Can there be a Universal Black Belt?

[MJS]

I have talked about this subject many times with friends, some of which are considered legends in the Martial Arts community, and it seems most people think that there could be but politics will probably never allow for it.

What I mean by Universal Black Belt is really a universally agreed upon set of curriculum that should one learn and demonstrate they would be acknowledged worldwide as a "general Black Belt". After this people could have specialties in specific arts.

I am curious to read your responses.

Thank you,


Jason Brinn

Hi Jason,

I would have to say no, there can't be a universal BB. That would imply that there'd have to be 1 art. However, looking at your last paragraph, where you talk about specialties in specific arts...could you clarify that please?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

In your opinion Chris, your OPINION. I have a good understanding bro.

It has always amazed me that some people in martial arts want to make things complicated, mystical or the like. So someone who studies complex sciences through the university process is actually studying something less complex as the martial arts, huh?

In the end we all may have different ways of doing things but we are all doing the same things - like this or not.

Punching Class 101 -
1. The basic concepts and physics of punching

So you have a bunch of well rounded Class 101s that make up the Black Belt, after that one could go onto;

Chinese Degree
Chinese Punching Class 201
1. Chinese methods and principles of punching
.....

Japanese Degree
Japanese Punching Class 201
1. Japanese methods and principles of punching
.....


We all have the same physical forms, move the same ways, are affected by the same physical laws. In the end our differences are really just on opinions of application. We could DEFINITELY teach and mandate what the basics are outside of opinions of application and at least know that people are getting the basics right.

Using your analogy universities would offer courses in "Generic Literature 101", which would not cover any specific literature. Once students received their B.A. degree, they could go on to graduate school for classes in "18th century English novels", "20th Century French short stories" and "16th century Chinese poetry". It doesn't work that way.

Leaving aside the flawed comparison to college education, what exactly would be covered in "punching class 101"?
How to form a fist?
How to generate power?
How to land a punch without being blocked or countered?
How to use punches in combination?
When to use a punch?

The answers to these questions (and many more) are completely different in arts such as Wing Chun, Shotokan, Boxing and Bujinkan Taijutusu. There is no "generic" answer to any of these questions that would carry over into those various arts. You might have the opinion that a certain approach to punching might be a "superior" approach, either in general or for an individual, but that's very different from being a generic approach that would have any connection to most martial arts.

 

[lklawson]

WHOA! This is awesome. I have been trying to learn hawk but all I have at the moment are a set of DVDs by Cold Steel. Could you suggest some alternatives, and/or are you willing/available to teach it?

The Cold Steel stuff isn't bad. Dwight McLemore's stuff is far better. His book & vid are the perfect place to work from.

I do teach but I'm in Ohio. Not particularly close to NC. I might consider doing a short seminar but I'm currently suffering a broken foot which I acquired at Judo last week.

 

[MJS]

Seriously...?

College's and most areas, SCRATCH THAT, all areas of science operate in such a manner and yet they have much more defined, refined and professional industries supported by them.

People go to college and get some kind of generic initial degree, such as BA arts or BS in science and then within or after that study they go onto have some specialized field. This provides the entire community that participates some kind of point of balance throughout. Provided their are governing bodies to maintain the standard across all institutions then everyone can at least rest assured that the basics everyone teaches are sound and then they can choose to argue after that point if they need to.

Also, by having this kind of thing in place it allows for consistency, quality and progress. Wouldn't it be nice if every art had SOUND concepts of dealing with ground conflict, knife conflict, punching & Kicking, etc. Wouldn't this make us all better in the end?

And for those of you who might say but what if I don't agree with the "standard" teaching on punching & kicking? Fine, at least everyone knows you understand the basics that are agreed by the majority and are choosing to go your own way.

Is this really so offensive an idea?

Ok, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, and if so please clarify. Going on what you're saying, if the BA or BS was the univ. BB, and then goes on to study in a specific area, the univ. BB would teach someone a basic set of skills, ie: how to punch, block, kick, etc, and then they'd go on to pick the art that interested them, ie: TKD, BJJ, etc.?

