Martial Sacrilege (part 1)

[jobo]

Nope. Proof is NOT what I decide "to make of" "your evidence."

That's not how proof works.

yes it is, nothing can be proved if people don't accept the evidence,

 

[lklawson]

I think belts should be eliminated from the whole system and replaced with "records". It's a radical idea, I know. But I'm a radical man. I believe that martial artists should be judged by two things: How many valid matches they've had and how often they won. I believe that such a barometer is a much more accurate way of gauging the fighter's competence level much more so than a belt.

Sparring with others should count as legitimate matches and their results should be recorded. And then use those records to give a proper title to the fighter.

But like I said, I'm a radical man with radical ideas.

Not particularly radical. Been going on for centuries. The Company of Masters required their students to put out a public challenge to all comers and fight them all for each test (every 7 years). Boxing and Savate are competition based. Heck I had a friend years ago who related that he couldn't attain Shodan in Judo while training in Japan without winning a match against someone already a Shodan. An important part of BJJ ranking is that the candidate must be able to "hang with" the next "rank" up.

The idea is neither new nor radical and has a long established presence with any number of variations on the theme.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

yes it is, nothing can be proved if people don't accept the evidence,

So we've moved to three subjects you don't really understand and just make stuff up about. What do you do for your big finale?

 

[jobo]

tell you what you try and prove something to me, anything and see how far you get

 

[Saheim]

that's exactly how proof works, no body has proof ! they just have evidence , proof is if the jury, or in this case you choose to believe that evidence.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I really don't care about the original topic BUT I feel the need to address what you said, and how others responded to it, concerning"proof".

Your definition is consistent with my many years of experience in a court room. We were taught - "evidence" is anything that supports your claim. It can be physical, it can be video, it can be spoken testimony of witnesses. "Proof" on the other hand, is the RESULT of evidence. A bloody knife is not proof, it is evidence. Proof is what the bloody knife resulted in, coupled with other evidence. So yea, your statement about proof being what we make of the evidence is pretty accurate.

I know we'e getting into symantecs, here, it is just one of those things that bothers me a little like people mixing up "assault" and "battery". I've long since stopped correcting folks who say "that is assault!" when someone hits someone else (without justification)

 

[lklawson]

tell you what you try and prove something to me, anything and see how far you get

You go first.

 

[JR 137]

OP, I think you raised some very good questions. I like it.

I'm not a martial artist. I have very little experience in fighting and martial arts so I can't really say much with regards to the legitimacy of belts. But I will say this...

I believe in the value of sparring. I believe that sparring is as important as "drills", if I may call them that. Sparring is as close you can get with simulating a real match, and that is priceless. It is the same mentality in weightlifting and powerlifting. In weightlifting, for example, you don't waste your time doing **** like curls or upright rows. You train for attributes that are applicable for your event. Which means squats, deadlifts, and overhead presses and etcetera. And NO to tricep extensions and concentration curls. The value of sparring is as important as power cleans are with weightlifting (OLYMPIC).

I think belts should be eliminated from the whole system and replaced with "records". It's a radical idea, I know. But I'm a radical man. I believe that martial artists should be judged by two things: How many valid matches they've had and how often they won. I believe that such a barometer is a much more accurate way of gauging the fighter's competence level much more so than a belt.

Sparring with others should count as legitimate matches and their results should be recorded. And then use those records to give a proper title to the fighter.

But like I said, I'm a radical man with radical ideas.

As lklawson said, it’s not that radical.

The main point of my reply...
Sparring isn’t a competition; it’s a learning experience. Sparring doesn’t have a winner nor a loser, it’s supposed to have two people who come away with more information going out than they came in with.

Sparring is a time for me to see what works and what doesn’t. I try new things. I try the fundamentals/basics in new ways, be it in setup, counters, etc. I try to do things I’m not good at so I can minimize my weaknesses. Basically, I’m practicing. If I go a round without landing a single blow, it’s no more of a loss than if I landed every single one.

Competition and actual fights have winners and losers, sparring doesn’t. There’s quite a few oyour there who try to “win” while sparring. I’ve been that guy quite a few times too.

 

[lklawson]

I don't have a dog in this fight. I really don't care about the original topic BUT I feel the need to address what you said, and how others responded to it, concerning"proof".

Your definition is consistent with my many years of experience in a court room. We were taught - "evidence" is anything that supports your claim. It can be physical, it can be video, it can be spoken testimony of witnesses. "Proof" on the other hand, is the RESULT of evidence. A bloody knife is not proof, it is evidence. Proof is what the bloody knife resulted in, coupled with other evidence. So yea, your statement about proof being what we make of the evidence is pretty accurate.

I know we'e getting into symantecs, here, it is just one of those things that bothers me a little like people mixing up "assault" and "battery". I've long since stopped correcting folks who say "that is assault!" when someone hits someone else (without justification)

It's a good thing that we're not talking about a Court Room, then, right?

Further, I'm still waiting for him to provide "proof" of his thesis: That his definition of a black belt should be accepted by everyone, that anyone who doesn't meet his definition should be stripped of rank, that anyone who doesn't meet his definition is degrading the "brand" (what?), and that the correct (his) definition is basically whatever the general public believes a "black belt" is.

Even going by Court Room "proof" (instead of one of the several other uses of the term) have you seen anything out of him which even comes close to evidence, never mind "proof?"

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Saheim]

Even going by Court Room "proof" (instead of one of the several other uses of the term) have you seen anything out of him which even comes close to evidence, never mind "proof?"

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Not really. That might be why I was compelled to point out the one thing he did get right

 

[Gerry Seymour]

OP, I think you raised some very good questions. I like it.

I'm not a martial artist. I have very little experience in fighting and martial arts so I can't really say much with regards to the legitimacy of belts. But I will say this...

I believe in the value of sparring. I believe that sparring is as important as "drills", if I may call them that. Sparring is as close you can get with simulating a real match, and that is priceless. It is the same mentality in weightlifting and powerlifting. In weightlifting, for example, you don't waste your time doing **** like curls or upright rows. You train for attributes that are applicable for your event. Which means squats, deadlifts, and overhead presses and etcetera. And NO to tricep extensions and concentration curls. The value of sparring is as important as power cleans are with weightlifting (OLYMPIC).

I think belts should be eliminated from the whole system and replaced with "records". It's a radical idea, I know. But I'm a radical man. I believe that martial artists should be judged by two things: How many valid matches they've had and how often they won. I believe that such a barometer is a much more accurate way of gauging the fighter's competence level much more so than a belt.

Sparring with others should count as legitimate matches and their results should be recorded. And then use those records to give a proper title to the fighter.

But like I said, I'm a radical man with radical ideas.

There are a lot of us with little interest in competition, for various reasons. Depending upon records requires two things that don't (and never will) exist: parity between competitions, and all martial artists competing.

 

[oftheherd1]

No worries. I understood from context who you were talking to.

Thanks. Very gracious of you.

 

[Headhunter]

To me I don't care about other people and their rank. Maybe that sounds selfish or whatever but simply it doesn't matter to me at all if a guy gets a black belt in 2 weeks and is actually garbage that doesn't affect me it only affects him. People should stop worrying about other people and just focus on their own training