New Kid on the Block

[Hikage]

I don't expect too much from a black belt to be honest. I have a good idea what a blackbelt in Judo or BJJ can do, I have a good idea what to expect from a TKD blackbelt, Karate BB, etc... Now if he's holding a big gold championship belt for his weight division you can expect a whole other level of performance.

I agree. I was referring to how many underbelts and people outside the arts view the black belts. Often they are placed high on a pedestal. How many times have we heard newbies go on and on about how good their instructor is.

Here's the bubble burster for those of you who don't know.

1st degree - The practitioner understands and can perform the basics. That's it. No great martial artist will expect anything fantastic from the shodan, nor will he ask his or her opinion. He or she just isn't good yet. The shodan is still considered a student, despite having the title of sensei. Sometimes the title seito-sensei is used meaning, loosely, student teacher.

2nd degree - test is the same as the first. Still the basics. However, the practitioner should be able to complete this test with more confidence. Nidans are also considered students or seito-sensei.

3rd degree - commonly called the "entrance to the streets." Now, the practitioner should start mixing things up. The practitioner is establishing his or herself within the art. He or she is adjusting basic techniques to match his or her personal style and preferences. The practitioner is also well-versed in counter fighting and can get out of most holds/situtions effectively. Sandans are referred to as sensei.

6th degree - Master Level. The practitioner has now mastered the basics. Hence the term master. The master is creating and actually adding to the art, more so than responding within it's outlined techniques. The master is what outsiders commonly think of when they think of a black belt. The master is called Shihan.

-Hikage

[Hardball]

This is where you and I differ. I feel that a quality art presents all sides to the circle. Failure to do so only results in ignorance and dead people.

-Hikage

Clarification--I recommend getting a Black Belt before one starts to cross train. A black belt in any art. Then branch out and cross train. Just my opinion. Just an opinion.

[Tant01]

Old is new again!

Yea, Dana White and the UFC have taught the "Open Minded" that Cross Training is essential. Those that don't cross train will be left behind. This is the 21st century not the 12th century.

With all due respect to you Mr. Hardball I would like to share a story about a humble blackbelt in Judo.

My very first instructor taught me a great deal about Judo. How to fall, roll, and of course how to slam my fellow students on the mat. That was great fun but I wanted more. I wanted to actually be able to defend myself.

He told me that would come later. So I waited and waited and played more Judo. He took me aside after class one day and said the Judo has everything you need to kill, cripple or maim as the situation demanded.

I knew it could hurt to land on a hard surface and you might even crack your head on something but he was talking about joint locks and choking techniques. So I bagan to learn the variations of the Judo kansetsuwaza and shimewaza! This was great and I made progress and became a fairly dangerous Judoka.

I could make the faces of my fellow students turn blue and tweak elbows in short order! But there was still more. I asked my instructor about karatedo one day and he said Judo has kicking and punching just like karate. I was surprised to hear this because we had never practiced kicking anything or even punching a bag... It's in the Kata. So if you take Judo to the max you will learn everything you need to kill, cripple or maim as the situation required.

So I practiced hard and made some more progress but still lacked confidence in my ability to defend myself. Sensei Mitchel taught me a few atemi techniques and how to defend against them. He encouraged me to explore my "Judo" with the wrestlers and the football players...

Much later I learned that Karate also has throws, chokes and joint locks but you'd be surprised how few players realize what the Kata is really for. I suppose my point is that your ART is MMA even if you don't realize it yet. This "new" wave of sport combat is nothing new...

Kicking, punching, grappling and even weapons are all in the art of your choice if you look for it. It hardly matters what art because what we have today is almost certainly the product of so called "cross training" in the last century or two or three... Don't blame a specialist for being narrow minded or the art itself for some shortfall in technique. They have everything you need to kill criple or maim as required by the situation. We can thank modern sports for bringing back the old ways!

[treelizard]

Hikage,
I'm still having a hard time wrapping my mind around your explanation of why guys get super timid when training with women. If it really is because they are secretly attracted to the women they train with (instead of them worrying about hurting women because we're so weak and fragile) then how come guys that aren't even straight do this too? And how come guys that I've dated before we started training together don't act like that? In fact I'd say that they made the best training partners and were way harder on me than most of the guys I have to talk into aiming for my face when the target is my face....

[treelizard]

Cross training...wouldn't it be more effective to take the "best of" components different arts and throw 'em all together into your own unique personal style based on what you like and what fits your body type, fighting style, etc?

[Hikage]

I suppose my point is that your ART is MMA even if you don't realize it yet. This "new" wave of sport combat is nothing new...

Amen... good post.

-Hikage

[Hikage]

I'm happy to explain more... and more if needed...

Hikage,
I'm still having a hard time wrapping my mind around your explanation of why guys get super timid when training with women. If it really is because they are secretly attracted to the women they train with (instead of them worrying about hurting women because we're so weak and fragile)...

Good questions. Many women are suprised to learn how different men's minds are compared to what pop-culture presents. I recommend reading Every Man's Battle or Love and Respect. The is a book written to Christian men to help them overcome sexual immorality (which we all have). The second is a marriage help book for both sexes. In it they focus on how men would rather be respected than loved. It's interesting how culture suppresses both of these points as obscence, antiquated, or arrogant. The fact is, it's the truth.

Ok, let's take this in parts.

And how come guys that I've dated before we started training together don't act like that? In fact I'd say that they made the best training partners and were way harder on me than most of the guys I have to talk into aiming for my face when the target is my face...

This actually makes sense. These guys have had their chance and will see you more as a sister. Perhaps they've used a phrase as "good friends." I don't believe that men can have women in whom they are not interested (unless they are butt ugly -- hey I call 'em as I see 'em.) However, there are option busters. Once you've dated, had it out, realized it doesn't work, they know that it isn't likely to happen again so their minds don't really focus on on it. The option to get with you has been busted.

then how come guys that aren't even straight do this too?

Would it help if I said they are like that with me too? JK

In all honesty, I'm not sure what to tell you here. I admit that I only know one gay guy, and I don't know him exteremely well, but I'll give you my guess. Perhaps I should clarify my previous statements. There is always an element of "don't hurt the chick because she's a chick." However, I do not think that this is the prevailing thought. How many of these straight guys who refuse to pound on your will also hold doors for you, give up shotgun for you, etc. I imagine that there is a small number, but hardly all. This should give you some insight as to who is reacting to your sexuality and who is adhering to the old code. Knowing that many gay men have a respect for women that most men should, I think that for these guys, they are actually being chivalric.

I don't want to gross you out, but never underestimate the ability of a man to think sexually. Allow me to use myself as an example. I am a Christian. Before I read the aforementioned book, I was by Christian standards, extremely immoral. By secular standards I would be considered normal or even mild. But, in eliminating this from my life (temporarily, I admit that in recent weeks, I've been falling into old habits) I couldn't help but analyze my intentions. If I am honest with myself, I admit that I don't really want to read the entertainment section of the paper, but I prefer to see the Vic Secret adds at the bottom - DESPITE the fact that I don't really spend time looking at them.

Again, to use myself, I am an extremely happily married man. I go to marriage conferences and I realize that my marriage does not suffer the struggles from what many marriages at my age go through. In short, I have a great wife. I could not create a better lady. Then tell me, if I am not seeking female attention, why do I enjoy working with the females in class? It took me a long time to realize I was reacting this way. But, if I am honest, it's true. Why do I give small talk to female cashiers and ignore those who are male?

I am only scratching the surface here. I realize that I am leaving myself very open to criticism and that many men will refuse to accept what I am saying. However, I am giving you the truth. I can give you more powerful examples from my own life (most extemely embarassing) if you need, but I prefer not to. I just want you to realize that again, I am what the secular world would consider "mild" or normal and it is only through trying to eliminate this from my life that I began to realize what was really going on.

-Hikage

[treelizard]

I don't understand how having dated someone in the past is any more an "option buster" than being married with children is.. How many people get back together with their former partners?

The guys I've trained with that I was referring to, it was WHILE we were dating. And to be honest I find that men are a lot better than women at switching from lovey dovey mode to super aggro mode.

I also think that you gravitating towards female cashiers instead of male cashiers might have to do with the fact that for the most part women are more pleasant to interact with. Just like I'd gravitate towards a male cashier assuming he'd notice the creepy guy behind me before I did. Realistically this may not happen but I think men and women complement each other (as much as pop culture tries to cloud over this and pretend that men and women are exactly the same) so it's only natural for you to go to female cashiers and doesn't necessarily have to be because you're trying to figure out if you could get with them afterhours.

Okay, last question (for now!! heh heh). Why is it, based on your theory, that guys who have trouble with targetting during stand-up work have no problem beating the doggy dog doo out of women they're grappling with?

[stabbychick]

I also think that you gravitating towards female cashiers instead of male cashiers might have to do with the fact that for the most part women are more pleasant to interact with.

What? Wow. Aren't we full of ourselves today?

[treelizard]

What? Wow. Aren't we full of ourselves today?

Except for stabby as a cashier. Go to the guy next to her.

[Hikage]

Ok, I'll see what I can do here....

