Contradictions In The Martial Arts

[Steve]

Then by the same token a sensei should make it clear what a student needs to do to get a black belt in his dojo, or whatever rank the student is striving for. And a student shouldn't be afraid to ask.

I try to stay away from “should”. Objective standards are generally a good idea, and I have my own opinions about what works and what doesn’t. But a school is a business, and the instruction is a service. The business owner offers whatever service they like and the consumer can either choose to buy it or not.

A martial art is not exactly the same as a primary school teacher. The biggest difference is that teachers are accountable to external standards. Martial arts instructors are not.

A lot of martial arts instructors set their own standards and decide for themselves if they’re meeting them. Is that a good idea? Well, maybe not. But if the customer is happy with the product, then the answer is yes, it’s good enough.

 

[Hot Lunch]

I agree with you on that. First degree black belt does mean you're just a serious beginner and if you look at all the dan ranks it is a rather low rank. But the fact of the matter is, we're all beginners in the sense that there's always more to learn. It doesn't matter what your rank is or how much experience you've got, there's always something new out there.

Do you really believe that shodan is the beginner rank, or are you repeating what you've been told by others?

There's a motive behind that saying. Usually, it's to prevent students from seeing black belt as the end of their training, and to encourage them to keep training. And then, there are times when, let's face it - someone might say that to explain away black belts in their school not meeting the expectations that people outside of their school might have of a black belt.

IMO, it's self-contradictory to claim that it's "the beginner rank" and "just another rank." Which one is it?

In a typical 10 kyu/10 dan system, if shodan was "just another rank," then it's rank number 11 out of 20. If it's "just another rank," how would it be possible to draw a line there and designate it as "the beginner rank?"

 

[Hot Lunch]

I got this off of Wikipedia (take it FWIW). This is for the game of Go.

There are 30 kyu grades in Go. So if we take the number of kyu grades in a martial arts school and divide it into three (as is done in Go), then only the bottom tertile is considered "beginner."

 

[isshinryuronin]

IMO, it's self-contradictory to claim that it's "the beginner rank" and "just another rank." Which one is it?

In a typical 10 kyu/10 dan system, if shodan was "just another rank," then it's rank number 11 out of 20. If it's "just another rank," how would it be possible to draw a line there and designate it as "the beginner rank?"

It is a mistake to call shodan a beginner rank without acknowledging the perspective one is viewing it from. Look at it like school. A high school senior is like a brown belt, the big fish in the pond of high schoolers. But when he goes to college as a freshman, he is the small fish in the pond of college students. He is a beginner in advanced higher learning compared to university juniors and seniors. A shodan is like a college freshman. Advanced compared to colored belted high schoolers, but a beginner in serious study compared to the big boys on campus having 4th or 5th dan.

 

[PhotonGuy]

No one is suggesting you cheat. You missed the point that's been explained like 5 times to you.

If it's been explained to me then you can give me reference where it was explained, you could mention a post number.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Do you really believe that shodan is the beginner rank, or are you repeating what you've been told by others?

The term beginner is a relative term but based on both what I've been told by others and by my own experience I would say that, relatively speaking, shodan is a beginner rank in the sense that once you make it to shodan, you're just getting started. I've believed that for a long time, way before I joined this forum.

There's a motive behind that saying. Usually, it's to prevent students from seeing black belt as the end of their training, and to encourage them to keep training.

There really is no end to training and while I've occasionally seen students drop out after making it to shodan, I haven't seen it that often. Usually when you make it to shodan you just get hungrier for more knowledge.

And then, there are times when, let's face it - someone might say that to explain away black belts in their school not meeting the expectations that people outside of their school might have of a black belt.

That might be true to some extent although usually those are schools that just hand out black belts.

IMO, it's self-contradictory to claim that it's "the beginner rank" and "just another rank." Which one is it?

When I refer to shodan as being just another rank what I mean is that getting from ikkyu to shodan shouldn't be much harder, and shouldn't take much longer, than getting from nikkyu to ikkyu, and at least I believe its that way in Japan. Unlike in the USA they tend to make it much harder and to take much longer. I've talked about this in my other thread.

And if you believe that shodan is a beginner rank then that's all the more reason you should agree with the idea of not making it much harder or having it take much longer to get from ikkyu to shodan than it does to get from nikkyu to ikkyu. Not if it's a beginner rank.

In a typical 10 kyu/10 dan system, if shodan was "just another rank," then it's rank number 11 out of 20. If it's "just another rank," how would it be possible to draw a line there and designate it as "the beginner rank?"

What I mean when I call it a beginner rank is that when you do make it to shodan you're still relatively a beginner. Much like somebody first starting college.

 

[Hot Lunch]

It is a mistake to call shodan a beginner rank without acknowledging the perspective one is viewing it from. Look at it like school. A high school senior is like a brown belt, the big fish in the pond of high schoolers. But when he goes to college as a freshman, he is the small fish in the pond of college students. He is a beginner in advanced higher learning compared to university juniors and seniors. A shodan is like a college freshman. Advanced compared to colored belted high schoolers, but a beginner in serious study compared to the big boys on campus having 4th or 5th dan.

What I mean when I call it a beginner rank is that when you do make it to shodan you're still relatively a beginner. Much like somebody first starting college.

Bear in mind that only education up to a high school diploma is compulsory. After that, you don't have to go to college. You are free to be an adult and do adult things with that high school diploma.

Are we looking at shodan in a similar fashion?

 

[Dirty Dog]

Bear in mind that only education up to a high school diploma is compulsory.

No it's not.
Southern states in the US, in particular, have a shockingly high rate of students who do not finish high school.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I try to stay away from “should”. Objective standards are generally a good idea, and I have my own opinions about what works and what doesn’t. But a school is a business, and the instruction is a service. The business owner offers whatever service they like and the consumer can either choose to buy it or not.

A martial art is not exactly the same as a primary school teacher. The biggest difference is that teachers are accountable to external standards. Martial arts instructors are not.

A lot of martial arts instructors set their own standards and decide for themselves if they’re meeting them. Is that a good idea? Well, maybe not. But if the customer is happy with the product, then the answer is yes, it’s good enough.

You're right that academic school teachers are accountable to external standards and martial arts instructors are not but at the risk of using the word should, I will say that martial arts instructors should be held accountable to external standards too. Ideally that's how it should be even though it might not be possible in the world we live in.

And martial arts instruction BTW is a service not a product.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

If it's been explained to me then you can give me reference where it was explained, you could mention a post number.

If you go back to our last conversation I think a month ago, I mentioned that it gets tiresome and I have no desire to reread the thread to figure out what we were talking about. Especially since your conversations jump between your threads since it's mostly the same argument you're making.
I'm not reading multiple threads from 6+ months ago to provide you an answer for a post 150 posts ago in this thread.

 

[PhotonGuy]

If you go back to our last conversation I think a month ago, I mentioned that it gets tiresome and I have no desire to reread the thread to figure out what we were talking about. Especially since your conversations jump between your threads since it's mostly the same argument you're making.
I'm not reading multiple threads from 6+ months ago to provide you an answer for a post 150 posts ago in this thread.

OK well in the future it might be a good idea to mention post numbers if you think an answer has been posted, I sometimes do it.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Contradictions In The Martial Arts​

Teacher A: To be a good MA student, you should train on heavy bag every day.
Teacher B: You should not train on heavy bag. When you have developed enough punching power, you may hurt someone and go to jail for it.

When you have 2 teachers who give you contradict opinions, who are you going to listen to?

To elaborate further on my previous response in post #315 I would like to say that teacher B is an idiot. Teacher B is speaking from the mindset that you're going to go out and punch people. If you're going to punch innocent people that will get you in trouble whether you've got lots of punching power or not. If you do have lots of punching power it will probably get you in more trouble as you will be more likely to hurt somebody more badly than if you don't but getting in any kind of trouble whatsoever, whether you've got lots of punching power or not, can be avoided all together by simply not attacking innocent people. Like I said, teacher B is an idiot.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I am sure I have mentioned this as a humble brag before.

