Quickest Blackbelt

OLDMAN1

pablohoney87 wrote: »

That was the main reason they quoted but i think most people believe it was to make judo more "watchable" to a non judoka. Since they banned techniques where you cant attack below the waist with your upperbody it should stop "negative" judo i.e. two guys hunched over trying to break each others balance and not fighting for grips.
With the ruling i think they hope it will make the pace of a match faster and see more wins by ippon and big throws. Absolutely nothing to do with keeping BJJ guys away from the sport.

i think the new rules are a mistake, i beleive with the new rules you are aloud to attack the legs with the arms as long as it the second attack, not the first, i was talking to a couple of people that are high up in the judo assocation and they said that it was to stop all none judo wrestlers, it had nothing to do with bjj

Doug Cartel

Another reason for banning leg grabs that I heard, was to stop people using stupid, never-gonna-work dives to the legs simply to give the impression of attacking.

In judo you get penalised for not attacking, but with the way the other rules are set up, you can quite safely go for doubles and singles without worrying about a counter attack. So if you want to stall out after getting a points advantage, constant diving at the legs used to be an OK tactic.

Personally I think they could have solved it better, either by telling the refs to be more strict about what constitutes an attack (no kuzushi, no attack) or by giving more time on the ground so getting sprawled and flipped/choked becomes a bigger threat.

cletus

OLDMAN1 wrote: »

i could be taking this the wrong way when you ask me to define a traditional martial arts: are you trying to get me to say a static system that stays the same as it was 300 or 400 years ago and does not elvove, if you are i cant say that as all systems have to elvove and not be STUCK in the past , just for the sake of it...

Quick question, are there actually any martial arts that have verifiable 300 or 400 year histories

pablohoney87

cletus wrote: »

Quick question, are there actually any martial arts that have verifiable 300 or 400 year histories

If your talking about the art/style then yes. Silat and kung fu date back that far im fairly sure. If your talking about the system of a martial art itself I dont think so.

Niall Keane

Quick question, are there actually any martial arts that have verifiable 300 or 400 year histories

I'm not doing the work on this to prove it on boards, there are books available on the subject.

But off hand..

Chen Paoi Chui (Cannon Punch) (their tai chi is more controversial) can be documented back to the 1600’s; Chang Nai Zhou's "Cotton Boxing" from mid 18 century is mentioned in local gazettes and still practiced in his family’s village. 37 Styles is recorded again by the Chinese bureaucracy of the day back to 1750’s. Wang Lan Ting 1750’s crops up in documents.

The earliest reference to Nei Jia (Wudang) martial arts is on the Epitaph for Wang Zhengnan (1669), this too mentions Chang San Feng 13th century. So too General Qi Jiguang's Quan Jing (Classic of Boxing) 1560’s was a set of boxing movements by absorbing 32 postures from 16 famous folk boxing styles. Some of these still exist “Yang Family Spear” etc.

Basically there is extensive study of the origins of Chinese Kung Fu styles, and many collaborating documents and headstones etc. not to mention the rich oral traditions that concur with each other from sources separated for centuries. It goes way back, for me though whats interesting are the documents written by the likes of Chang Nai Zhou and Wang Tseuh Yeuh that speak of fighting strategies and methods of developing skills. All of these guys travelled around testing themselves. Lei Tai was the method of the day, a format where all could “cross hands”. Chang mentions his influences, and his “many teachers”, General Qi perhaps writes the first recorded piece on MMA. You’ll find nothing new under the sun, but it can lead to only one conclusion that what worked in the past did so for the same reason stuff that works today does, as SBG wrote proper training methods. They are the essence of a style, without them there is no life in it. And as I mentioned constant testing of the substance is also required. This is the only way to prevent delusion and ensure a “Zhen Chuan” – true transmission. Anything that allows those not capable of absorbing and understanding an art to become directors of such diminishes the said art, so Thai or Western Boxing for example doesn’t suffer this, students look to study with those with impressive fighting and coaching achievements, not certificates or belts.

Damo W

cletus wrote: »

Quick question, are there actually any martial arts that have verifiable 300 or 400 year histories

Indian Martial Arts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_martial_arts

Would Kuydo meet the requirements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABd%C5%8D, while it is a modern martial art it has a significant history e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamoto_no_Tametomo

I believe there are others.