I don't understand how having dated someone in the past is any more an "option buster" than being married with children is.. How many people get back together with their former partners?

True.... but.... having "already been there" is the option buster. Having the wife and children is not an option buster (note my examples above). Just because a man is married that does not mean that he is immune to admiring the beauty of a woman and the "what if" phenomenon. Many men just want to gain affirmation through positive interaction with women.

The guys I've trained with that I was referring to, it was WHILE we were dating.

The longer the better. If it was only a short time dating, then it could always start right back up again. The relationship was never really defined. If it was long and ended, the option is ended.

And to be honest I find that men are a lot better than women at switching from lovey dovey mode to super aggro mode.

True, but remember, men aren't lovey dovey by nature. That's learned. They can still be macho and want you on some level. I stress that this isn't usually a conscious desire.

I also think that you gravitating towards female cashiers instead of male cashiers might have to do with the fact that for the most part women are more pleasant to interact with. Just like I'd gravitate towards a male cashier assuming he'd notice the creepy guy behind me before I did. Realistically this may not happen but I think men and women complement each other (as much as pop culture tries to cloud over this and pretend that men and women are exactly the same) so it's only natural for you to go to female cashiers and doesn't necessarily have to be because you're trying to figure out if you could get with them afterhours.

True. It's not that I want to get with anyone in class afterwards either. I just enjoy the female attention. This desire is not conscious and if someone is aware of it, they don't expect anything of it.

Think of it this way. Men have a certain amount of female attention that they need on a daily basis. We'll refer to it as FA's for a lack of a better term. Men can get FA's from almost anywhere. Even looking at the cover of a magazine can result in fulfillment of FAs, to some extent. Chatting up the cashier results in FAs, as does working out with women in class. Why ruin the FAs? When you're in close with a lady, you are to be soft. Being too rough results in lack of FAs. This is a legitimate need that has to be met.

Okay, last question (for now!! heh heh). Why is it, based on your theory, that guys who have trouble with targetting during stand-up work have no problem beating the doggy dog doo out of women they're grappling with?

Well, that's the "old I'm the man and I need to dominate the women." That's simple stratification. When in close and engaged in combat with women, they feel the need to engulf. In sexual contact men are the aggressors, the thrusters. It's inbred.

I'm speculating here and I'm not claiming this gospel, but it's possible... Brace yourself, this next sentence is sick. How much different is a woman's cry for pleasure than a cry for pain?

It's late, I'm going to bed,

-Hikage

[treelizard]

I don't understand why actually working a technique properly would result in a lack of female attention. I think I'd be much more inclined to pay more attention to people that are actually in class to train properly, than I am to someone who's being soft. In fact, I usu. end up saying things like, "That was a really shitty kick. I didn't even have to block."

Also if these guys are so in need of female attention, how come some of 'em aren't even interested in discussing techniques/strategy? I mean, wouldn't they think we'd be super impressed or something?

Anyways, I think I will stick to my strategy of hitting people harder if they don't target properly, or maybe pointing it out to them loudly in front of their friends.

[Hardball]

T.L., I've had time to think and I come to the conclusion that Hikage said it best. I have nothing intelligent to add. Thanks

[Tant01]

Could it be....???

T.L., I've had time to think and I come to the conclusion that Hikage said it best. I have nothing intelligent to add. Thanks

PHUI! Jump on in here and EXPRESS yourself!

I think Hikage might be OVER ANALYZING things a bit and (perhaps) projecting some of his qualities onto others in his effort to better understand himself. To define his moral character in a way that aligns himself with his religious beliefs? (just an opinion)

Guys are taught NOT to HIT girls from an early age. It's ingrained into them so deep they even feel reluctant to hit (strike, kick, backhand, elbow, knee or head butt a female) even when it's "Okay" to do it. There may be some credibility to the line of thinking expressed by our e-buddy Hikage but lets keep it simple for my sake (for a bit.) Who wants to hit a pretty girl? Not me! But grappling is much less likely to inflict visible trauma. And to prevent becoming stimulated in some sexual way in such close proximity the intensity of technique will overcome the desire for contact. The aggression is substituted for affection. Not the same standing toe to toe in kicking or punching range. There will be a natural hesitation to strike when it's in our (better) interest to "grapple"... If that makes ANY sense. Maybe there is more to the Hikage thinking than I care to admit?

[treelizard]

Yeah, I've noticed that a lot of men have problems watching women fighters, on videos, and have to think that this might have more to do with societal conditioning than with them wanting to get female attention from people on a TV screen... They just don't want to see women hurt... My new grappling theory is that if you're in such close range that you can't really SEE the person you're pounding (like, you're not looking 'em in the eye) that makes it easier?