21 year old 6th degree Blackbelt

[puunui]

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

Just my opinion ...

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

 

[puunui]

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[chrispillertkd]

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

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

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

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

Pax,

Chris

 

[dancingalone]

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

If we're going to lump everyone into 'martial artist', I still think some sort of catagorization needs to be generally put into place. Will it happen? No. But I'd like to see it happen.

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

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

Perhaps martial arts for the sport crowd and martial discipline for the SD crowd. A 'system' could have both an art side and a discipline side, but they are different in there methodology.

Would that be more easy to acccept?

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

 

[dancingalone]

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

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

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

Fair enough.

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

 

[dancingalone]

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

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


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

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

 

[dancingalone]

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dancingalone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

 

[Zenjael]

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

 

[K-man]

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

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

 

[K-man]

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

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

Sorry! :bs: