Can there be a Universal Black Belt?

[Tony Dismukes]

In terms of Physics there are only certain valid options to choose. I base all of my techniques against scientific training and testing and re-training and more testing. In the end I take the things that work the highest percentage of time and follow the training methods that achieve the most productive and efficient results.

To determine the "best" punch in my world you take ALL the punches and put them in a test. The testing is done against what you want to strike. Since I focus on self defense only, I want to strike the human body. With anatomy we know there are good spots to hit with a fist and then there are not so good spots. Now that we have the striking areas defined we strike with all of the punches and measure a) damage we receive by punching and b) damage we deliver. When you take the results you have one or two that stand out. Out of the one or two I choose the most versatile punch and start training it. While this is not the most perfect process it does deliver the highest yielding percentage shots - which is what I bet on.

If you had to run out into the woods and you could only grab three things you would choose the tools that you can use in the most situations and especially the most critical need areas such as survival.

There may very well be 40 different ways and types of punches, but I really only need to train one to an above average level to be more effective than most. If you are going to shoot aim for the body.

Now you're talking about something entirely different from what you originally proposed. If you want to design a curriculum based on what you think is the most effective way to punch, kick, or whatever then you're just creating your own art. No problems there. Other people have done the same for centuries. There just isn't anything "generic" about it. For some reason, whenever different people attempt to design the "most effective" curriculum, they come up with different results.

The testing and design process is likely to be more tricky than you seem to realize. Suppose we do a bunch of tests and determine that punching method A delivers the most impact. Great! Only next we discover that the best way to punch without being counter-punched requires punching method B. Uh oh, it turns out that the best way to punch without being taken down requires punching method C. The best way to punch and follow up with an immediate kick requires punching method D, and so on. At some point you have to decide what your priorities are and how to weigh the trade-offs. Those decisions are the beginnings of a style.

You'll also start to realize that you can't just test each technique in isolation. Techniques arise out of underlying body structure and mechanics. Suppose your tests show you that the best techniques for evading an attack come from Bujinkan taijutsu while the best techniques for landing a punch come from Wing Chun. Now you've got a problem. You can't apply effective Wing Chun punching from a taijutsu stance and you can't apply effective taijustsu evasion methods from a Wing Chun stance. The body mechanics just won't work. Whichever techniques you end up deciding to include in your curriculum, they need to work together in terms of the underlying body structure, body mechanics, tactical doctrine, etc. When you decide how to do that, you're creating a system which is specific and not generic.

You should also remember that, contrary to what many people like to claim about the design of their systems, it isn't really practical to be all that scientific in the process of testing your decisions. How do you "test all the punches"? Just try them all? What if you're just more skilled at one punch than another? You'd have to take a bunch of beginners and train each person in a different punching method for the same number of hours before testing them. Of course, you can't have just one person per sample group. Maybe one person would be naturally stronger or more talented and so the punching method you assigned to him would seem to be the best. You'd need to randomly assign a fair number of individuals into each experimental condition and carefully control the training so that all other aspects of training (intensity, number of hours trained, supplemental exercises, etc) were exactly the same. Then you'd have to design your actual tests. How do you determine the "damage received" by punching? Do you match all your test subjects up in repeated bare-knuckle fights and observe the results? What rules do you enforce in these fights and how might those affect the outcomes?

In the end, unless you are a ruthless dictator with the power to draft thousands of your subjects into training and fighting gladiatorial matches for your amusement, you aren't likely to find a "scientific" answer as to the best techniques for a martial art. (That's assuming there are "best techniques" as opposed to "best techniques for a given individual in a given situation at a given time".)

 

[Dirty Dog]

A college degree is only universal when it is being applied to a task outside of its core concentration.

But hey... I slept at a Holidy Inn Express last night...


"Universal" anything is pretty much nothing but foolishness.

 

[Xue Sheng]

If you're unsure of where the questions are, or what they're referring to, just click on the arrow in the quote name tag, and it'll take you to the post itself.

Oh, and who said I'm nice in real life..... damn lie that is...

