21 year old 6th degree Blackbelt

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So why are we speculating about taekwondo?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kong Soo Do]

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

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

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

 

[pgsmith]

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

What are your thoughts on this? Legitimate? McDojo?

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

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

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

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

 

[puunui]

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

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

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

Perfect answer.

 

[puunui]

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

In taekwondo there are no exceptions, everyone is included.

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

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

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

 

[puunui]

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

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

 

[Kong Soo Do]

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

I just coined the term

 

[Kong Soo Do]

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I just coined the term

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

 

[Kong Soo Do]

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

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

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

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

Precisely the point.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Precisely the point.

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

 

[dancingalone]

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

Just a few arts off the top of my head that are still practiced primarily for offensive/defensive combative skills.

Okinawan Goju-ryu karate
Uechi-ryu karate
hapkido (unless you'd care to argue this?)
Bajiquan
Krav Maga
Hakko-ryu jujutsu
Any iteration of the Vee-Jitsu systems
Plenty of the southeastern Asian systems including silat, kali, kun tao
Arnis
Arguably Jun Fan/Jeet Kune Do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Just a few arts off the top of my head that are still practiced primarily for offensive/defensive combative skills.

Okinawan Goju-ryu karate
Uechi-ryu karate
hapkido (unless you'd care to argue this?)
Bajiquan
Krav Maga
Hakko-ryu jujutsu
Any iteration of the Vee-Jitsu systems
Plenty of the southeastern Asian systems including silat, kali, kun tao
Arnis
Arguably Jun Fan/Jeet Kune Do

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

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

Nor do I.

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

Absolutely. That was my point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dancingalone]

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

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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