white gi vs black gi

[just2kicku]

The kenpo tradition in the Mitose and Chow schools was to have students wear white, and instructors wear black. Kajukenbo followed that tradition in it's early years.

Then around 1958 Sijo had everyone in Kajukenbo wear black gi's. Sijo just told me that he thought the black gi's "looked bad", and that wearing black made the Kajukenbo group instantly recognized at tournaments and martial arts events. It became our trademark at the time.

Later in the late 60's when Kajukenbo started to adapt more Chinese techniques into the development of the Chuan Fa and Wun Hop Kuen Do branches, we started replacing our Japanese terminology with Chinese terminology also. That's when the black gi's were said to be related to our Chinese roots. That sounds more philosophical then admitting that black gi's just look "bad ***".

Thanks Prof.

 

[Twin Fist]

black does indeed look bad ***.

also, it's slimming. that matters to some of us.....lol

 

[Manny]

In my kenpo studio the people can wear what they want and I dislike this cause I like uniformity. The sensei some times wear a black gi, sometimes a red gi, some times black pants and tshirt or polo shirt. The studentes wear almost sport clothes or only the black pants and a tshirt (the color does not matter). Myself, I am wearing white infact the kenpo budies tell the Doctorcause I wear white. I'm a black belt in TKD so the only uniforms I have are a white Century karategi with black lapel or a Black V neck Mooto dobok,so this what I use with a white belt (cause I'm a Kenpo beguiner).

Tonigh I will pay the sensei for the black karategi and it will arrive next week, so maybe I will wearing all black (with white belt) the next week.

This is only me, if I had a dojo/dojang of my own I will ask the students to wear white gi's and only the black till they reach black belt status.

I know Kenpo wear black karategis that's his trade mark and I will feel weird using a black gi but just because I'am wering white since I was a kid.

Manny

 

[Danjo]

On top of that, I don't think women really became prevalent in a martial arts school until the 1980s, and even then it took a long time for them to make up a large percentage of the student population.

Not true. In my 70's Shotokan class we always had several women training. In fact, my first instructor when I started training in Shotokan was a woman black belt. She taught the beginners while the head instrutor taught the rest.

If you get a chance, watch The New Gladiators Which follows the tourney scene in the 70's and you'll see how many women were practicing back then. Heck even a perusal through black belt magazines from the 70's can give you an idea that there were quite a few.

I'd say that the biggest change from the 70's to the 80's was the explosion of kids training. The combination of the Karate Kid movie and the watering down to TKD schools to accomodate them created it IMO.

 

[Doc]

Not true. In my 70's Shotokan class we always had several women training. In fact, my first instructor when I started training in Shotokan was a woman black belt. She taught the beginners while the head instrutor taught the rest.

If you get a chance, watch The New Gladiators Which follows the tourney scene in the 70's and you'll see how many women were practicing back then. Heck even a perusal through black belt magazines from the 70's can give you an idea that there were quite a few.

I'd say that the biggest change from the 70's to the 80's was the explosion of kids training. The combination of the Karate Kid movie and the watering down to TKD schools to accomodate them created it IMO.

Exactly. So many it cause Mr. Parker to modify his commercial program to accommodate them. On another note, we used to see those black gi's in the early days, and always knew we had a tough fight on our hands. The Kaju guys were the first to wear them as a designated uniform. Before that you only had two "gi" options; white or the Okinawan crosshatch gi top. Later someone started making black bottoms, but in the early days they had trouble with the dyes and it took a while to finally get the tops through NTI.

 

[Doc]

black does indeed look bad ***.

also, it's slimming. that matters to some of us.....lol

You dam right!

 

[Carol]

I've heard this explanation before, and to be honest I think someone is trying to pull our collective leg on this one. I just do not find it believable. Long/Big hair not withstanding, I simply cannot believe it was that difficult to tell a man from a woman once you put them in a gi, even from behind.

I don't remember if it was here or on KT, but I made a post enquiring about that after watching a kids class at my own Kenpo school. Sure for many of the kids I could tell, but there were a few children that I could not tell their gender.

 

[bekkilyn]

Just out of curiosity, why would it be important to be able to determine someone's gender in the class? Isn't everyone doing the same thing regardless?

 

[Twin Fist]

i try to make sure i know who has boobs so i can avoid grabbing them when i dont have too

 

[Carol]

If a student collapses on the mat, 911 dispatch and/or EMS is going to ask the gender of the student.

 

[John Bishop]

There was a question about the identity of the people in this picture.
The picture was taken at the Wahiawa YMCA in the 50's.