What the hell is that all about. All that did was quote others, me included, and answer nothing at all. Is this a poor attempt misdirection and/or subterfuge or are you in the "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with..... mode

Sorry but that is how this is begining to look to me

Now this

If you didn't like the idea then you could have just said you didn't and left it at that like Steve did.

I have seen this before from you and this seems to be your response to people here on MT when you can no longer defend your position and you have been pretty much proven wrong based on the evidence.

I could just as easily say is you don't like the responses don't post.

 

[Xue Sheng]

True enough... My degree says on the paper from the school "Bachelor of Science Computer Information Systems", not "Bachelor of Science, whatever..."

But even the BS in Computer Information Systems from your college is not exactly the same as the BS in Computer Information Systems from another college. Other than the degree (BS) and title of that degree (Computer Information Systems) it is not generic or universal. The curriculum varies from college to college. Heck even Calculus one at a SUNY (State University of NY) is not exactly the same as Calculus one at MIT

 

[Chris Parker]

What the hell is that all about. All that did was quote others, me included, and answer nothing at all. Is this a poor attempt misdirection and/or subterfuge or are you in the "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with..... mode

Sorry but that is how this is begining to look to me

Sorry for any confusion, Xue. Jason said that he had either directly or indirectly answered all questions, and that was a list of questions posed in this thread by myself and others that I would be interested in hearing answers to.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

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

Politics, ego, greed and simple reality would prevent this from happening. For example, who is going to set the curriculum? Who is going to set the TIG necessary to achieve the Dan rank? Who is going to enforce it? Is there money involved? If so, who gets it?

There is no universal agreement on what defines a BB. Is it a 5 year old child? Is it a 16 year old? Does it take one year to earn a BB or five? There simply will never be an agreement amoung the many arts on these, and other issues.

 

[Carol]

But even the BS in Computer Information Systems from your college is not exactly the same as the BS in Computer Information Systems from another college. Other than the degree (BS) and title of that degree (Computer Information Systems) it is not generic or universal. The curriculum varies from college to college. Heck even Calculus one at a SUNY (State University of NY) is not the same as Calculus one at MIT

Much like a B.Mus from Berklee College of Music produces a very different musician than a B.Mus from New England Conservatory. Two world-class music schools, offering the same degree, in the same city, within walking distance of each other. Yet if the school's respective seniors were to trade places with one another, they would be woefully out of place.

 

[Instructor]

I could see such a thing happening for instructors if it martial arts instruction came to be regulated by the government.


It would suck.

Oh man...don't even give them the idea....it would suck, utterly.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Sorry for any confusion, Xue. Jason said that he had either directly or indirectly answered all questions, and that was a list of questions posed in this thread by myself and others that I would be interested in hearing answers to.

Chiris

My apologies to you and to Jason on that one.

I was reading though this train wreck of a thread and I got confused as to who posted that. I thought it was Jason. I can only plead that it is early here, I am tired at work and wishing I was back in the MA class I was in last night.

I was not paying attention, the confusion was all me and I thought Jason had posted that when in fact he had not.

My comments were aimed a Jason, not you and obviously I should have been more careful since Jason was not posting quotes for no reason and you were posting quotes as examples of questions that have gone unanswered

I fully agree with what you posted since they are questions that have been put to him that he has not answered. It was obviously your post and not Jason’s so all I can say is it is my bad and sorry :asian:

 

[Chris Parker]

Eh, it's all good, my friend.

 

[jasonbrinn]

Now you're talking about something entirely different from what you originally proposed. If you want to design a curriculum based on what you think is the most effective way to punch, kick, or whatever then you're just creating your own art. No problems there. Other people have done the same for centuries. There just isn't anything "generic" about it. For some reason, whenever different people attempt to design the "most effective" curriculum, they come up with different results.

The testing and design process is likely to be more tricky than you seem to realize. Suppose we do a bunch of tests and determine that punching method A delivers the most impact. Great! Only next we discover that the best way to punch without being counter-punched requires punching method B. Uh oh, it turns out that the best way to punch without being taken down requires punching method C. The best way to punch and follow up with an immediate kick requires punching method D, and so on. At some point you have to decide what your priorities are and how to weigh the trade-offs. Those decisions are the beginnings of a style.

