Are "belts" bullshido?

**Supa** · Posted On: 5/09/2005 6:55pm

I think that any sort of belt ranking system is straight up bullshido. Belts ARE bullshido. There is no such thing as legit belts and bullshido belts, a legit belt is something that holds up your pants. (Thanks for that one, Mr. Miyagi!)

Seriously, lots of legit fighting arts and fighters use belt rankings, but that doesn't mean it isn't silly. Belt ranking systems are one of the key elements of why so-called "martial arts" are always filled up with bullshido. So what if tank abbot can go kick 99.9% of BJJ guys' asses, does that mean he should get a black belt in BJJ? If not, why not? His talents and fighting skills are PROVEN SUPERIOR.

Look at boxing, the truest and most developed fighting art. Lots of top fighters fight in unorthodox ways, throwing "incorrect" punches, dropping their hands, crossing their feet at times, etc., and yet they are THE BEST. Under any BULLSHIDO BELT SYSTEM those guys would be disqualified from receiving a high belt just because they do not follow the supposed correct "forms". Form and other bullshit over effectiveness/results, isn't that the essence of BULLSHIDO?

Anyway, I am interested to see any rational reason why belt rankings aren't straight up bullshido. Sorry if this topic has been done before, it probably has, but I didn't see any threads dedicated to it when I did a quick search. When guys in the BJJ thread started talking about belt rankings and being all hardcore serious about it, that is what inspired me to post this thread.

p.s. I hold a 99thDan dragon master belt that i won fightinig in the kumitae, if anyone doesn't believe it then i will post a video sometime if can figure out how.

PEACE.

**Chuan** · Posted On: 5/09/2005 7:03pm

TROLL!!!! :laughing4

**Shuma-Gorath** · Posted On: 5/09/2005 7:08pm

Originally Posted by Supa

I think that any sort of belt ranking system is straight up bullshido. Belts ARE bullshido. There is no such thing as legit belts and bullshido belts, a legit belt is something that holds up your pants. (Thanks for that one, Mr. Miyagi!)

You're calling something bullshido, but you quote Mr. Miyagi? I LOL at you, sir!

Seriously, lots of legit fighting arts and fighters use belt rankings, but that doesn't mean it isn't silly. Belt ranking systems are one of the key elements of why so-called "martial arts" are always filled up with bullshido.

No. It is the fault of the individuals who abuse and distort the criteria of the ranking system.

So what if tank abbot can go kick 99.9% of BJJ guys' asses, does that mean he should get a black belt in BJJ?

Maybe we should debate on facts and not fantasy.

If not, why not? His talents and fighting skills are PROVEN SUPERIOR.

Yeah, precisely why his record his fight record is roughly 50-50.

Look at boxing, the truest and most developed fighting art.

:icon_roll

Lots of top fighters fight in unorthodox ways, throwing "incorrect" punches, dropping their hands, crossing their feet at times, etc., and yet they are THE BEST.

Examples? I didn't think so.

Under any BULLSHIDO BELT SYSTEM those guys would be disqualified from receiving a high belt just because they do not follow the supposed correct "forms".

Well, they're doing boxing in a system that uses belts. That doesn't meet the criteria for the performance in that style.

Form and other bullshit over effectiveness/results, isn't that the essence of BULLSHIDO?

Since you're just making **** up, no.

Anyway, I am interested to see any rational reason why belt rankings aren't straight up bullshido.

Give us a rational post first.

Sorry if this topic has been done before, it probably has, but I didn't see any threads dedicated to it when I did a quick search.

Lurk more.

When guys in the BJJ thread started talking about belt rankings and being all hardcore serious about it, that is what inspired me to post this thread.

So... do you actually know anything about BJJ?

p.s. I hold a 99thDan dragon master belt that i won fightinig in the kumitae, if anyone doesn't believe it then i will post a video sometime if can figure out how.

PEACE.

3/10

**Supa** · Posted On: 5/09/2005 7:22pm

Actually, my post was entirely rational. Boxing is the most sophisticated developed fighting sport in the world where the most money is on the line for the victors and has the longest period of continuous public development through competition with, more or less, the same rules. Admittedly some forms of wrestling, and possibly sumo fall into a similar category, but those sports have never had the same broad pool of participants to draw from and/or the same levels of money to attract people into the sport.

Did you know that boxing (arguably, some would say baseball) was the #1 spectator sport in the US for most of the 20th Century, and had competetive participants in every town throughout the US and Western Europe on a continuous basis. This is not MMA we're talking about where there are a new set of rules every week, a new set of champions, a new set of faces, and mostly everything is based on marketing and bullshit. Not to knock MMA, which is cool. But give MMA another century of development under a standardised set of rules with widespread popularity live and on television and massive amounts of money on the line, and then it will begin to compare to the level of development that boxing has as a sport. That is assuming that boxing continues it's current decline and does not enter a new golden age. [I only mention MMA because I am not sure what else you would say would be a more developed fighting sport/art than boxing? Kickboxing is kind of a joke with all the different leagues and rule systems, it had it's chance to become a real sport and has pretty much failed. Therefore it has not really developed at all in the past two decades. Thai Kickboxing is another story, it is highly developed thanks to longtime competetive popularity in Thailand, I won't argue over that one.]