L to R
Top row: Frank Ordanez, Adriano Emperado, Joe Emperado
2nd row: unk, Ken Funakoshi, unk, Henry Mandac
1st row: Manuel Patino, Tony Ramos, Algene Caraulia.

 

[Milt G.]

There was a question about the identity of the people in this picture.
The picture was taken at the Wahiawa YMCA in the 50's.

L to R
Top row: Frank Ordanez, Adriano Emperado, Joe Emperado
2nd row: unk, Ken Funakoshi, unk, Henry Mandac
1st row: Manuel Patino, Tony Ramos, Algene Caraulia.

Mr. Bishop,

Thanks for the trip down "memory lane". I had forgotten who many of those practitioners are.

Truly an historic photo.

Milt G.

 

[Flying Crane]

You're free to "believe" what you want, but then, you weren't there when these things went on, and decisions made. I've personally visited schools where I couldn't tell the difference with the long hair and big "fro"s" shared by men and women, especially if they are slight of build, AND you don't know them personally.

"You don't think." I don't know if you've done a statistical breakdown of all the Ed Parker Lineage kenpo Schools, or not, but I can tell you from my personal experiences we had lots of women in the early seventies. Hell the Yellow Belt and its techniques was created for them in the late sixties because of their numbers.

"I don't believe," Someone is pulling your leg." "My suspicion." Trouble is you don't KNOW anything but like to speak with authority even though you were not there, but entitled to your opinion you are, no matter how you come to your conclusions.

By perpetuating this story what you are telling me is that you, yourself, could not tell the men from the women back in the 60s and 70s? really?

My sources who also began training in the early 1960s have stated that there were really few women in the dojos of that time. Now, whether or not that point is true, I think the real issue is the perpetuation of the notion that by putting on a gi, one's gender was suddenly and magically concealed. It also implies that class size was so large that the teacher and students didn't really know each other and had no familiarity with each other, more like a 101 level class in a Big-Ten University with 400 students in a lecture hall. I don't buy it. It's a silly position to take.

Carol Kaur mentioned difficulty in being able to tell a boy from a girl in children, and I can see how that might be so in some cases. But among adults, as the general norm and outside of rare androgenous cases, I don't buy it.

I did notice in Mr. Parker's early book, I believe it is Secrets of Chinese Karate, or something, published in around 1963 or so, he made a reference to this. In that book he states that the CHinese traditionally wore the knot of their sash on the side, different sides for men and women. I don't know if that statement is historical fact, but apparently Mr. Parker noticed this tradition in the CHinese culture. I would be willing to bet that that is the true genesis of his decision to have students move the knot to the side.

Somewhere along the line he may have stated the gender issue as the reason, but I doubt if it was sincere. It's really a silly notion. I've got a couple of bridges for sale, cheap...

 

[Flying Crane]

Not true. In my 70's Shotokan class we always had several women training. In fact, my first instructor when I started training in Shotokan was a woman black belt. She taught the beginners while the head instrutor taught the rest.

If you get a chance, watch The New Gladiators Which follows the tourney scene in the 70's and you'll see how many women were practicing back then. Heck even a perusal through black belt magazines from the 70's can give you an idea that there were quite a few.

I'd say that the biggest change from the 70's to the 80's was the explosion of kids training. The combination of the Karate Kid movie and the watering down to TKD schools to accomodate them created it IMO.

Of course there were always the exceptions, but what would you say was the percentage of women in the class, at that time? And more to the point, did you have any difficulty telling the men from the women? Even when you couldn't see their faces?

I also studied in an unusual capoeira school, with a woman instructor and probably 60-70% of the students being women also. This was in the early to late 1990s, however. My first kenpo school, in the early 1980s also had women in it, but they were fewer than the men. Of course we were always a small group, training in our teacher's living room, and later, when we moved into a converted garage, we had no women for the next few years until the school closed.

 

[Danjo]

Of course there were always the exceptions, but what would you say was the percentage of women in the class, at that time? And more to the point, did you have any difficulty telling the men from the women? Even when you couldn't see their faces?

I also studied in an unusual capoeira school, with a woman instructor and probably 60-70% of the students being women also. This was in the early to late 1990s, however. My first kenpo school, in the early 1980s also had women in it, but they were fewer than the men. Of course we were always a small group, training in our teacher's living room, and later, when we moved into a converted garage, we had no women for the next few years until the school closed.

About 25-35% were women/girls on average. But this was the 70's. You changed what you said a bit. Before, you said it wasn't until the 80's that women started training in large numbers, but in your recent reply to Doc you now talk about training in the early 1960s, which is a different time.