 

[MJS]

Chris, do each one of those have a different way to punch that is unique to each and every system, no overlap?


Elder - Is a Kyokushin punch that different than a Shotokan punch, and for that matter that different from a Taekwondo punch?




What is the difference between a punch in Wing Chun and a punch in, I don't know choose any Karate style?




I am not talking about changing the arts or their approach. I am talking about having basics that are known and agreed and a starting point for the arts.




And yes, I think Black Belt is the beginning of understanding.

While there are punches in the arts that you mention, its the application that will most likely differ. Now, it may've just been the schools/instructors that I've trained at, but the way I used to punch and see others punch in Kenpo, differed from what I see in Kyokushin.

 

[MJS]

Hmm...something else to consider. If we have 1 standard way of punching, and then move on to study a particular art, we're now going to have to re-learn, that schools method of punching. An easy task? Sure, on the surface it doesnt seem like a big deal, however, if someone spends alot of time, ie: years, learning 1 (univ) way of punching, and then moves onto a new art, they're going to basically have to start from square 1.

 

[Chris Parker]

Oh dear lord....

Stop it now...seriously I laughed so hard reading this one that I almost spit out my water on the keyboard. If you knew me for 1/2 a second Mr. Smith you would you know I am a very serious and dedicated Martial Artist. But this isn't about me - this is about an idea. Yes you have different brands and that's called marketing - which is probably the real answer to all this classical mess to begin with.

It's not marketing, Jason. The idea that you think it is shows major issues with your take on things... again.

Xue, Chris, others: I was using Bruce's quote to backup the idea that there are core ways to move that we are all bound by. The Universal Black Belt was a suggestion of making sure everyone understood those core elements - nothing more. So you see how I can use someone's principles in one point to outline those same principles in a totally different point....? Bruce was actually saying in those quotes that styles build upon the core so much so that the individual is trapped by the extras when simply studying the core would have given them all they needed to freely express.

Except there are no core elements that are in all systems, or even the majority of systems. Additionally, the quotes you gave don't support what you're stating, nor do they say what you think they say.

Mr Lawson: Unfortunately, you will have to take my word on the legends part. It is true, I have no reason to lie as we are just talking about an idea in open conversation - and the fact that I don't lie. However, one of the "legends" was a good friend of Bruce's (not onscreen but off).

There have been issues with things not being backed up before, though, Jason, so really all we have to go on that you don't lie is your own word... hmm.

Chris and people like him believe that Martial Arts are not about Self Defense - this is true for them. I was not brought in nor raised in the Martial Arts under that notion. If Martial Arts are not for Self Defense then why were they created Chris? If Martial Arts are not for Self Defense then you are training a cultural combative reenactment art form, sort of like Civil War buffs do then right?

You're kidding, right? Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu - duels with swords. Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu - military education for a warrior class. Yagyu Shinkage Ryu - expression of strategy (military and political). Ogasawara Ryu - deportment and social education. Judo - social improvement through physical and mental education. Seitei Iaido - give Kendoka an experience at actually using a sword. Seitei Jodo - formulation of a set of basics to give Kendoka, and the police force (particularly the Riot Squad in Tokyo). Tae Kwon Do - aid moral and fitness for the Korean Army and people. Muso Shinden Ryu Iaido - preservation of a line of Iai, with a look to combative efficiency as formulated by Nakayama Hakudo. Shinto Muso Ryu - develop a new weapon in order to win a duel. Kyudo - spiritual refinement through action.

In other words, there are as many reasons arts are created as there are arts. I've only really dealt with Japanese arts here, after all you claim Daito Ryu (protection of a family), so you really should get this. We can do the same thing with arts from anywhere else, you know.

Look, I am willing to be wrong in the pursuit of something more. Greater men before me were willing to be wrong about their ideas and I have been fortunate to learn from the innovations they taught and have seen how they changed things for the better. I was also taught that it was my duty to carry on that tradition. I am more than likely going to fail because I am a simple person and not as smart as most - but O have enough integrity and fight to do what I said I would and not quit in the face of adversity or criticism.

Okay, you're willing to be wrong... so, after you were immediately corrected, and given example after example of how wrong you are, why are you still trying to argue?

