Archive-name: martial-arts/faq/part4
Last-modified: 15 September 1997 See reader questions & answers on this topic! - Help others by sharing your knowledge Posting-Frequency: twice per month rec.martial-arts FAQ - Part 4 of 4 ================================== Note: The sole author/maintainer of the Groaner FAQ is Lauren Radner. Please address any replies to Lauren (Lauren_Radner@tivoli.com). The Groaner FAQ for Martial Arts Newsgroups (ver 1.0) by Lauren Radner (with lots of help) One of the primary reasons for creating the rec.martial-arts.moderated newsgroup was to avoid "Groaner" topics... you know, the kind of thread-from-hell that pops up over and over, with just enough variation that you probably can't killfile it successfully. In short, every time you see one of these come up again, you *groan*. In these threads, nobody's mind is going to be changed, tempers will probably flare, and the topics may even be based on assumptions that are unprovable, insulting, or just plain wrong. Maybe you got directed here by someone who's been around longer, and told you something like, "Go read the Groaner FAQ, number 19". Most of these are *not* "Frequently Asked Questions". Many of them are more like "Frequently Made Assertions" (TKD sucks. Kata sucks. 90% of all fights go to the ground. Gracies are invincible. etc.). Few of those are ever raised as actual, *legitimate* *questions*. Even if they are, they almost immediately devolve into rude and foaming assertions, or, at least, wearisome assertions, anyway. Many of these are off charter in rec.martial-arts.moderated for exactly these reasons. A "Groaner" is any of the following: 1) A question guaranteed to start a flame war or a style war, no matter how innocently asked. For example, "Is <style A> any good in a street fight?" Anybody who practices <style A> will say yes. Anybody who doesn't will say no (that's why they practice <style B> instead). 2) A question so vague that it generates no useful answers, or a flame war, or a style war. For example, "Which martial art is best?" averages about three posts before devolving into a flurry of "Mine!" "No! Yours sucks! Mine's the best!". Everybody else is wondering "Best for *what*?" and doesn't bother to answer your question. 3) An old chestnut that people are tired of refuting or correcting. This is the martial arts equivalent of an urban myth. These topics elicit the same response that you have when you see "Craig Shergold Needs Your Cards" in your e-mail inbox. For example, "Belts have all those colours because you start out with a white belt, and the more you work out, the dirtier it gets, until it eventually turns black, when you're really, really good." 4) A statement about which there are strong contradicting opinions, and nobody is EVER going to change anybody's mind. These are the religious wars of martial arts newsgroups. For example, "Chi(Qi,ki) does/doesn't exist", or "Kata is/isn't useless". 5) A statement guaranteed to annoy, and impossible to prove. For example, "Bruce Lee would have kicked Stephen Seagal's a**!", or "<style/person> must be the best in the world because <it/he/she> has never been defeated!" (I would like to point out here that I am undefeated in all of Asia. Of course, I have never fought in *any* of Asia. Which pretty much guarantees I'm undefeated there.) The purpose of the Groaner FAQ is to beg you, PLEASE, have the courtesy not to start these up again. There's nothing new that can be said, and the bandwidth and flaring tempers are intolerable. If you've read the below and *Really* think you truly have something *New* to add, well then, sigh, I can't stop you. But don't say I didn't warn you. Right now, this is a "work in progress". A team of us have identified what we consider to be "Groaners", and we're churning out answers as best and as fast as we can, meaning, when we can stand to think about them ourselves. At this point, only the "FINISHED" answers are appended. You'll see the rest handled in due time, I hope. A screen-wide line of "=====" separates each answer. =========================================================================== F = "FINISHED"- Groaners whose answers are complete (or nearly so). P = "PARTIAL" - Groaners that have some foundation for an answer, but aren't finished. N = "NOTHING" - Groaners that haven't been touched (We don't like thinking about these either, ya know). F - 1) My martial art is better than yours. (see "What is a martial art") P - 2) X is/isn't effective "on the street". N - 3) <Movie Star> is/isn't a superior martial artist. N - 4) <Movie Star A> could/couldn't whip <Movie Star B's> ass. F - 5) Wing Chun Roolz. (see "What is a martial art") N - 6) Bruce Lee was the best martial artist ever, philosophically and physically ahead of his time. N - 7) TKD was practiced by one-celled amoebae who passed it down to Jhoon Rhee, and is therefore the oldest martial art. P - 8) Guns/knives do/don't make you invincible. F - 9) A three-day course does/doesn't make you invincible. N - 10) Gracie Brothers are/aren't invincible. N - 11) Kata are/aren't useless. N - 12) How do you fight an attack dog? N - 13) TKD is/isn't a dessert topping. F - 14) Style X is trash/wonderful because it does/doesn't include a philosophic aspect. (see "What is a martial art") P - 15) The belt system colours are like that because as a white belt gets dirtier... P - 16) Which constitutes a worse attack, gun versus knife? P - 17) Will I get sued/jailed if I use my martial arts? P - 18) Do sprays work, do tasers work, do whistles work? F - 19) What's the best martial art for self-defense? F - 20) 90% of all fights end up on the ground. F - 21) Is a gun the best martial arts defense? F - 22) What are the chances of an unarmed martial artist versus a gun-wielder? P - 23) So I'm sparring and the other guy starts to bleed, can I catch AIDS? =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Below answers these Groaners: 1) My martial art is better