I could, however, tell who the women were in my school. You just had to wait to see which bathroom they used.

 

[mwd0818]

... but in the early days they had trouble with the dyes ....

Reminds me of my Judo/Jiu-Jitsu school where we dyed our own belts and there were a few guys that got the wrong dye color or didn't read the directions. Nothing more intimdating than a "baby blue" blue belt . . . or a splotchy brown belt . . .

 

[Flying Crane]

About 25-35% were women/girls on average. But this was the 70's. You changed what you said a bit. Before, you said it wasn't until the 80's that women started training in large numbers, but in your recent reply to Doc you now talk about training in the early 1960s, which is a different time.

I could, however, tell who the women were in my school. You just had to wait to see which bathroom they used.

I did change a bit, I was speculating about the 70s vs 80s as to when women became prevalent, as my own entry into the arts came in the early 80s. I did not, however, deny that women were in the arts at all in the 60s and 70s. I only speculated that there were rather few of them during that time, and that jives with what I've been told by people I know who trained from the early 60s on.

I've never had difficulty knowing the men from the women, even when half the men were San Francisco hippy leftovers with long and big hair. Just never been an issue with me, and we've even got a bit of the gender-bending going on in our neighborhood which actually can make it a bit difficult. But in the training hall, I've never ever been confused.

 

[J Ellis]

Reminds me of my Judo/Jiu-Jitsu school where we dyed our own belts and there were a few guys that got the wrong dye color or didn't read the directions. Nothing more intimdating than a "baby blue" blue belt . . . or a splotchy brown belt . . .

We had the same tradition at my first jujutsu dojo. You kept the same belt from white all the way through brown. Going to the store to buy the dye after being promoted was a big deal. The only other new belt you received was a black one, and Sensei wore it to several classes before you received it.I love both traditions.Joel

 

[Doc]

By perpetuating this story what you are telling me is that you, yourself, could not tell the men from the women back in the 60s and 70s? really?

OK I see where this is going. We've covered this before on another forum, and you choose to not accept anything other then your own uninformed point of view. Got it. But answering the questions has noting to do with my personal powers of observation. And I am not "perpetuating a story," I'm recounting what I know from being there. For you it is a story, for me it is a memory.

My sources who also began training in the early 1960s have stated that there were really few women in the dojos of that time. Now, whether or not that point is true, I think the real issue is the perpetuation of the notion that by putting on a gi, one's gender was suddenly and magically concealed. It also implies that class size was so large that the teacher and students didn't really know each other and had no familiarity with each other, more like a 101 level class in a Big-Ten University with 400 students in a lecture hall. I don't buy it. It's a silly position to take.

Carol Kaur mentioned difficulty in being able to tell a boy from a girl in children, and I can see how that might be so in some cases. But among adults, as the general norm and outside of rare androgenous cases, I don't buy it.

Once again you choose to "not buy" what you don't want to hear, and talk about "your (unnamed) sources, and extrapolate to the silliest extremes when you have no first hand knowledge. You simply choose to not understand because you don't want to. Fine. Last time. As I explained previously when this issue came up, the commercial system meant lots of schools and lots of students of all ages. During that period long hair and big afros were the norm, but short hair didn't always mean a male, and long hair didn't always mean a female. Wearing a unisex uniform made it difficult to tell the differences in sex between some students, especially if you did not know them personally. Younger students have not developed certain gender traits, and some older students don't necessarily display them as well. Then looking across the room and seeing someone from the rear might not reveal their gender until they turned around so you could see, or not see the accessories, and even then there was no guarantee.

When instructors and students would go from school to school, or travel, it was felt the belt knot was a simple way to make a gender distinction. And for the record, yes I have gone to a school where I did not know the students, and did not immediately know the gender of an individual in the room. It happened with Mr. Parker and others as well. In these settings where making training assignments and pairings with physical contact and touching, in a commercial environment is common, it is important to know gender, and it still happens today. In my own school I know 100%, because I personally know the students and their rank so it makes it a "tradition." But outside of my own students, it becomes pragmatically important as a senior instructor to be able to spot the differences immediately. I guess you're just better than the rest of us if you can always "just tell."

I did notice in Mr. Parker's early book, I believe it is Secrets of Chinese Karate, or something, published in around 1963 or so, he made a reference to this. In that book he states that the CHinese traditionally wore the knot of their sash on the side, different sides for men and women. I don't know if that statement is historical fact, but apparently Mr. Parker noticed this tradition in the CHinese culture.