In martial arts. You are supposed to be so mature as to not care about status. But in doing so is advertising this status of how mature you are.

It's obvious when people put on a show of this. But they think they are masterfully playing a role that is fooling everyone.

If you equate rank with status. When people want to earn rank they have different reasons for doing so. Not everybody wants to earn rank because of status.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I have seen white belts who could grasp doing a jump spinning kick as well as any black belt on their first day learning the kick.

Those white belts that you're talking about might have previous experience in the martial arts in other styles but maybe they want to learn a new art so they start taking lessons in a new art at a different dojo and they start at white belt. They might have high ranks in other styles which can sometimes give you a big advantage when you take up a new style.

Or even if they don't have any previous experience martial arts whatsoever they might have backgrounds in other types of physical activities which can give them an advantage. Hilary Swank, the actress who starred in the movie The Next Karate Kid, when they trained her for the movie which involved teaching her some martial arts, she was doing some stuff at black belt level according to her trainers even though she did not have any previous experience in the martial arts. She did, however, have a big background in gymnastics, ballet, and swimming before she started training for the movie which no doubt gave her a big advantage.

And I have seen black belts who still need to work on their front stance.

To some extent, you could say the same thing about anybody in the martial arts no matter how advanced they are and no matter how basic the technique that you say they need work on is. Gichen Funakoshi who founded Shotokan karate, after fifty plus years of training in the martial arts he found a way of throwing the reverse punch that was a little bit better. The reverse punch is a very basic technique often taught on day one but Funakoshi had found a way to improve it even more, even after training in the martial arts for fifty plus years. That's the thing about the martial arts, you can always find a way to do even the most basic techniques better no matter how advanced and experienced you are. So in that sense you can say everybody can work on everything, no matter how basic the technique and no matter how high their skill level.

 

[HighKick]

Those white belts that you're talking about might have previous experience in the martial arts in other styles but maybe they want to learn a new art so they start taking lessons in a new art at a different dojo and they start at white belt. They might have high ranks in other styles which can sometimes give you a big advantage when you take up a new style.

Or even if they don't have any previous experience martial arts whatsoever they might have backgrounds in other types of physical activities which can give them an advantage. Hilary Swank, the actress who starred in the movie The Next Karate Kid, when they trained her for the movie which involved teaching her some martial arts, she was doing some stuff at black belt level according to her trainers even though she did not have any previous experience in the martial arts. She did, however, have a big background in gymnastics, ballet, and swimming before she started training for the movie which no doubt gave her a big advantage.

To some extent, you could say the same thing about anybody in the martial arts no matter how advanced they are and no matter how basic the technique that you say they need work on is. Gichen Funakoshi who founded Shotokan karate, after fifty plus years of training in the martial arts he found a way of throwing the reverse punch that was a little bit better. The reverse punch is a very basic technique often taught on day one but Funakoshi had found a way to improve it even more, even after training in the martial arts for fifty plus years. That's the thing about the martial arts, you can always find a way to do even the most basic techniques better no matter how advanced and experienced you are. So in that sense you can say everybody can work on everything, no matter how basic the technique and no matter how high their skill level.

I said they grasp the concept, I did not say they have the kick down correctly. Huge difference.
Yes, we all need to look at things through a white belt perspective at times.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The reverse punch is a very basic technique often taught on day one but Funakoshi had found a way to improve it even more, even after training in the martial arts for fifty plus years. That's the thing about the martial arts, you can always find a way to do even the most basic techniques better no matter how advanced and experienced you are. So in that sense you can say everybody can work on everything, no matter how basic the technique and no matter how high their skill level.

Is this correct? I know recently I spent weeks researching that very same thing and that's not the impression that I got. I don't get the impression that he thought he improved the punch. From what I understood, of him and his training, it seems that he would have said that he had a better understanding of the punch vs making the punch better.