Because someone's ideas are different doesn't mean they are wrong or their background or grasp is flawed or short sighted. Unless, of course, we are going to say that since all these arts by everyone's posts are so different that in essence most of them are wrong too.(?)

No, but if someone is wrong, they are wrong. If their ideas show a lack of understanding, it shows a lack of understanding. If their comments show flawed understandings, they show flawed understandings. The little comment about arts being different, therefore wrong is just another example, by the way. Using karate power generation when doing Wing Chun is wrong... but karate power generation in karate isn't.

Once again I say thank you to everyone for their carefully thought out posts and responses. I enjoy posting here at MartialTalk directly because of the great people, the vastness of experiences and the willingness of the community to share, critique and honestly exchange ideas.


Jason Brinn

Do forgive this, but that does come across rather disingenuously...

 

[Xue Sheng]

Xue, Chris, others: I was using Bruce's quote to backup the idea that there are core ways to move that we are all bound by. The Universal Black Belt was a suggestion of making sure everyone understood those core elements - nothing more. So you see how I can use someone's principles in one point to outline those same principles in a totally different point....? Bruce was actually saying in those quotes that styles build upon the core so much so that the individual is trapped by the extras when simply studying the core would have given them all they needed to freely express.

Nothing against Bruce Lee, I am actually rather impressed by Jun Fan Gung Fu and JKD when taught correctly however the core principles form art to art are not the same beyond the fact that they are all fighting styles at their root. However they can approach that from vastly different directions.

There is a school of thought that many of the CMA styles have a similarity to or their root is Changquan (long fist) and that if you have a basic knowledge of Changquan you will do better and advance faster in other CMA styles. However there are CMA styles that have no such similarity and having a basic knowledge of Changquan will not help you much. Shuaijiao is very different and Bruce Lee’s base style Wing Chun is rather different as well

 

[jasonbrinn]

Sure.

I believe that there is a core way of doing most things like punching and kicking. I believe this core way is in line with what is mandated by physics. I believe that different arts, styles and systems flavor that core one way or the other. I believe it would be great if everyone understood the core way clearly before they started training some flavor. Mind you, I think these basis could be learned relatively quickly, but would be great to know that everyone in the room understands what we can effectively demonstrate based on physics and not building fanciful ideas, arts, styles and systems on things they could never demonstrate realistically (but here again I was rooted in the idea that Martial Arts were for learning combative measures one might actually need to use one day).

For example, this kind of training could prevent things like;

and what I see at most schools similar to this;

 

[Xue Sheng]

and what I see at most schools similar to this;

That is what you see at most martial arts schools....... where are you looking?

I have not seen that at any martial arts school in almost 40 years of training. Don't get me wrong, I have seen some pretty bad schools but if that is what you are using to support your argument, something that appears to be an obvious spoof then you have no support for what you are saying at all

And exactly what are you tryig to proove with the first video of various arts most of which are not kung fu by the video label, and do you have any idea what you are really saying when you say Kung Fu?

The thing about using YouTube to support anything is there are just as many examples to the contrary of anything you are trying to prove

 

[jasonbrinn]

Oh dear lord....



It's not marketing, Jason. The idea that you think it is shows major issues with your take on things... again.



Except there are no core elements that are in all systems, or even the majority of systems. Additionally, the quotes you gave don't support what you're stating, nor do they say what you think they say.



There have been issues with things not being backed up before, though, Jason, so really all we have to go on that you don't lie is your own word... hmm.



You're kidding, right? Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu - duels with swords. Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu - military education for a warrior class. Yagyu Shinkage Ryu - expression of strategy (military and political). Ogasawara Ryu - deportment and social education. Judo - social improvement through physical and mental education. Seitei Iaido - give Kendoka an experience at actually using a sword. Seitei Jodo - formulation of a set of basics to give Kendoka, and the police force (particularly the Riot Squad in Tokyo). Tae Kwon Do - aid moral and fitness for the Korean Army and people. Muso Shinden Ryu Iaido - preservation of a line of Iai, with a look to combative efficiency as formulated by Nakayama Hakudo. Shinto Muso Ryu - develop a new weapon in order to win a duel. Kyudo - spiritual refinement through action.