The tradition is correct but gender was not a part of it.

I would be willing to bet that that is the true genesis of his decision to have students move the knot to the side. Somewhere along the line he may have stated the gender issue as the reason, but I doubt if it was sincere. It's really a silly notion. I've got a couple of bridges for sale, cheap...

There you go reading the minds of people that made decisions long before you were around, and making bets on their intentions. You are entitled to speculate all you want, but I'll stick with my PERSONAL conversations with the man in 1963 and beyond, and take him and others who participated at their first-person word seeing how Mr. Parker (or Tom Kelly), had no reason to lie to me. If you had just called me a liar in the beginning, we probably could have avoided this exchange - again. But I understand it is difficult to do that when you don't have any first hand knowledge, nor can produce anyone else who does. I get it. You have unsupported positions and choose to argue for your own personal reasons. I'm surprised you didn't work Mitose into the discussion. That would fit perfectly because you didn't know him either. Done.

 

[Flying Crane]

OK I see where this is going. We've covered this before on another forum, and you choose to not accept anything other then your own uninformed point of view. Got it. But answering the questions has noting to do with my personal powers of observation. And I am not "perpetuating a story," I'm recounting what I know from being there. For you it is a story, for me it is a memory.

Once again you choose to "not buy" what you don't want to hear, and talk about "your (unnamed) sources, and extrapolate to the silliest extremes when you have no first hand knowledge. You simply choose to not understand because you don't want to. Fine. Last time. As I explained previously when this issue came up, the commercial system meant lots of schools and lots of students of all ages. During that period long hair and big afros were the norm, but short hair didn't always mean a male, and long hair didn't always mean a female. Wearing a unisex uniform made it difficult to tell the differences in sex between some students, especially if you did not know them personally. Younger students have not developed certain gender traits, and some older students don't necessarily display them as well. Then looking across the room and seeing someone from the rear might not reveal their gender until they turned around so you could see, or not see the accessories, and even then there was no guarantee.

When instructors and students would go from school to school, or travel, it was felt the belt knot was a simple way to make a gender distinction. And for the record, yes I have gone to a school where I did not know the students, and did not immediately know the gender of an individual in the room. It happened with Mr. Parker and others as well. In these settings where making training assignments and pairings with physical contact and touching, in a commercial environment is common, it is important to know gender, and it still happens today. In my own school I know 100%, because I personally know the students and their rank so it makes it a "tradition." But outside of my own students, it becomes pragmatically important as a senior instructor to be able to spot the differences immediately. I guess you're just better than the rest of us if you can always "just tell."

The tradition is correct but gender was not a part of it.

There you go reading the minds of people that made decisions long before you were around, and making bets on their intentions. You are entitled to speculate all you want, but I'll stick with my PERSONAL conversations with the man in 1963 and beyond, and take him and others who participated at their first-person word seeing how Mr. Parker (or Tom Kelly), had no reason to lie to me. If you had just called me a liar in the beginning, we probably could have avoided this exchange - again. But I understand it is difficult to do that when you don't have any first hand knowledge, nor can produce anyone else who does. I get it. You have unsupported positions and choose to argue for your own personal reasons. I'm surprised you didn't work Mitose into the discussion. That would fit perfectly because you didn't know him either. Done.

The short answer is that you are right about the fact that I wasn't there, wasn't even born yet if these things happened before 1971, so yup, I'm speculating about what went on and what was said.

If that's your memory of it, I don't dispute that. I just think there was another reason that probably makes more sense. For a man who champion's logical thinking, you have a hard time accepting when someone finds disagreement with you, or when they question the sense behind what you are saying. To me, the gender-identification reason for the knot doesn't make sense. So I questioned it and I think I was fairly respectful about how I did it. But you didn't like that I did it at all.

The jab about Mr. Mitose was a cheap shot. In the same spirit, I am surpirsed you didn't manage to work some shots at the Tracys into the discussion. Oh, I forgot: you already did that in your post, #29 of this thread:

When you start believing the Tracy's on anything, it's a slippery slope.

I've also noticed some inconsistency in your statements:

Yeah, and according to the Tracy's, Parker was a sexist because there were no women in the schools. Of course any self-defense school where guys consistently beat the crap out of each other and ooze testosterone, blood, and issue bruises as a matter of course, could be called "sexist." After all, there won't be many women enrolled. What a coincidence.

So were there really enough women in that era to need a special dress code to tell them apart?

Don't answer if you don't want to. I understand I've turned this point into a sore spot with you.

In the spirit of discussion and keyboard sparring.