I'm probably self-reflecting but one of my training rules is to learn all that I can with the beginner form. That same determination often frustrated my teacher back then because I didn't put priority on advancing through the forms quickly. All I care about is juicing everything that I can out of that beginner's form. A lot about the path that he took is like the path that I'm on. If I was younger with the same mentality, then I would have done the fighting as well. Unfortunately for me, my age and my understanding of Jow Ga Kung Fu didn't blossom at the same time. Or maybe it was for the best.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I'm probably self-reflecting but one of my training rules is to learn all that I can with the beginner form. That same determination often frustrated my teacher back then because I didn't put priority on advancing through the forms quickly. All I care about is juicing everything that I can out of that beginner's form.

There are two schools of thought on this as you noted. Learn a little but learn it very well before going to the next step or learn a lot of forms and work on them all eventually getting it down over time.

Historically, the former was the rule, spending 1-3 years on a particular form before going on to the next. The old masters may have learned eight or even a dozen or more forms over their long careers but chose to only teach three or five to their students. Why so few? Most forms are a lot meatier than they may first appear, each form perhaps representing an entire fighting system or doctrine. A single form easily contained a year's worth of info to learn, practice and gain combat proficiency with it.

I see two reasons the latter viewpoint became widely adopted. #1. As MA came to be taught to the masses (non-professionals) the new crop of students was not as strongly motivated to stay with a single form for a year or more; they needed more stimulation and advancement to keep their interest, especially as the arts spread to the West.

#2. The more basic reason, IMO, was that the advanced applications of the forms were lost over time, and they no longer had the complexity and depth they once had. Having become more basic and losing much of their combat application, it no longer took two years to learn and become "proficient" in a form. Teachers didn't have enough knowledge to pass on about the form to stretch over a year or two. So instead of depth they used quantity to fill out their curriculum.

Since most modern TMA practitioners are not professionals, I can see the value of teaching a bigger variety of forms, though one can go overboard in this regard. But I lean a little more towards the quality over quantity of forms, especially as the trend is rediscovering the depth and combat applications most forms really contain.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

There are two schools of thought on this as you noted. Learn a little but learn it very well before going to the next step or learn a lot of forms and work on them all eventually getting it down over time.

The 1st method is called "depth first". The 2nd method is called "breadth first". In AI, both approaches will cover the entire MA tree (starting from the MA tree root).

IMO, if you want to train fighter, the 1st method is better. But if you want to train teacher, the 2nd method is better.

In Chinese wrestling, I was taught with method 1. In the 1st 6 months of my training, I was only allowed to use one technique on the mat. In one tournament, I used that technique to win 7 rounds total. Nobody could escape my attack. After 6 months, I was taught to use that technique to set up other techniques. My truly Chinese wrestling learning then start.

I believe the striking art can be learned the same way. For example, you can use jab to set up many different attacks (jab-jab, jab-cross, jab-hook, jab-uppercut, jab-overhand, jab-grab-pull, ...). Unfortunately, instead of mastering a single technique first then go into combo training later, striking art teacher ask his students to learn a form first. So, depth first approach has never been used in the striking art learning.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Sometimes, people judge someone's MA skill/ability by how he may perform his solo form. This bothers me a lot. IMO, MA is 2 persons art. It's never solo.

For example, someone said, "If I were to think 'going deep' I would probably think first of Liu Jishun (in the following video)".

What the meaning of "going deep"? Am I the only person on earth who believes solo form performance has nothing to do with his MA skill/ability?

 

[Steve]

Reminds me of advice given to new writers. There is a tendency to want write the first chapter, scrap it, write it again, and on until it’s perfect, then move to chapter two. Write chapter two, then go back and edit chapter one, because chapter two changed some things. And about this time, the writer stops writing and may never pick it back up.

The advice given to these newer writers is to press on, keep writing, and finish the book. Resist the urge to edit on the fly. Then go back and edit it, as many times as needed until it is refined. Approach the entire process as a cycle, and not a series of individual steps that must be fully mastered before moving on.

As i read the two training approaches above, the “breadth” approach seems more aligned with human nature and much more likely to succeed. I would expect the “depth” approach to result in a much higher rate of attrition. Particularly in the early stages.