algernon

It much more closely resembles the UFC than the ancient competitions.

Of course, that is assuming that it is a robbery.

I believe that the finger "breaks" in question are actually dislocations, not the literal breaking of phalanges. It's painful, but not the wost thing I've ever felt (though, I've never broken a bone). Human bites can be as nasty as dog bites, and if someone had my head, I would not think twice about chomping on them. Yes, biting him will probably cause him to hit back. So will punching, kicking, throwing, or twisting him. If you aren't going to just stand there and take a beating, why would you expect your attacker to? Sure, some people could be (and have been) scared off by "a swift kick," but plenty of others won't. Maybe the guy is a coward, and picked an "easy" target, but to assume that is to make the same mistake that he just did.

While I wouldn't expect a broken finger to incapasitate most people, I also wouldn't dismiss it in the case of a hold. It may not be painful enough to stop an attack, but between the pain and impairment of the hand, I don't doubt its ability to significantly weaken a hold. Of course, I've seen people fight through broken noses, jaws, ribs, and even limbs, so I would fully expect to need a strong follow-up. Speaking as a weak sprinter, I would never want to turn my back on someone until I was sure they were incapable of catching me!

I almost always use Mr./Sir for my karate instructor, and Dr. for my former professors. For me, it is really mostly a matter of habbit.

Did you guys miss the part where there was a burglar in his little sister's bedroom? I can't think of a court that would fault him for giving chase!

I know that age requirements for first-degree are common, but I've never seen these numbers before. Where did they come from? Also, schools do usually have an age minimum for training, which I've seen range from 4 to 18. I feel that this age requirement is more important than any for promotion. Not all instructors want to hold a "little ninja" class, and not all schools or styles are appropriate for children. The ages of the students, as well as the range of their ages, greatly affects the structure, atmosphere and effectiveness of the classes. I've seen children's classes that ranged in age from 5 to 13, and unless the class is large enough (with enough instructors) to be broken down further, it's nearly impossible for either end to receive good training. I am inclined to agree with an age requirement for shodan, primarily as a means of establishing the minimum of maturity and physical development that a school expects from its black belt ranks. Yes, individual development will vary, but having a specific age requirement helps to keep promotion decisions objective. It also depends on the age structure of the classes. A 9-year-old couldn't effectively hold pads for an adult black belt, let alone be paired with one for sparring. Whatever age requirements the school may or may not have for black belt, it should accommodate the segregation of children from adults, regardless of rank. In the end, a black belt means whatever the instructor awarding it decides it means, but the value that a school places on a black belt can say a lot about the quality of its instruction.

Even if there are medical doctors on this forum, without knowing the specifics of your injuries, they would not know what your risks actually are. If this is a real concern for you, your regular doctor would be the first person to ask. That being said, you really seem to like high-impact sports, and whether or not you give them up is ultimately your decision. Your doctor can help you understand what your risks might be, but it is ultimately up to you to decide if they are worth taking. We could tell you what we would do, but as it is really a question of values and risk-taking, don't expect any two people to give you the same advice! So in lieu of telling you what I feel on the subject I'll simply recommend checking out every school in your commute radius, and evaluating what you see based on 1.) what injuries seem most likely (a lot of sparing would more likely result in concussions, softer styles tend to put more stress on the joints) and 2.) how likely those injuries seem (how intense is the training, what is the school's attitude toward safety, etc.). After talking to your physician, decide which (if any) of the schools still seem appealing. Choose from the schools that you would be comfortable training at. All of that aside, if you are still willing to participate in soccer or ice hockey, then you should have no problem finding a martial arts school that meets your safety standards! If you do take up a martial art, you should let your instructor know about your prior injuries. From both a safety and a liability standpoint, they should know if you are particularly likely to sustain injury while training.

Toptomcat is right. "Take care of the days, and the years will take care of themselves."

I can agree that "if one person can do it, another can," but that does not mean "if one person can do it, anyone can." Now, I know nothing at all about your abilities, but people aren't all equally capable. Also, no one is saying that you can't.

How do you expect someone to start a new style without advanced training in their old one? Einstein's work on relativity did not come to him from the aether (pun intended). He based his work on the ideas of FitzGerald and Lorenz, who were writing about Michelson and Morley, who were researching ideas proposed by other physicists. Those physicists were working in a Newtonian paradigm, which would not have existed without the works of Galileo and Kepler - who never would have penned his laws without Brahe and Copernicus. Indeed, there is no difficulty in tracing a line from Hawking all the way back to Plato. These men shaped history, and they did so not by discarding "old" methods entirely, but by improving them. Choi, Lee, Parker . . . They did not pull their respective styles out of the air; they added their experiences in other disciplines to arts in which they were already quite advanced. Like science, "new" martial arts are not created in a vacuum. They are created by people who have intimate mastery of the "old" methods, and therefore know where and how to modify them to take them farther.

Personally, I would be very hesitant to wear earplugs sparring. I fear that, upon impact, having an object in your ear canal could cause more damage. A good head gear helps tremendously. I have a friend who frequents concerts, and always wears earplugs. When people give him grief for wearing them, he always points to the band and says "I wear earplugs for the same reason they do." Know who else wears headgear when they spar? Most professional fighters. Just something to consider.

I agree that advanced dan ranks are generally not important (in fact, my organization's advanced dan ranks are essentially a recognition of longevity in the art, without much real meaning behind them at all), but I do not think that they should be avoided, either. When you are a black belt, we can assume that you will be competent in your form of Taekwondo. It can (and should) be expected that you will have a thorough knowledge of the fundamentals of your style, but you will certainly not be an expert. You can become an expert while holding a low rank, and there is nothing wrong with that. I also agree with sensei8; there is nothing wrong with being satisfied with competence. If you achieve your black belt and decide that you have no desire to continue, then so be it. However, it sounds like black belts might be awarded somewhat prematurely at your school (if 3rd degree adolescents are common), and it may be necessary to continue to achieve your desired level of skill and knowledge. As for "saving face" in front of others; it shouldn't be an issue. Sure, 2nd dans will lose matches to 1st dans, and sometimes with regularity. The only way to never lose is to not fight at all! The belt system is not a ranking of who's-better-than-whom (if it was, you would have a different belt every week!), it's just a method of tracking progress through your school's curriculum. Your training does not need to suffer from other students' egotism. To quote Michelangelo, "The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark" Just train to your satisfaction, and don't concern yourself greatly with the belt that you are awarded.

Were the black belts that you sparred with aware of your prior experience? If they weren't, they may have been deliberately letting you in. It is normal for experienced students (especially black belts) to use a sparring session as a teaching tool for lower grades, which does involve creating some obvious openings for the student to spot. The next time you spar, let them know that you have experience, and that you would like a challenge. If it becomes certain that the black belts at your school are really that deficient, then you might want to consider finding a better school. It is unlikely that a lone white belt sparring hard will have a significant impact on the way that the school as a whole trains. You have said that you don't mind training in a "McDojo," but you might want to reevaluate whether the school is able to meet your needs. You have said that the school is well-equipped, but how do you value that compared to a school that is more capable of developing your skills? (Not rhetorical! )

"Better" isn't measurable. One can be better than another at or for a task, or in regards to some measurable qualification, but "better" is vague and subjective. If you aren't limiting the comparison to a specific quality (or range of qualities), or if that quality is not quantifiable, then you are being arbitrary in your assessment. One could legitimately claim that someone is a better basketball player, or better suited for a job, but that is not the same as calling that person categorically "better." In what way would you describe martial artists as "better" than everyone else? If you tell me that martial artists are better at martial arts, I'll believe you. If you tell me that martial artists are "better," then you really aren't making any meaningful claim. Do you mean morally better? I wouldn't buy that for a second (after all, you'd first have to give me the comprehensive moral theory by which you measured them, and then you'd have to show me the data). Your hobbies are no grounds for declaring yourself to be in a superior class. Many people, including a lot of very powerful minds, have thought hard about what makes one person "better" than another, but the only conclusions that anyone has come to have been crafted to elevate the thinker, or a group to which the thinker belongs. The search for the "best" kind of person always begins and ends in the mirror.

I think similarly, but I prefer that the form is molded around the rest of style's training, rather than restricting the training to the form. I agree completely. That very notion should be extended to every method of practice and drilling that we employ. The reason that we break down our training into parts (kata, bag work, free sparring, step sparring, etc.) is the fact that just beating each other senseless until someone gets pretty good at it is a lousy option. So, we have to use different tools to develop different areas, and balance them in a way that produces a good fighter.

No, it just means that we are being irrelevant. From your posts on this and another thread, I can't help but get an impression of elitism. Learning a martial art does not elevate you above others, nor does it lower them beneath you. It is great that you appreciate your training, but it is also important to appreciate other people’s skills and abilities. One of my friends is a very talented artist. Her artistic ability came to be in the same way as my martial arts skills – through a little natural talent and a lot of study and practice. I have no more reason to look down on her for not punching well than she has to look down on me for not painting well. In fact, I’ve taught her some basic maneuvers, and she has tried to teach me to draw. We each have something to offer the other, and “nobility” doesn’t come from “disregard[ing] what lower castes think about the nobility they encounter,” but from having the humility to recognize that. People outside of the martial arts are not of a “lower caste.” They could walk into a dojo and sign up for classes just as easily as you did, they just chose not to (so far). There is nothing wrong with that. Not everyone wants to practice a martial art. Not everyone wants to pursue a doctorate, or learn to sculpt, or run marathons, or engage in countless other activities that are just as fulfilling as Taekwondo, or kenpo, or boxing. If a martial artist assumes an elitist attitude (and I know plenty who have), it only impedes his own growth – both as a person and as a martial artist – and does a disservice to his school by tarnishing its image.

I agree with the previous posters; there needs to be some give on both ends. You can't expect to exactly tailor a martial art to your preferences and expect it to be just as effective. If it is a sound system, you need to conform to the structure that makes it so. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with adjusting your style to better suit your needs and capabilities. In fact, it is just that sort of tweaking that will make it work for you at all. In short, I think that most of the bending should be on the artist's end, but not all of it.

I have no problem talking about it; I've never felt the need to evade the topic. In my area, MMA has been in vogue lately, so it does come up rather frequently.

As long as the equivocation is complete, it is valid. To express that symbolically, Ξ is used (Ex. A Ξ B) to say "where A occurs, B always occurs, and where B occurs, A always occurs." If B and C have the same relationship (B Ξ C), then where you have an instance of C, you will also have an instance of B, and therefore also an instance of A. Your original example is not identical, but it is a very basic categorical syllogism, and if you draw a Venn diagram, the validity of the form will become quickly apparent.

Well, "all" was implied, and in fact is what makes the argument valid. The form of the argument is valid (meaning, if ALL of the premises are true, then the conclusion MUST be true). If all black belts were noble, then John would most definitely would be noble (if he wasn't, it would be false that all black belts are noble). Not all black belts are noble, so the argument does not work. In other words, the argument only fails because it assumes a false premise. The conclusion might be wrong (or not), but only because of an error of facts, not an error of logic (a fallacy is a failure of logic, regardless of the facts involved).

Ahh, now here is a logical fallacy! This is usually known as a "false dichotomy," or "false dilemma." It is the result of imposing a choice between two extremes where a middle ground actually exists.

Right at you, Toptomcat!

You mistake our positions, Martialart. We do not think lowly of black belts (many of us, if not most, hold black belts); we simply know that they are just ordinary, fallible people. I also can't imagine feeling that my "honor was at stake" if someone asked me to wear a different belt; when I train in other arts, I wear the appropriate belt. I think that a bachelor’s degree is an apt comparison. Yes, I am proud of my accomplishments, but that is all they are - accomplishments. Black belt is a goal that I worked hard for and, with a little natural aptitude, achieved. People very seldom "scoff" at my training, and when they do, it is usually out of general disregard for martial arts as a whole, not jealousy. No, the most common response is polite indifference. Perhaps we should all try to conduct ourselves in that manner, regardless of dan rank? If you are expecting (or hoping) to be put into a noble class, your expectation will not be met. Outside of a training setting, having a black belt will be regarded (at best) as a notable accomplishment. Within your school (as it is with most), black belts probably hold a higher status, and the novice students probably look up to them. This is not because they are of a "noble" class, but because they are more knowledgeable, and they have already achieved something that the other students are working toward. They are role models; they are examples of what the other students should be doing in order to reach the level of skill that the black belts have. The dynamic is not so much like nobility to lesser castes; it is more like graduate students to undergrads. You have something to learn from them, and a quiet respect of their effort and abilities is appropriate, but they should not be regarded as an elite stratum. I agree with ninjanurse; defending an arguable point is wonderful, but making ungrounded assumptions of others' characters and motivations is not an arguable point. You spend much of your time here trying to tell seasoned martial artists about what you think they are, and you have mostly missed the mark. That time might be better spent on your own training, so that you can learn the truth about the martial arts and their practitioners first-hand. Actually, though unsound, there is no logical fallacy committed here at all. The argument is entirely valid; it fails only because of the falsity of one of the premises - specifically, "black belts are noble." I think what Martialart is trying to do is assert that black belts are in fact noble (which would both make the argument perfectly sound and prove that John is a noble person).

Well, to be fair, this thread is entirely argumentative (and I can certainly appreciate the virtue of that!), and lack of definition is exactly what is making arguing so difficult. I don't think any two people have been speaking the same language so far! That being said, choosing a definition should have been the place to start. "Noble" can refer to a loftiness of position, or having the impressions of that loftiness, or it can mean that one has a strong moral character. Before we can discuss what is or is not noble, we have to stipulate what "noble" is. Most of the posts on this thread seem to have taken you to mean that martial artists are of a high moral caliber (and you have even supported that), but most of your posts refer to martial artists as belonging to a class or "caste," or that they have the appearance of so belonging. If you mean to say that martial artists are of a higher character than most, I would have to disagree with the rest of the crowd. If you mean that we actually belong to a more privileged or respected class, I would have to disagree even more strongly. If you mean that we are perceived as belonging in a higher position, then . . . perhaps. Finally, if you mean that black belts form a particular caste within the community of martial artists, I would be inclined to agree. Which point, exactly, are you trying to argue?