In other words, there are as many reasons arts are created as there are arts. I've only really dealt with Japanese arts here, after all you claim Daito Ryu (protection of a family), so you really should get this. We can do the same thing with arts from anywhere else, you know.



Okay, you're willing to be wrong... so, after you were immediately corrected, and given example after example of how wrong you are, why are you still trying to argue?



No, but if someone is wrong, they are wrong. If their ideas show a lack of understanding, it shows a lack of understanding. If their comments show flawed understandings, they show flawed understandings. The little comment about arts being different, therefore wrong is just another example, by the way. Using karate power generation when doing Wing Chun is wrong... but karate power generation in karate isn't.



Do forgive this, but that does come across rather disingenuously...

Chris, I meant what I said. I am not a disingenuous person. I also don't claim Daito ryu, other than having studied it. The art I claim is my own, Shamar system.

Whether someone has understanding or not is merely a matter of perspective. Maybe your perspective is correct Chris, or maybe you your moon is just a reflection on the water. One thing is for sure, you nor I will know which one has the correct perspective until one of our perspectives changes. Fighting is usually the accepted method through out Martial Arts history in finding correct perspective. I fight with my ideas to gain mine as I am sure you do as well(?)

And whether you know it or not Chris - the many different brands of water at his local market are their exclusively because of marketing and nothing more - read the labels.

 

[Xue Sheng]

But what about those generic college degrees that are really not generic that you spoke of before?

 

[Chris Parker]

Sure.

I believe that there is a core way of doing most things like punching and kicking. I believe this core way is in line with what is mandated by physics. I believe that different arts, styles and systems flavor that core one way or the other. I believe it would be great if everyone understood the core way clearly before they started training some flavor. Mind you, I think these basis could be learned relatively quickly, but would be great to know that everyone in the room understands what we can effectively demonstrate based on physics and not building fanciful ideas, arts, styles and systems on things they could never demonstrate realistically (but here again I was rooted in the idea that Martial Arts were for learning combative measures one might actually need to use one day).

Then you really don't get the first thing about martial arts, or the way they differ. Physics isn't the most essential aspect to understanding different arts, Jason, an understanding of the culture and context of the art is. What you're describing here is completely wrong.

Chris, I meant what I said. I am not a disingenuous person. I also don't claim Daito ryu, other than having studied it. The art I claim is my own, Shamar system.

Whether someone has understanding or not is merely a matter of perspective. Maybe your perspective is correct Chris, or maybe you your moon is just a reflection on the water. One thing is for sure, you nor I will know which one has the correct perspective until one of our perspectives changes. Fighting is usually the accepted method through out Martial Arts history in finding correct perspective. I fight with my ideas to gain mine as I am sure you do as well(?)

And whether you know it or not Chris - the many different brands of water at his local market are their exclusively because of marketing and nothing more - read the labels.

And again... you're a fair bit out. With the idea of whether or not you have any understanding, that's observation of your posts, Jason. It's not perspective, other than my perspective being somewhat more informed, from all accounts. But I'm pretty sure I know who's correct here... I'm going with the one who is in agreement with, well, everyone else in the thread. But no, fighting is not a method of finding the "correct perspective", whatever you mean by that. And you've lost me again with your sentence about "fight with my ideas"...

With the marketing comment, I was referring to your statement that the "marketing" idea lead to the "classical mess"... a really bizarre statement for anyone trained in Daito Ryu to make at the very least.

 

[jasonbrinn]

Then you really don't get the first thing about martial arts, or the way they differ. Physics isn't the most essential aspect to understanding different arts, Jason, an understanding of the culture and context of the art is. What you're describing here is completely wrong.



And again... you're a fair bit out. With the idea of whether or not you have any understanding, that's observation of your posts, Jason. It's not perspective, other than my perspective being somewhat more informed, from all accounts. But I'm pretty sure I know who's correct here... I'm going with the one who is in agreement with, well, everyone else in the thread. But no, fighting is not a method of finding the "correct perspective", whatever you mean by that. And you've lost me again with your sentence about "fight with my ideas"...