Niall Keane

Cletus,

It dawns on me that you may be referring to an actual style within a style so as to speak, i.e. a lineage?

If so I can speak only for my own.

I was taught by Dan Docherty, you can find me mentioned by Dan in publications, and I’ll be found on most pages of his book “Decoding the classics for the modern martial artist”

Dan in turn was Chang Tin Hung’s best student, this is mentioned and Dan turns up on the pages of Cheng’s books too.

Cheng Tin Hung in turn states that his main teacher was Qi Min Quan, of whom we have no record, save that he also learned from Wu Jian Quan, though he told CTH his main teacher was Ching Yi who was taught by Wang Lan Ting best student of Yang Lu Chan. Qi’s family were killed in the Japanese invasion of China, it was a chaotic time. However Eddie Wu current Gate Keeper of the famous Wu style acknowledged in 1990 in an Interview with Kung Fu magazine that Cheng Tin Hung was at one time gate keeper of Wu style, Cheng had studied Wu style under his uncle. So now we can abandon the lineage through Wang Lan ting – Ching Yi and Qi Min Quan, and relax into the Wu style which is very well documented back through Wu Jain Quan to Quan Yu student of Yang Lu Chan. Yang it is documented learned from Chen Chang-xing (1771-1853) around 1820-30.

Now we are in controversial territory, the Chens say that their ancestor Chen Wang-Ting (1600-1680) invented Tai Chi Chuan, others say that what Wang-Ting taught was paoi chui (cannon punch) and that Chen Chang-xing learned tai chi chuan from Chang-Fa who learned from Wang Zongyue 1750s, stretching back through various Daoists to Chang San Feng 13th Century.
So I can safely trace back a documented lineage to 1750, then depending on which line we follow the documented trail stops around 1750 with Wang Zongyue or 1650 with Chen Wang-Ting.

Hence you can imagine my frustration on here when people make statements about traditional martial arts, when they’ve probably never come across the real deal. How many of the aforementioned useless traditional dans for example can through accepted and verified documents trace their own art (themselves and each person personally, not the main sensei / sifu they or their teacher met once) back to 1750? Yet this is what people judge traditional martial arts to be? It is a double edged sword as many high level Dans and Sifus have openly stated what Dan Docherty and I do isn’t Tai Chi because it looks like “just” “punching, kicking and throwing”!

See all it takes is time to drown out the real kung fu (time and effort) with a million brand affiliated mcdojos. Maybe I should bring an action against all those waving their arms claiming to practice Tai Chi? But you belt culture guys should watch out, after 250 + years of Tai Chi Chuan, I see what the weak given some authority can do to an art.

Damo W

Further to the comments on the earlier part of the thread...

The dan/kyu System
First established by Kano Jiroro [1860-1938], the dan/kyu system was actually based upon the handicap structure established by Honinbo Dosaku (1645-1702) as a professional ranking structure for the game of Go. Dosaku's dan ranking structure lasted until 1883 when the Hoensha (the leading organisation of Go at the time) replaced it with a kyu-ranking system. The kyu ranking structure was abandoned eleven years later due to complaints from professional players and the old system was reinstated. The accepted theory is that Judo pioneer, Kano Jigoro, established the dan/kyu ranking system based upon this history.

The First Dan Accreditations
Kano awarded the first Shodan ranks in 1883 to his two most senior students; Saito and Tomita. By 1886 the innovator required his yudansha to wear a black obi to hold their practice kimono closed. Kendo supported Kano's dan/kyu system by awarding their first shodan ranks in 1883. Later, in 1907, Kano formally introduced the official practice uniform and modern-style belt. The idea of different coloured belts, representing various kyu grades, was not developed until the mid-1930's by Kano's student, Kaiwashi Mikonosuke, who was sent to France to teach judo. By 1908 Kendo's curriculum had completely standardized as had their ranking structure. Based upon Kano's dan/kyu system it was successfully introduced into Tokyo's school system. By 1917, and with the support of the Monbusho [Ministry of Education] and the *Dai Nippon Butokukai [DNBK], Kano's dan/kyu system [employing 10 dans and 6 kyus] became the national standard used throughout Japanese Budo.

[I remember reading somewhere that early swimming competitions did not split competitors into their respective categories but used to tie a ribbon around their waist to denote category, this possibly sparked the idea of coloured belts.]

Niall Keane

Thanks Damo,

that's very interesting, so it would suggest that like golf you have a handicap allowance, so in competition a BB would need to score say six times against a beginner to draw even? 6 kyu?

That sounds like a good way of organising competitions to encourage a BB not to get lazy, simply "holding down the pillow" and likewise a progressing beginner not to feel useless, if they compete together?

SBG Ireland

OLDMAN1 wrote: »

all modern martial arts have roots in traditional arts , the ones that jump to mind as modern would be krav maga and some of the urban combat styles. i have no problem with them but then again when i see wooden m16 rifles being brought into a krav maga class i do wondor.

ah the 'tear the eyes out' RBSD styles

OLDMAN1 wrote: »

i could be taking this the wrong way when you ask me to define a traditional martial arts: are you trying to get me to say a static system that stays the same as it was 300 or 400 years ago and does not elvove, if you are i cant say that as all systems have to elvove and not be STUCK in the past , just for the sake of it...

why would i be trying to get you to say anything? just looking for your definition of TMA. by the definition you gave all i train is traditional martial arts

Cork24

with the lower body, rule i hooked the leg up a few times and then take it with the hand and swipe the other leg. i normaly grip cross wise, my Right Hand on his left side of the neck. this puts alot of people off from Throwing Right side, And Alot of people cant throw left :eek: so they have to swipe the legs which allows me to pick their leg from their attack.

if you, have your left hand to their neck and right to their arm kind of grip it puts alot off. it happend to me once and i went away and trained on left throws.

Opinicus

OLDMAN1 wrote: »

i think the new rules are a mistake, i beleive with the new rules you are aloud to attack the legs with the arms as long as it the second attack, not the first, i was talking to a couple of people that are high up in the judo assocation and they said that it was to stop all none judo wrestlers, it had nothing to do with bjj

I thought you had to have body contact in order to grab a leg?

Cork24

can you tell me what you mean by second Attack?

i was told only you can take the leg one the other Person goes for an attack and has the leg off the ground only then can you take the leg with your hand.

Plus i think the new rules are good. how many people lost a fight within the first few seconds by some one diving right into the legs and wiping your two legs off the ground? where is the skill in that.

Doug Cartel

Cork24 wrote: »

how many people lost a fight within the first few seconds by some one diving right into the legs and wiping your two legs off the ground? where is the skill in that.

Now you're just being a snob. A well executed, ippon scoring, morote gari takes just as much skill as any other throw.

lukeyjudo

Cork24 wrote: »

how many people lost a fight within the first few seconds by some one diving right into the legs and wiping your two legs off the ground? where is the skill in that.

Where's the skill in not sprawling?

Niall Keane

A fighter should have a reflex sprawl absolutely no excuse, or some counter trained to be there, but in fairness I would agree with Cork24 regarding the skill required to perform the typical double seize or single seize throw.

If it’s a case of rugby tackling, falling on your knees to pull the opponent down you could learn this in 5 minutes. To seize the legs lift and twist an opponent to the side slamming him while remaining standing that is a different matter. It will require timing, angle and an understanding of range and leverage, not to mention balance. I know as I train guys to do this, in sanshou you get one point for a takedown where you land on top, and two points for a throw where you remain standing. It’s simply easier to not have to worry about maintaining your own balance during a throw, or to use your falling weight to drag him down.

I would deem the afore mentioned rugby tackle as a lazy throw, and expect it from beginners, not someone who has a level of control. But then again its different approaches and traditions I guess, sanshou is based on Chinese Boxing which always contained weapon training. You don’t want to parcel and portion everything, and learn 100 different methods, segregating tactics out for different situations, i.e. you want to be able to apply the same throw / technique / strategy you learned with fists with swords sabres spears etc., as such it makes sense to remain standing, as correct me if I'm wrong but the only weapon better used from the ground is a rifle? I know we don’t carry around swords etc anymore, but the law has changed, I don't have to retreat anymore at home, and I wanna be looking gooooood smashing that armed burglar to the ground before taking his head for a trophy. Kinda embarrassing and crap if I fell on my own sword!:D

cletus

Anybody with a good sprawl should be able to avoid being taken down by the "rugby tackle" anyway

Doug Cartel

Yeah, a rugby tackle won't score points in judo. It has to be a proper pick up and controlled drive into the ground. The throw itself is pretty easy and as Niall pointed out, the real skill comes in setting it up.

lukeyjudo

Niall Keane wrote: »

I would deem the afore mentioned rugby tackle as a lazy throw, and expect it from beginners, not someone who has a level of control.

