222359 Bullies, 5012 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 11 to 20 of 83
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 12 3456 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Dochter is offline

    Neutral, or nearly so

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    8,049

    Posted On:
    5/09/2005 7:58pm

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by eyebeams
    I think BJJ's system of awarding them for time served is just about the best way of doing it.
    This is incorrect.
  2. eyebeams is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,437

    Posted On:
    5/09/2005 8:05pm


     Style: Kickboxing/Grappling

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Dochter
    This is incorrect.
    Really? I thought you were ranked based on hours training. Care to point me to a thread/page?
  3. Dochter is offline

    Neutral, or nearly so

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    8,049

    Posted On:
    5/09/2005 8:11pm

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    BJJ ranks are based on a combination of technical knowledge and ability to execute. There is a fair amount of variability but it seems that in a lot of schools if you consistently are competitive with the higher ranks you will soon find yourself among them.
    Time served can be a factor but you won't be promoted if you can't tap people.
    BJJ is about being able to put the hurt on people. If you can't do that you don't get promoted.

    Belts in bjj are important as they play a big role in competition.
  4. _Mick_ is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Posts
    618

    Posted On:
    5/09/2005 8:13pm


     Style: Hapkido

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    belts used to mean something, and in some systems they still do. example: in sumo, you gain belts (which are really just different diaper things) with victories in competitions. belts can also be lost in sumo competitions.

    in most of the commonly practiced styles (tkd, karate, aikido, ect) belts tend to mean less. unfortunately, much of the time belts are just used to get a few extra bucks in testing fees, or to make the kiddies feel like they are accomplishing something in their after school baby sitting.

    granted there are lots of aikido, tkd, and karate black belts who are great at what they do, but there are also lots of them who suck.
  5. Knightmare is offline

    DO NOT LISTEN TO ME

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    2,473

    Posted On:
    5/09/2005 8:19pm


     Style: Kickboxing/Sub. Grappling

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    " Belts only cover 2 inches of your ass, the rest is up to you " - Royce Gracie

    Or something like that.
  6. Shuma-Gorath is offline
    Shuma-Gorath's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,608

    Posted On:
    5/09/2005 8:24pm

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ - Homeland Security

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Supa
    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.

  7. Knightmare is offline

    DO NOT LISTEN TO ME

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    2,473

    Posted On:
    5/09/2005 8:26pm


     Style: Kickboxing/Sub. Grappling

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Supa
    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.
    Vitor Belfort is a BJJ Black Belt and he beat the fucking **** out of Tank.
  8. CanucKyokushin is offline

    He'll flip ya!

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    ?????????
    Posts
    2,736

    Posted On:
    5/09/2005 8:58pm

    supporting member
     Style: Not.....working

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I personally feel there are only three belts that are absolute in MA.White, Brown and Black. Because traditionally that's how it was in Okinawa Japan. I really don't know of any system created before the end of the 19th century that used belts except okinawan-te.If anyone out there can point me to a link that show's a style
    Besides okinawan-te hat used belt colors during that time. I would like to see it.

    Even then, because I know for a fact Daito-ryu Aiki-jujitsu does not use belts colors. With the exception of plain white and black for Black belts. With only the titles of Sempai and Sensei.I'm sure if you research carefully you will find many styles don't bother with belts at all.

    So what am I getting at? Ill tell you. You have ask your question differently. Such as "Does the belt make the man/Woman/Fighter/Badass?" or "Does the time that a martial artist put's it to a belt make the fighter?Or even the wildly popular "What's the right length of time to get a Black Belt?

    You see if you had taken the time to word out carefully what was your point. We be talking about Boxing.

    Canuck.
    Last edited by CanucKyokushin; 5/09/2005 9:43pm at .
  9. Supa is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    30

    Posted On:
    5/09/2005 9:35pm


     Style: hamster dance kung fu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Was that a rhetorical question? To distinguish martial arts ranking belts from other kinds of belts (especially belts which serve a functional purpose) and to indicate disrespect.
  10. Critical Jo is offline
    Critical Jo's Avatar

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Houston, Tejas
    Posts
    283

    Posted On:
    5/09/2005 9:51pm


     Style: Hiatus: Judo, BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Belts determine proffiency in a style, nothing more. They were intended so that the Teacher could glance at the class and determine who knows what. Its not based solely on how good you fight its based on knowledge, and execution of the Art. That can't be said for McDojos though. The problem is that ignorant people associate belts with fighting skill, I've beaten the blackbelts in my system silly. Knocked a guy who out ranked me over with a light block that doesn't mean they're going to give me a blackbelt. If they did I wouldn't accept it.
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 12 3456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.