You'll also start to realize that you can't just test each technique in isolation. Techniques arise out of underlying body structure and mechanics. Suppose your tests show you that the best techniques for evading an attack come from Bujinkan taijutsu while the best techniques for landing a punch come from Wing Chun. Now you've got a problem. You can't apply effective Wing Chun punching from a taijutsu stance and you can't apply effective taijustsu evasion methods from a Wing Chun stance. The body mechanics just won't work. Whichever techniques you end up deciding to include in your curriculum, they need to work together in terms of the underlying body structure, body mechanics, tactical doctrine, etc. When you decide how to do that, you're creating a system which is specific and not generic.

You should also remember that, contrary to what many people like to claim about the design of their systems, it isn't really practical to be all that scientific in the process of testing your decisions. How do you "test all the punches"? Just try them all? What if you're just more skilled at one punch than another? You'd have to take a bunch of beginners and train each person in a different punching method for the same number of hours before testing them. Of course, you can't have just one person per sample group. Maybe one person would be naturally stronger or more talented and so the punching method you assigned to him would seem to be the best. You'd need to randomly assign a fair number of individuals into each experimental condition and carefully control the training so that all other aspects of training (intensity, number of hours trained, supplemental exercises, etc) were exactly the same. Then you'd have to design your actual tests. How do you determine the "damage received" by punching? Do you match all your test subjects up in repeated bare-knuckle fights and observe the results? What rules do you enforce in these fights and how might those affect the outcomes?

In the end, unless you are a ruthless dictator with the power to draft thousands of your subjects into training and fighting gladiatorial matches for your amusement, you aren't likely to find a "scientific" answer as to the best techniques for a martial art. (That's assuming there are "best techniques" as opposed to "best techniques for a given individual in a given situation at a given time".)

Thank you. This is well thought out (not to say others didn't have great posts too or anything), very honest and very true.

 

[jasonbrinn]

I have seen this before from you and this seems to be your response to people here on MT when you can no longer defend your position and you have been pretty much proven wrong based on the evidence.

I could just as easily say is you don't like the responses don't post.

You are right, my apologies. For some reason you and Chris just seem to really frustrate me with your posts most of the time. I think it is the voice in my head I use when reading both of your posts. I need to clear my past thoughts and simply take both of your posts from a point of view that you are not ever trying to put me down or attack me personally.

In the past Chris has posted links to other places that attacked me untruthfully and since then I have somehow decided not to like him. I will let that go from here on out.

You and I disagreed on a few things on another thread that got all jacked up as well. I will let that go from here on out.

I really do appreciate both you and Chris taking the time to interact with my ideas here even though I almost always either take offense to both of your posts, maybe reading too much into them. I seem to be a very defensive person online for some reason. I will think about this and try to improve.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm. There have been other threads that I've been involved in with you that others have linked to threads on other forums about you, but I don't remember doing so myself.... typically I'd only link to something like that if it's relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[jasonbrinn]

You teach BJJ? Where? What credentials? A BJJ teaching credential is really easy to verify.

I teach what I know with NO credentials, excuses or apologies. My training is easy enough to list and independently verify;

- 1994 started training BJJ (friend, Devon Goda, taught me who had trained with Matt Hume)
- 1995 trained in the military with a student of Royce Gracie
- 1998 trained via tapes (Panther)
- 2000 became member of Carlos Machado BJJ Association and trained through seminars with Carlos
- 2002 trained directly under Carlos Lemos (Gracie Barra)
- 2008 trained directly with Rubens Rodriguez (Gracie Barra)

All the time in between and every moment during I trained with DVDs and various seminars. Since I started in 1994 I have trained BJJ in each and every class, which were a minimum of 5 days a week 2.5 hours a night or more for most of that time. I have NO rank, due mostly to various life circumstances (getting my spine fused, two daughters, travel, blah blah blah). I have to say though - rank was/is never something I am after.