Theres nothing lazy about taking a 100% uncompliant resisting opponent in a competition and tackling him to the ground. If it works it works.

And Niall, I have to admire your ability to take a conversation about a double leg takedown and then move on to talking about swords.

SBG Ireland

anybody who thinks a double/single leg is 'easy' or 'lazy' or whatever should go the olympics, win a freestyle wrestling medal and make a ton of money!!!

lukeyjudo

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Yeah, a rugby tackle won't score points in judo. It has to be a proper pick up and controlled drive into the ground. The throw itself is pretty easy and as Niall pointed out, the real skill comes in setting it up.

Thats ridiculous. Firstly it won't score you points now under the rule system as you'll get disqualified.

Secondly under the old rules, if I was to face you in a judo match, take your legs out from underneath you with a rugby tackle or whatever you wanna call it and dump you flat on your back I would score an Ippon and the match would be over.

I've lost count of the amount of fights I've won with that techique.

cletus

I think people are tryig to differentiate between a skilled single or double leg takedown, and just bull-rushing a guy

flynny51

Way way off topic lads. This forum wrecks my head the way everything descends into a judo rules discussion.

lukeyjudo

flynny51 wrote: »

Way way off topic lads. This forum wrecks my head the way everything descends into a judo rules discussion.

I agree! Believe me it wrecks my nut too but I rarely post on this.

On topic if a judoka came to me as a green belt, was dedicated and trained three times a week and two days conditioning I would have him/her a black belt belt within two years.

And make that a year and a half if they were heavyweight.

cletus

flynny51 wrote: »

Way way off topic lads. This forum wrecks my head the way everything descends into a judo rules discussion.

In fairness, the origina lquestion was answered by about post 9 in the thread, by post 12 you were discussing the dilution of the belt system.

I reckon this is one of the better threads to appear in SD & MA in a long time


BTW, I dont think the OP minds too much, he hasnt posted since post 13

flynny51

Fair enough, might be an idea to split the the thread after the relevant posts then. At least people will be able to find the judo discussion if they're searching for it.

Doug Cartel

Judo is about picking people up and planting them on their backs, possibly choking them out if they didn't go down clean.

I find the idea that people will poo-poo techniques that work, just because they deem them simplistic to be pretty offensive. If you lose to somebody who just bull rushes you, you need to work on your defence. Your lack of skill is the problem, not the guy who rugby tackled you.

(PS yeah, we're off topic, but frankly the original "what's the quickest black belt", is a minefield of a discussion, and would probably quickly descend into a slagging match if we stayed on topic.)

Niall Keane

Absolutely agree cletus, just commenting on the throwing part.

Doug, maybe not in pure grappling, but once strikes are involved, moving around and including faints etc. make this a real easy throw to set up, just my experience.

lukeyjudo, just I see no difference, its how I was trained. As this thread touched on traditional practices and reasoning behind such (belts) I thought the reasoning behind kung fu / sanshou standing throws might be relevent?

Niall Keane

anybody who thinks a double/single leg is 'easy' or 'lazy' or whatever should go the olympics, win a freestyle wrestling medal and make a ton of money!!!

Not my sport SBG, no interest, however in my sport I have extensive exeperience of what I'm saying as you know, and I was speaking comparatively, or do you think maintaining good balance and understanding leverage during a throw isn't so important? No need to answer, just demonstrating that I too can infer and twist opinions out of context.

I think people are tryig to differentiate between a skilled single or double leg takedown, and just bull-rushing a guy

Thanks cletus, so I'm not speaking martian then.

Sid_Justice

Niall Keane wrote: »

Absolutely agree cletus, just commenting on the throwing part.

Doug, maybe not in pure grappling, but once strikes are involved, moving around and including faints etc. make this a real easy throw to set up, just my experience.

lukeyjudo, just I see no difference, its how I was trained. As this thread touched on traditional practices and reasoning behind such (belts) I thought the reasoning behind kung fu / sanshou standing throws might be relevent?

on the topic of differences can you explain some aspects of Shuai Jiao that make it distinct from Judo and other wrestling martial arts? Or how exactly your double seize differs from a double leg take down popular in freestyle(or american) wrestling?