that way.  You don't get to choose your family.  You are stuck with who you get, like it or not.  But I've never held it out to be above others.
> 
> Do you think I enjoy those arguments?  I get tired of them, and it pisses me off when I see people starting them up again.  Blanket comments like "when you start believing the Tracys about anything, you are going down a slippery slope" are starting the fight all over again.  Do you think you can throw that out and not get some kind of negative response?
> 
> 
> 
> I've stated that in my own experience I've never had the difficulty, and this includes when I was new in a school.  And I live in a neck of the woods where gender-bending and altered sexual identity is fairly common.  But that doesn't really matter.  It's only my experience, and I can't expect everyone to have the same experience that I have.  But of course it's important to recognize where you can and cannot touch someone in a hands-on activity.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  I don't come here deliberately looking for fights either and I'm often surprised at how I sometimes get drawn into something that was never intended to be a fight.  I guess we all have triggers that can hit us funny, and suddenly the gloves are coming off.
> 
> I apologize if I came across as offensive.  It wasn't deliberate.  It just took a turn down that road.
> 
> all the best.



See you screwed up again. There you go being nice and making sense and telling it like it is. Now neither of us has an argument. Thanks Old Internet Bud.


----------



## Flying Crane

Doc said:


> See you screwed up again. There you go being nice and making sense and telling it like it is. Now neither of us has an argument. Thanks Old Internet Bud.


 
No worries. You and I push each other's buttons sometimes. I don't believe that either of us do it deliberately. It just comes with the territory in some ways.

For my part, I'll try to consider my comments more carefully before posting, and stay out of fights that don't need to happen.

thanks.


----------



## Xinglu

Soooooooooo.... Back to topic, I don't think it matters what color your Gi is so long as your training and kenpo is good. :mst:


----------



## Kenpo17

It truly doesn't matter to me what color Gi a student is wearing.  I switch of all the time, black, white, pullovers, tie gi's, red gi's, sleevless gi's.  In American Kenpo at least it doesn't matter what color the student wears, it is not for instance you can't wear a white gi until you are a green belt, nothing like that.


----------



## Grasshopper22

I've always worn a white gi as a mark of respect as white connotes purity, innocence and freshness whereas black connotes dirt and evil (anyone who says that's racist is pathetic, it's nothing to do with skin colour and it's only what I've always been told by numerous Senseis, so even if you do think it's racist, don't shoot the messenger!). We are, however, allowed to wear a black gi when we reach purple belt as black also connotes power (see, not racist, both black and white have their advantages and disadvantages), hence the black belt being the highest rank (besides Dans of course, but they're still black anyway).
Although I've personally always worn a white gi, if it were up to me, I'd accept both black and white as, although Ju Jitsu is about discipline and respect, I don't think it makes to much of a difference to be honest. 
Overall though, I think I'd have to say white.


----------



## Danjo

Grasshopper22 said:


> I've always worn a white gi as a mark of respect as white connotes purity, innocence and freshness whereas black connotes dirt and evil (anyone who says that's racist is pathetic, it's nothing to do with skin colour and it's only what I've always been told by numerous Senseis, so even if you do think it's racist, don't shoot the messenger!). We are, however, allowed to wear a black gi when we reach purple belt as black also connotes power (see, not racist, both black and white have their advantages and disadvantages), hence the black belt being the highest rank (besides Dans of course, but they're still black anyway).
> Although I've personally always worn a white gi, if it were up to me, I'd accept both black and white as, although Ju Jitsu is about discipline and respect, I don't think it makes to much of a difference to be honest.
> Overall though, I think I'd have to say white.



I like wearing black cuz I'm dirty and evil.


----------



## Blindside

Grasshopper22 said:


> I've always worn a white gi as a mark of respect as white connotes purity, innocence and freshness whereas black connotes dirt and evil (anyone who says that's racist is pathetic, it's nothing to do with skin colour and it's only what I've always been told by numerous Senseis, so even if you do think it's racist, don't shoot the messenger!).



The white gi was used because fabric dye was expensive, and all colored gis fade so white (or unbleached) was the original chosen color.  I don't think there was massive symbolism about it, it probably chosen with practicality in mind.  Also if you look at some of the other connotatioins of white in Japanese culture they include death and color worn during mourning.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

This is a very old thread that has been revived.


----------



## Twin Fist

necrothread


----------



## shihansmurf

Thread Necro! 

My school wears black as it hides bloodstains better. I tend to wear a red gi top as Mrs. Smurf thinks I look good in red.

Know who else wears red? Papa Smurf. 

A few more promotions and I get the hat and pants.

Mark


----------



## Dan Hobson

I'm not an instructor so I can't comment on that part of the question but everyone at the club I go to wears a black gi (we're not allowed to wear white gis).


----------



## LawDog

Martial Arts = Military Way. Wear the uniforn of your unit or join the unit that fits your personel fashion statement.


----------



## Ray B

Iread this a number of years ago...
http://www.tracyskarate.com/Stories/Elvis%20black%20gi!.htm


----------



## Gentle Fist

In Kenpo I wear black, in Judo/BJJ I go between Blue and White.  Really just depends on school dress code....   Anyone seen the pink gi the women judoka/bjjers are sporting now?  I know Judo Gene starting wearing one decades ago, looks like it finally caught on!


----------



## ziason

My last school started everyone in white, and once you advanced to a certain point, you earned the black gi. I think anything that helps motivate a students is a good idea, and I personally prefer black, it's harder to make a black look dirty and as. It ages it just looks more seasoned.


----------



## Yondanchris

J Ellis said:


> I have my students begin wearing a white gi. They become eligible to wear the black gi at Purple belt. Mixing and matching only happens at black belt.
> 
> I have two reasons for assigning white gis to new students:
> 
> 1) White gis are acceptable in most MA schools. If a new student quits for whatever reason, they have a uniform they can probably use elsewhere. Black gis, however, are not allowed everywhere.
> 2) The black gi becomes a rite of passage, a mark of distinction as one passes from the beginner to an intermediate stage.
> 
> If I had to add a third reason, I would say this:
> 
> 3) A white belt on a black gi looks silly.
> 
> Joel



Ditto!


----------



## Stmck6

Joel,
i'm with you on this one, we have the same standards for our students.
i have actually just gone back to wearing white myself.


----------



## ddurden

At our school, everyone wears black till they reach black belt.  At that time, mixing white and black or wearing white is permitted.  Actually, at black belt level, our rule is almost any color as long as it's "tasteful".


----------