 

[lklawson]

I teach what I know with NO credentials, excuses or apologies. My training is easy enough to list and independently verify;

- 1994 started training BJJ (friend, Devon Goda, taught me who had trained with Matt Hume)
- 1995 trained in the military with a student of Royce Gracie
- 1998 trained via tapes (Panther)
- 2000 became member of Carlos Machado BJJ Association and trained through seminars with Carlos
- 2002 trained directly under Carlos Lemos (Gracie Barra)
- 2008 trained directly with Rubens Rodriguez (Gracie Barra)

All the time in between and every moment during I trained with DVDs and various seminars. Since I started in 1994 I have trained BJJ in each and every class, which were a minimum of 5 days a week 2.5 hours a night or more for most of that time.

So how are you qualified to teach BJJ?

I have NO rank, due mostly to various life circumstances (getting my spine fused, two daughters, travel, blah blah blah). I have to say though - rank was/is never something I am after.

Rank is irrelevant except as a marker of skill from an authority independent of the rank holder (that's why self-appointed ranks are meaningless).

That said, I'm a bit thrown off by your two conflicting claims. First, the whole point of this thread is about a "Universally" recognized rank. Second, you are now claiming that rank is not something that you care about. Which is it?

I could see, maybe, a point in saying, "most of the dan ranks out there are meaningless and I really want some sort of meaningful rank structure that everyone recognizes is pure awesomeness." But that doesn't jibe with, "I teach what I know with NO credentials, excuses or apologies. [...] I have to say though - rank was/is never something I am after." because BJJ ranking is highly regulated and meaningful. It's one of the strengths of the organization. If a guy has a given BJJ rank, you know he earned it and knows what he's talking about. BJJ guys take this pretty seriously.

 

[Carol]

Jason, if you dont mind me prying a bit...based on your passion for the idea, this seems to be a concept that you are personally interested in developing.

Rather than building a universal BB...how about going in the opposite direction and building a consortium of schools that can help one another? (My college did this, with other colleges). Rather than focusing in getting rank rubber stamped as many places as possible, how about looking to see what you can do together to make your respective schools stronger at whatetevr they do? Perhaps that could mean stronger negotiating and buying power when it comes to business resources or attracting top talent for seminars. Perhaps you could pool enough students together to have late night tactics classes for the 2nd and 3rd shifters that have to be out at an unpleasant hour....or 7am cardiobox classes for the desk jockeys.

Martial Arts schools to me seem very silo'ed. Very few work together...seems like many don't even like each other much. I don't think many people....instructors or students...want to see their ranksmdiluted (hence the friction) but it strikes me that there is a lot that could be accomplished that wouldn't require changing belt requirements or meaning.

I mention this largely because you strike me as a person with a very good heart. I think you genuinely care about other people and that you want to do your part to make the world a better place. If helping others is the drive here, perhaps might be more than one way to do it?

 

[UKS]

No, if this happened it would take away the Art from Martial Art.

 

[oftheherd1]

This is a long thread, and I don't right now have the time to read all pages. From the first page and this one, it looks like some sort of snippy replies, and some very thoughtful replies. What I say below may very well have already been said, and better.

My own take is that there is and can be no such thing as a universal black belt of any meaning. It would require masters and grand masters, as well as other long time students to say in effect, "I have studied my current art and style for X-number of years, and taught it for X-number of years. I have taught students that it was at least a great art and style, if not a superior one. I have just seen the error of my ways. I must now examine my art and style to see if there is anything worth keeping, and scour other arts and styles for things that are superior to mine, and incorporate them in to a universal art and style, that will be superior to the one I had learned and taught."

I don't think that is going to happen.

 

[ACJ]

I think I read all the replies here, what I didn't see, so I thought I'd add:

For me at the school I teach at, the ranking system is designed to help both the instructors and the students to gauge their progress through learning the system we are teaching them. It is supported by a syllabus designed to coincide with each level. Each level is an extension of the last and builds upon the last, it does not just add new things in. They are both designed to generate the most efficient path for learning; where learning happens quickly, it reinforces good technique, teaches sound principles and is supported by conditioning of the body.