than yours. (see "What is a martial art") 5) Wing Chun Roolz. (see "What is a martial art") 14) Style X is trash/wonderful because it does/doesn't include a philosophic aspect. (see "What is a martial art") =========================================================================== WHAT IS A MARTIAL ART? The term "martial art" is used in (at least) two different ways. This can be confusing. Some dictionary definitions only make things worse. The dictionary definition handy at the moment defines a martial art as "Any of several Oriental arts of combat or self-defense, as karate, judo, or tae kwon do, usually practiced as a sport." That definition is guaranteed to offend just about everyone who reads this group. Typically this group uses "Martial Art" in one of two ways: 1) The first definition is a generic one, which defines a "Martial Art" as the study of any kind of combat and/or self-defense techniques. This definition includes non-oriental arts like boxing. This definition includes both those arts practiced primarily as a sport, and those arts practiced primarily for self-defense. This definition includes those arts that emphasize only physical technique. This definition also includes those arts that emphasize a philosophical or mental aspect in addition to physical techniques. In its broadest usage, this definition includes learning how to drive a tank or drop bombs out of a plane as a Martial Art. This explains the somewhat facetious references you will see to "Gun Fu", the martial art of learning how to use firearms (implying, as the dictionary definition does, that a martial art must be oriental to be legitimate). 2) The second definition is much narrower, and draws a distinction between a "Martial *ART*" and a "Martial *WAY*". To offer a gross simplification: A martial *art* is the study of an art that emphasizes only physical techniques. Perfection of technique is the primary concern. A martial *way* emphasizes the study of both physical techniques and a philosophical or mental aspect as well. Perfection of the self is the primary concern. The emphasis on this distinction is very clear for those arts that have Japanese names. Typically, Japanese martial *art* style names end in "jutsu", such as "jiu-jutsu", "aiki-jiujutsu", or "ken-jutsu". Typically Japanese martial *way* style names end in "do", such as "ju-do", "aiki-do", or "ken-do". A lot of bandwidth has been wasted by those arguing about whether something is or isn't a martial art, without first establishing which definition - including the dictionary definition - is being used. According to the dictionary definition, boxing is *not* a martial art. According to definitions one and two, above, boxing *is* a martial art. According to the dictionary definition and definition one, above, karate *is* a martial art. According to definition two, above, karate (frequently written as karate-do) is *not* a martial art (it is a martial *way*). In the end, it is really the attitude of the individual doing the practicing that determines whether, for *them*, what they are learning is a "martial art" or a "martial way". The person standing next to you in your school may or may not be practicing with the same attitude as you are - one of you may be treating what you learn as a "martial way", and the other may be approaching the same material as a "martial art". A Note About Posting Etiquette In rec.martial-arts.moderated and rec.martial-arts -------------------------------------------------- A word of caution. Posting that your martial *art* is superior to another martial *art* will always get you into trouble, since it is a breach of not only netiquette, but the charter of this group. You will get into trouble for the following reasons: 1) If you are proclaiming superiority because your "Art" has a philosophical aspect that some other art lacks, you will seriously annoy those who use the definition of "martial ART" as meaning "the study of technique with no inherent emphasis on philosophy". You will be forever embroiled in a semantic clash based on the differences between definition one, and definition two, above. 2) Proclaiming superiority of one art over another involves some extremely annoying assumptions, such as that: a) You are fully aware of all the philosophic principles (if any) and physical techniques and applications of the art you are condemning. b) You are fully aware of all the philosophic principles (if any) and curriculum intended by the founder(s)/leader(s) (if any) of the art you are condemning. c) You are intimately familiar with the motivations, philosophies, skill level, abilities, method of practice, and experiences of each and every practitioner of the art you are condemning, especially those practitioners who may read your post (trust us, you aren't). d) You have enough familiarity with the philosophical foundations (if any) and physical techniques of whatever you practice, and you exemplify these sufficiently, that you can legitimately represent yourself as an authority of your style. e) Your definition of "better" is somehow universally accepted as the One True Basis For Evaluation. (Better for what? Defending oneself? Becoming limber? Winning trophies? Subduing without injuring an aggressor? Killing an aggressor? Meeting people? Learning Japanese? Being lethal to music? Building self-esteem? Firing a gun with the most accuracy?) Posting that one art is superior to another is bad manners. A posting which also violates any of the above is a combination of arrogance and stupidity for which you will probably never be forgiven. An unfortunate side-effect is that you will probably ruin your credibility as far as any future postings on *any* martial arts topic to this group. Except for whoever agreed with you to begin with, of course. ======================================================================== The below answers this Groaner: 15) The belt system colours are like that because as a white belt