Boxers who have reached hall of fame level status with unorthodox techniques, just to name a few off the top of my head: Wilfredo Benitez, Roy Jones Junior, Joe Frasier. Muhammad Ali was also widely criticized for his unorthodox technique, but for the most part that was just a misconception perpetuated by the ignorant.

If you don't like the Mr. Miyagi quote, please provide a rational explanation of why belt ranking systems aren't bullshido.

As for Tank Abbot, I was talking about him in his prime, but do you really think that very many BJJ blackbelts could beat Tank in a fight? I was expecting something more rational as an argument, like the fact that Tank has a large size advantage over most of those guys.

**Pojac** · Posted On: 5/09/2005 7:35pm

Well, you could start by getting hip to the fact that bjj and fighting aren't identical. Bjj is useful for fighting, and people good at it tend to kick ass, but fighting is much broader domain than submission grappling with or without a gi. The belts in bjj are legitimate (with the exception of Gene Simco, apparently) because higher belts tend to be demonstrably better at bjj than lower belts. That's what a belt in bjj means: you have a certain skill at bjj.

When Tank Abbott starts tapping out black belts in submission grappling matches, you can start complaining about bjj belts being bullshit.

Or, to try to frame this in a way you might understand, since you know **** all about bjj: top, well known boxers would get mauled by mixed martial artists who have not had as great success in their own sport. Would that diminish the accomplishments of the boxers in boxing?

**GranoblasticMan** · Posted On: 5/09/2005 7:37pm

Originally Posted by Supa

Did you know that boxing (arguably, some would say baseball) was the #1 spectator sport in the US for most of the 20th Century, and had competetive participants in every town throughout the US and Western Europe on a continuous basis.

Oh. You're talking about sports. For a while there, I thought you were talking about martial arts.

**The Coach** · Posted On: 5/09/2005 7:44pm

I've been a white belt for 5 years... My sensei doesn't care about promotions....but still makes us wear the gis and belts as tradition...FYI it's practice, not class. So it's just me, my pops, a guy that started at the same time as my pops, and the sensei who comes every so often because teaching isn't his job.

**Supa** · Posted On: 5/09/2005 7:50pm

Originally Posted by Pojac

Well, you could start by getting hip to the fact that bjj and fighting aren't identical. Bjj is useful for fighting, and people good at it tend to kick ass, but fighting is much broader domain than submission grappling with or without a gi. The belts in bjj are legitimate (with the exception of Gene Simco, apparently) because higher belts tend to be demonstrably better at bjj than lower belts. That's what a belt in bjj means: you have a certain skill at bjj.

When Tank Abbott starts tapping out black belts in submission grappling matches, you can start complaining about bjj belts being bullshit.

Or, to try to frame this in a way you might understand, since you know **** all about bjj: top, well known boxers would get mauled by mixed martial artists who have not had as great success in their own sport. Would that diminish the accomplishments of the boxers in boxing?

So if a white belt at BJJ comes in and can beat one of the black belts, does that mean he gets to be black belt too? If so, then I have no problem with it. Please tell me if this is how it works.

I think the point is, why do you need some certification of how badass you are? If you are a badass, why can't you just SHOW that. That is why belts are bullshido. It's like a martial arts certificate on the wall -- so what? If BJJ belts are all based on what performance a BJJ fighter can do, then I would like to know what belt rank Helio Gracie holds? He's pretty old, right? The point being, why does a belt mean jack ****? Helio is a master and a great trainer, why does he need a special belt? That's bullshit. It's just, imo, derived from the whole marketing scheme of Asian martial arts where they want to be able to give their customers a tangible recognition of advancement.

And the point is, that's bullshido. Real martial arts are about being able to hurt people, not about having recognition of advancement within a particular school.

**eyebeams** · Posted On: 5/09/2005 7:51pm

Originally Posted by GranoblasticMan

Oh. You're talking about sports. For a while there, I thought you were talking about martial arts.

I see your style is "WMA," which is "sports plus whatever somebody can dig up from a manual that hasn't been used in centuries." John Clements used to be in the SCA, so get the **** over yourself.

Bad initial post here, but good point. Boxing's probably had the single largest number of people contributing to its development in history, to most effeciently fit a set of rules -- a "sport" that happens to encompass some of the most important things in a fight.

Some WTFv taekwondo might be said to have the same thing: a large community that refines the ability to play a sport -- but that sport seems to be less applicable to actual fighting.

Maybe, though, you won't listen -- like I didn't listen 11 years ago. Then you'll get armbarred by a mere "sport" fighter like a judoka in a friendly challenge (as I did) and you'll STFU.

Anyway, about belts: I don't care for them myself. I think BJJ's system of awarding them for time served is just about the best way of doing it.

**Apostol** · Posted On: 5/09/2005 7:53pm

Tank Abbott's record is 9-10-0. He is NOT a good example to be quoting.

Belts in Judo, BJJ, and Kyokushin are usually legit because they require you to spar, and if you can not meet a certain level you are not promoted. That is the difference between bullshido black belts and real black belts.