With the marketing comment, I was referring to your statement that the "marketing" idea lead to the "classical mess"... a really bizarre statement for anyone trained in Daito Ryu to make at the very least.

Chris, let me make this clear since you are not a very nice person and seem to be confused about me a little, I study Martial Arts as a means to make myself the best fighter I can be and to be able to protect the ones I love. I do NOT study the arts in appreciation of their cultures or as some part of art form or the like. Yes I studied Daito ryu and I gathered what I needed from it and that's that. I have also studied BJJ, Karate, Wing Chun, Muay Thai, Kyokushin and more and did the same with them.

Some smart people who think they know so much are really smart people and know a lot - others not so much mate.

I fight with ideas means that I don't sit around and postulate about methods, concepts and techniques and think that because I can make a good argument or that people agree with me means that the stuff has combative merit. I test stuff fighting and I let what works be the the judge for whats right mate.

I see a lot of people training BJJ these days. Not too long ago people didn't put much merit in the system - the MAJORITY of people. Somehow for some reason they seem to have changed their minds...?

And as for your different arts blah blah blah;

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm, actually, we'll try it this way.

Jason, you're wanting to come up with a single set of basic, universal approaches that people would learn (to a level of black belt) before "specializing" in their preferred art, yeah? Then let's look at what that might involve. Let's look at a punch.

What is the "basic" punch like? How is the fist held? How is it formed? How is the power generated? Does it come from the hip, or the shoulder? Or somewhere else? How are the hips used? What is the stance used that the punch is thrown from?

Give some answers to that, and we'll see how it fits with a range of arts, yeah?

 

[Xue Sheng]

And how does that punch apply to BJJ in the Universal approach?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Yes I studied Daito ryu and I gathered what I needed from it and that's that. I have also studied BJJ, Karate, Wing Chun, Muay

What is the difference between a punch in Wing Chun and a punch in, I don't know choose any Karate style?

And you mean to say you saw no difference.... that is rather interesting and very telling... actually it tells me you did not study them all that much... sorry, but that is what it is telling me.

Well... I must go... I have no more time to waste on this... I have a real MA class to go to..... one that is from the guy you seem to like to quote

 

[Chris Parker]

Chris, let me make this clear since you are not a very nice person and seem to be confused about me a little, I study Martial Arts as a means to make myself the best fighter I can be and to be able to protect the ones I love. I do NOT study the arts in appreciation of their cultures or as some part of art form or the like. Yes I studied Daito ryu and I gathered what I needed from it and that's that. I have also studied BJJ, Karate, Wing Chun, Muay Thai, Kyokushin and more and did the same with them.

Actually, Jason, I've been quite restrained and polite in this. Your entire idea is ludicrous, and that's been demonstrated by myself and others pretty well, but you have not come up with a single answer to any of our comments.

As far as why you train martial arts, fine, but you do realize that that doesn't mean that's why they were formulated? And frankly, the sheer arrogance that because you train to make yourself "the best fighter" you can be, therefore that's what the emphasis should be is again an indication that you really do have a very low understanding of all this. I've tried showing you where you're wrong (here and before), but you don't listen. So I'm mainly showing others so they don't listen to the bizarre ideas you come up with.

Some smart people who think they know so much are really smart people and know a lot - others not so much mate.

I'm pretty damn secure in my intelligence, for a large number of reasons. The implication is rather amusing, though, for someone who has not been able to answer a single part of the criticism of your idea.

I fight with ideas means that I don't sit around postulate about methods, concepts and techniques and think that because I can make a good argument or that people agree with me means that the stuff has combative merit. I test stuff fighting and I let what works for the judge for whats right mate.

Completely irrelevant when it comes to knowing about different martial arts, Jason. All it means is that you are looking for what works for you, which is beside the point (in fact, completely unrelated to) of a universal set of ideas for all martial arts.

I see a lot of people training BJJ these days. Not too long ago people didn't put much merit in the system - the MAJORITY of people. Somehow for some reason they seem to have changed their minds...?