gets dirtier... ======================================================================== What do all those different colored belts mean? Where do they come from? The belt system, as a formalized method of indicating rank, was popularized by Professor Jigaro Kano, founder of Kodokan Judo, around the beginning of this century. There are varying opinions as to whether the practice predated Kano's use of it, and where it may have come from, but it certainly wasn't common (the more traditional practice in Japanese martial arts was, and is, the granting of scrolls indicating various levels of abilities). The practice was adopted by Karate, formerly a fairly obscure Okinawan folk art, as that art was brought into the mainstream of Japanese martial arts. Many arts have since adopted it -- for example, some Western schools teaching Chinese martial arts use it, though this practice is somewhere between uncommon and unheard of in China itself. Some of these schemes are elaborately hierarchial; some schools use no belt ranking system at all. White belts almost always indicate beginners, black belts indicate those who have reached some level of ability. There are various colors used for rankings both below black belt, and for high ranking black belts, and various explanations as to what they mean. The color scheme -- and the implications for school etiquette -- vary from system to system and perhaps from school to school. An often heard story holds that the colours are explained as follows: a trainee's belts, which, traditionally, were never washed, became progressively dirtier with time (starting out white, becoming yellow with sweat, green with grass stains, and so on), finally changing to black over the years. This explanation, alas, is almost certainly fanciful. The best source of information on the meanings of belt colors and the proper behavior with respect to rank is, as always, one's teacher. ------------------------------------------------------------------- That's the Tactful answer to the "Belt Colours Groaner".... here's the not-so-tactful (and therefore, much more fun) answer, with thanks to the ever-thorough and factual Steve Gombosi: ------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sog@rainbow.rmii.com (Stephen O Gombosi) Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts Subject: Re: Belt colors -- why black? Date: 20 Feb 1996 14:48:45 -0700 In article <1996Feb19.173413.29755@walter.cray.com>, <radner@bushido.cray.com> wrote: >What does it take to put a stake through the heart of this one? A bigger hammer, obviously... >Gombo? It's time for your biweekly post on this one. I do hope you just >have one version of it in a file somewhere, that you can just cut and >paste routinely for a response. If you don't, post just one more time and >I'll save it for you and do you the favour in the future. How's that? So, you want me to chime in on the Thread That Will Not "Dye", eh? Your wish is my command, O Redheaded One...but I'm afraid most of my saved posts evaporated when my former employer (Cray Computer) went down the tubes. Bill Rankin was kind enough to send the following from a couple of years ago - I'm flattered to know he thinks my drivel is worth saving. The original was in response to the following from Danial Travers: >Danial E. Travers writes > > >> In tradtional days before Jigoro invented Judo, the martial artist of >> okinawa only used white belts. When the belt turned black, you were a >> black belt. To which I responded: >Ahem. I didn't know you were on a first-name basis with Kano. Anyway, >"in the traditional days before Kano invented Judo", there *was* no >kyu/dan ranking system. Kano invented it when he awarded "shodan" to >two of his senior students (Saito and Tomita) in 1883. Even then, there >was no external differentiation between yudansha (dan ranks) and mudansha >(those who hadn't yet attained dan ranking). Kano apparently began the >custom >of having his yudansha wear black obis in 1886. These obis weren't the >belts karateka and judoka wear today - Kano hadn't invented the judogi >yet, and his students were still practicing in kimono. They were the wide >obi still worn with formal kimono. In 1907, Kano introduced the modern >gi and its modern obi, but he still only used white and black. > >Karateka in Okinawa didn't use any sort of special uniform at all in the >old days. The kyu/dan ranking system, and the modern karategi (modified >judogi) were first adopted by Funakoshi in an effort to encourage >karate's acceptance by the Japanese. He awarded the first "shodan" ranks >given in karate to Tokuda, Otsuka, Akiba, Shimizu, Hirose, Gima, and >Kasuya on April 10, 1924. The adoption of the kyu/dan system and the >adoption of a standard uniform based on the judogi were 2 of the 4 >conditions which the Dai-Nippon Butokukai required before recognizing >karate as a "real" martial art. If you look at photographs of Okinawan >karateka training in the early part of this century, you'll see that they >were training in their everyday clothes, or (!) in their underwear. The Korean dobok is, of course, a (slightly) modified karategi. I'll be happy to let Dakin expound on the events that led to its adoption in Korea, since he's the author of the definitive scholarly history of TKD and related arts (when is it gonna be *published*, Dakin???). As far as Mike's Shuai Chiao statement is concerned, I have read other authors who claim that the Chinese adopted the convention during the Japanese occupation. I have a lot of respect for Mike's opinions, but I've never seen any real evidence one way or the other. There certainly isn't any evidence that Kano got either the belt convention or the uniform itself from the Mainland - especially since the uniform can be traced to traditional Japanese undergarments. Steve ------------------------------------------- .... and... to further clarify: User Contributions: |
Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic: