Sinbad

Who wants a dirt, sweat and blood encrusted belt anyway? Seems like it's the same people who say 'belts don't matter, it's the martial artist inside that counts'. So why do you want (grossly unhygenic) evidence of your hard work and skill plastered on your belt? Let your actions speak for themselves, but I guess a smelly belt certainly speaks volumes to be honest, if you are zipping through the coloured belts then I guess it is ok to skimp on the washing. But I have an old favourite white belt that I dig out everytime I move dojos that definitely needs all the washing it can get.

Kickchick - you seem quite adamant that you shouldn't wash your belt. Why not? It's only an item of clothing. Surely you don't want a dirty smelly belt on your lovely clean & ironed gi? What would happen to your gi if you never washed it? The same happens (a little more slowly) to your belt and it's not very hygenic.

To -: if your 'white belt' is really brown/black through use then I bet it stinks to high heaven. Not to mention the fungus and other bugs you have probably got growing in it. The old story about a white belt turning 'black' through endless use is just a myth. All the old masters I have read about were very strict about keeping their gis clean and I'm sure they wouldn't have put up with a fungating belt. Do yourself and your training partners a favour - wash that belt!

Martial_Artist, I think there are two separate issues that we are discussing here. First of all, I agree with you that a martial art has to have martial application or martial intent. Tai Chi practised purely for its health benefits is not a martial art. However, you seem to contradict yourself on the issue of effectiveness. First you say: 'Whether or not an art is effective has no bearing on whether or not it is a martial art. However, whether or not that art teaches fighting with the intent of fighting determines whether or not that art is a martial art.' Then you say later on: 'Also, effectiveness is the be-all and end-all of martial arts. If you are a martial artist then you train to fight. If you're training to fight ineffectively it may cost you your life.' So which is it? My point is that the benefit of martial arts is more than JUST the ability to fight (although that is important too). Perhaps the ability to master oneself, to truly know your own potential and limits, even if you are not a very good fighter, is a major benefit of dedicated martial arts training in itself. Incidentally, there are lots of different 'fights'. Would you treat your drunken relative who gets aggressive at a party in the same way as a mugger with a crowbar? How about someone in the pub who swears at you and pushes you on the chest, does he deserve to be dispatched swiftly with a knife in the throat or perhaps simply restrained with a wrist lock until he shows himself to be more of a danger? I'm sure many competent martial artists could defend themselves against a casual one on one street encounter. However, the same person probably wouldn't last long if jumped by 20 gang members. Does his/her ineffectiveness in the second situation mean he/she is no longer a martial artist? The traditional BUDO arts have always been about more than just fighting. That is why they are called 'the way'.

That's fantastic. Very open minded of your instructor to see the weaknesses in a pure striking style and complement it with a grappling art. Personally, I think we live in a shrinking world where it is increasingly easy for martial artists of all types to communicate and discuss their respective art forms. Surely there is much to be said for learning from each other and not sticking exclusively to one pure style just because of tradition.

Hey MonkeyGirl, you say you do groundfighting as well as TKD. Is that part of your TKD syllabus or do you cross train in another art?

KickChick, you made some good points. However, you said quote: 'The advantage of the black belt in a "combat situation" is they are prone to be more familiar with many different fighting styles and theories so may quickly evaluate their opponent's possible actions.' The problem is that familiarity, and the ability to do anything under pressure only comes through practice. However, I just wonder how many of us actually simulate 'combat situations' in our dojos, such as surprise attack, fear, pain, swearing & shouting etc. I know I don't in my training and would like to do some of this type of training too.

MA, not sure I fully understand you. Do you mean that if you can't fight or don't train to fight, then you are not a martial artist? I agree the term martial arts should be applied to activities that have an underlying martial intent. However, effectiveness, while certainly one measure, is not the ONLY determinant of what is a martial art and what is not. Where exactly do you draw the line as to which art is geared towards fighting? You have dismissed Tae Bo and aerobic kickboxing. How about Tai Chi or Aikido? How about olympic TKD? Full contact, but still a sport. What about judo? Great self defence but no strikes and also an olympic sport. What about Thai boxing? Very effective striking but no groundwork! Also what kind of fighting are you referring to? In the schoolyard? UFC style? No holds barred street fighting? the kind of fighting that special forces would use when on a commando raid into enemy territory? It is too easy and closeminded to say that martial arts are only about fighting. Because then you have to ask fighting who, when and how? Effectiveness is not the the be-all and end-all of martial arts.

Carlos Gracie was taught 'jiu jitsu' by Maeda who was a high ranking judo blackbelt from the kodokan. I've heard that the reason he called it ju jitsu was because Kano (the founder of Judo) did not want him teaching judo outside Japan. So Maeda taught what he knew and called it ju jitsu. Judo today has evolved into a very different martial art from what it was in Kano's time - mainly because it has concentrated on the sporting element. However, there is still a style of Judo called Kosen Judo that concentrates mainly on groundwork and is VERY similar to Brazilian ju jitsu.

That statistic is from the LAPD about officers apprehending suspects. Since it is easier to cuff a resisting suspect when he is pinned to the ground, it is not surprising the % is so high. What % of fights not involving LEOs go to the ground? Who knows. On the street it is clearly best to stay on your feet. Sure, you need to know some groundwork for if you end up there but it is even more important in my view to master strikes and throws particularly from the clinch so you avoid going to the ground in the first place.

Quote <> Great point, MA! If a Thai boxer kicks a karateka in the leg or a judo man applies a choke. Is this dirty fighting? Well only under the rules of sport karate. Similarly, head butting, eye gouging or biting. There are no rules on the street.

Headbutts are VERY practical and effective when you are in close. They don't hurt much if you use the front/top of your head (very strong bone here) and you strike the opponent's face. Don't butt the opponent's skull since that wll hurt! TR, bunkai in karate, eh!? I had never thought of that. Great idea, I will have to see where I can fit them in, in my own kata practice

EOTT, you are seriously deluding yourself if you think grappling is a waste of time. If you only know striking arts, you won't have a clue wht to do on the ground, which is where a lot of fights end up. I'm not saying grappling is the ultimate discipline, just that you should know some to be a competent fighter or at the very least enough to avoid being taken down. Re. Judo - judo is a sport AND a combat martial art. Just depends on how you train it. Many of the throws would be absolutely devastating on concrete and can be worked from the clich which is where fights often end up. Moreover, judo also has the chokes and joint locks that BJJ has. The difference generally is that judo focuses more on throws while BJJ focusses much more on grappling on the ground. [ This Message was edited by: Sinbad on 2002-06-03 13:37 ]

This firearms issue is tricky because a lot of people esp in the USA believe VERY strongly in their right to carry firearms. So it is hard to have an open minded discussion about it. I'm not going to get drawn into this argument but just wanted to ask Withers how the fact that gun possession laws were tightened up a few years ago in England could possibly have affected national crime rates since well over 99% of thepopulation never had a gun anyway?! Let's not make spurious claims to support our arguments

Hi everyone karate has such a huge variety of strikes with fists, fingers, elbows, knees and feet. Does anyone know if headbutting is a traditional karate strike? If so, what is the japanese name for this?