Oh, don't get me started on that, Jason... besides the fact that it has no bearing on the discussion, and shoots down your idea of universal basics, your comment is frankly out of date by about 20 years.

And as for your different arts blah blah blah;

While I love that clip (and the whole movie, really), you asked what arts were not designed for self defence. Gee, sorry if I answered your question. And Jason? That was a very, very quick list, and hardly exhaustive.

 

[frank raud]

Just for morbid curiousity, how long would it take to get this "universal" black belt? As the time range for obtaining a black belt varies depending on the system, from roughly two years to over a decade, is the idea that you would have to train for an additional period of time, prior to the style's own time line for black belt, or would this some how "fast track" your learning? Big problems with either scenario.

How would you devise a curriculum for this "universal" black belt for students of two very popular arts, Tae Kwon Do and Judo? How much commonality do you see between the two arts that you could devise a curriculum that would significantly benefit both arts, without subtracting or adding extraneous elements to them?

Once a student has obtained this "universal" blackbelt, what is there to stop them from opening a club and teaching, despite the fact that they have no grounding in any particular art? Do you see this as something that would heighten the percieved value of a black belt, or lessen it, as it would be looked upon as a junior belt, similar to what is given to kids in some systems?

 

[pgsmith]

Stop it now...seriously I laughed so hard reading this one that I almost spit out my water on the keyboard. If you knew me for 1/2 a second Mr. Smith you would you know I am a very serious and dedicated Martial Artist. But this isn't about me - this is about an idea. Yes you have different brands and that's called marketing - which is probably the real answer to all this classical mess to begin with.

My reference to serious martial artists was not meant as a reflection upon your own dedication to your own arts. I was simply referring to the response you've gotten from everyone else on this forum, who tend to be serious martial artists in their own right. You're correct in that this isn't about you, it is about your ideas. Those very ideas that everyone except you considers incorrect. This paragraph of yours is a graphic illustration of your erroneous assumptions. You are the only one which has a problem with any "classical mess".

My personal opinion is that it's because you never dedicated enough time and effort to advance in rank in any traditional martial art. You feel that this reflects badly on you, so you overcompensate for it in other ways. That's the only thing that makes sense to me as regards your aggressive anti-tradition stance and willingness to argue vociferously against the opinions of every other martial artist that has answered you. I think your aggression and ideas about traditional martial arts are misplaced myself. There are as many good ways to learn martial arts as there are martial artists learning them. However, your ways are different than most everyone else here, so you can't expect us to embrace them over our own.

Mr Lawson: Unfortunately, you will have to take my word on the legends part. It is true, I have no reason to lie as we are just talking about an idea in open conversation - and the fact that I don't lie. However, one of the "legends" was a good friend of Bruce's (not onscreen but off).

Why? Why will we have to take your word for it about either the legends that you hinted at, or the fact that you don't lie? None of us know you except by the reputation which you've garnered here on this forum, and that reputation does not presuppose anyone to excessive trust.

Chris and people like him believe that Martial Arts are not about Self Defense - this is true for them. I was not brought in nor raised in the Martial Arts under that notion. If Martial Arts are not for Self Defense then why were they created Chris? If Martial Arts are not for Self Defense then you are training a cultural combative reenactment art form, sort of like Civil War buffs do then right?

Somewhat. I find the cultural references and requirements fascinating myself. Self defense and martial arts are two entirely seperate things. All of my self defense situations (and there were a number of them) came well before I began learning martial arts. One does NOT necessarily require the other. Of the people that I know who have had to actually defend themselves in a life or death situation, very few of them were martial artists.

Because someone's ideas are different doesn't mean they are wrong or their background or grasp is flawed or short sighted. Unless, of course, we are going to say that since all these arts by everyone's posts are so different that in essence most of them are wrong too.(?)

That is an incredibly flawed bit of logic there. Nobody except for you has said that any art is 'wrong'. You asked for opinions on your ideas, but got upset and argumentative when every single one of those opinions you asked for told you that your ideas were flawed. Nobody (except you) said anything about any arts being wrong. For you to throw that up there as justification for your flawed ideas is bordering on ridiculous.