The black belt is an indicator of progress, to my students and to the instructors. It is also linked to the progress in the style, which is internationally certified, but I think this link is perfunctory at best. If a student from another art comes in, they start at white belt. Why? Because white belt is representative of zero progress through the system we are teaching, and that is exactly how much progress they have made. They often will progress a lot quicker than any other student through the ranks. Why? Because they will progress through the syllabus quicker.

So what is my point? To have a universal black belt, you'd need to have a universal syllabus; but to be as non-specific as you are suggesting, then you wouldn't be including things that build on each other, you wouldn't be teaching towards a goal. That isn't a syllabus, that is a collection of information about martial arts.

Now there isn't inherently wrong about a collection of information and teaching that, but you need to consider what would make up this information. Physics, physiology, and psychology as a base; and materials science, criminal psychology, strength and conditioning coaching, neuro and education as progressions from that. Great, who wants to put up their hand to learn all this sort of stuff before you're actually allowed to do any martial arts.I have learned a number of things from a few of these fields, and does it make me a better martial artist? Yes. In my opinion, I have benefited greatly from doing these and have a better understanding of myself in relation to the movements, principles and tactics included in martial arts. Now do I suggest that all my students learn heavily from these fields too? No. Because they will benefit much more from just getting in there and training towards their goal in martial arts, whatever that may be. They will still get the benefits of all their instructors' knowledge of these things, as the instructors will pass down what is relevant to their goals as well as they can. More can be gained from these fields than what will be passed on, but that is something to be looked into as they approach closer to their goals, not at the start of their journey.

tl;dr a person should aim directly for their goal and not get lost in learning a database of information that may or may not be relevant to their end goals. This is often best done with a syllabus, which can only occur in a specific martial art. not a generalised one.

 

[ACJ]

Two analogous examples:

Firstly from sporting. This actually has a quite good parallel to your idea, so I think it is interesting to look at; Olympic Weightlifting, Powerlifting, and Strongman. All three have the basic idea of moving a heavy weight from point A to point B in a specific fashion. They all rely on the human body's capabilities and the principles of force generation.

For someone looking to enter this realm of strength competition, there are a few fantastic programs that are generalised training programs designed for beginners, which will get you strong, sounds great right? But if you had any aspirations to be particularly good at any one of these, there are much better programs that are designed to build upon themselves, eventually reaching the heights of ability at one of these sports. Now if you look at a similar idea, but translated slightly differently; you have someone who wants to be pretty good at everything; this is where the fad of Crossfit comes in. Where the first program I mentioned earlier will get you good at the basics and develop round base, Crossfit is more about doing everything as an end goal (like one big mega mix of martial arts), these people (despite dubbing their best as "the fittest on Earth") end up being mediocre at everything (in an elite sense) and end up not really being impressive at any one thing.

Now it gets a little more complicated, we have all the people who don't join martial arts for the same sorts of reason the martial arts were designed for or that a few people think martial arts should be for. The same thing ends up happening in weightlifting, as the majority of people don't get into lifting heavy things for the sake of it or partake in the more hardcore point of view. These are the people who just want to get fit, or look good, or relieve pain, or any other goal you can think of. Sure a lot of these people will get results from the generalised strength training program, but it hardly the most efficient program for their goals, so why would they pick that?

In the end we have to remember that while these heavy lifting sports can certainly be quite deep, they aren't terribly broad when compare to martial arts, making the creation a generalised syllabus even more difficult and quite possibly more inefficient. Consider the application to all sports, would you have us create a general skill program for every sport? Only start training for your sport of choice once you have completed a certain level of mastery of a round base of skills?

Secondly, a more cultural idea. This idea for the universal black belt can be thought of as a similar idea to harmonizing and combining different nations across the globe (NEARLY as difficult a task as doing it for martial arts). There are some great ideas and initiatives for achieving this. A big idea is the UN. Unfortunately, your idea is not like the UN. Your idea is like saying that every person must learn a standardised way of being free from culture, custom and national and local style, and only THEN can you start incorporation of your culture and beliefs into your personality. Seems a bit off to me.