Redundancy In Nonsense

  OK, I've about had it with these Multi-Dan “Experts”. It's pretty much reached the point that anyone who has more than 3 (maybe 4) yudansha ranks in any multiple systems, and has done so in under 10 years,...

I'm saying, is a “Fake” P.O.S.

   

  I'd written before, that individual's that needed to list all their prior studies, must have considered all those studies to be a waste of their time. Other wise, why would they then study yet another system? For a comparative analysis, I can understand (been there, done that). But to waste your time attaining a yudansha grading? Frankly, you just have too much time and money to burn!

   

  I realize that a lot of people are “into” the bragging rights (game). When someone asks me what I study, I tell them RyuTe. I've attended other systems classes, even “ranked” in a few of them, big F'in deal? They were all Crapola when compared with what I do now (and for the past 30 years).

 It just seems like the majority of websites I checkout, list the instructor/author as having a legion of Dan ranks, and are yet rarely past the age of 28? Do most people find it more important to have a large list of things attempted, or a small list of actual abilities/accomplishments?

   

  In contrast, I (constantly) review my own (kyu) rank requirements for my students. I have striven to diminish those requirements (to their root techniques). Though (as always) dependent upon the individual student, those requirements could be sufficiently learned to acquire a shodan rank after 2½ – 3 years. From my own perspective, a shodan ranking is an equivalency to being familiar with all of the required basic motions (and are thus, ready to begin serious study as a Yudansha).

    

  Given my own experience with having student's that (already) have a yudansha grade (in whatever system) when they begin with me, I know that the transition time between systems doesn't (really) decrease with that prior knowledge. If anything, it increases it! They have to “un-learn” everything they did prior.

   

  I often reflect on the things I've read of the Okinawan masters of yesteryear. Each of those individual's were known for a singular talent, they might be skilled/knowledgeable in other areas also, but they were commonly recognized for one, maybe two fields of ability.

   

  When I have the unfortunate occasion to meet these modern Multi-dan wonders, I'm usually quite bored with/by whatever it is they're doing (or at least attempting to do). I've seen a lot, so I'm not easily impressed.

   

  It seems to be the perceived expectation, that the more systems and methods that you study, the better and/or more knowledgeable that you become. My own experience has shown this to not be the case.

   

  All systems and methods do not work together (fluidly). And really, Why should they? They were rarely developed together, and they (often) have different desired results. Although Combative motions (in general) are all the same (between different systems). Their differences are usually in the application of those motions.

    

  I believe that “modern” interpretations of these ancient systems have in many ways corrupted the intent of what was originally shown. Though it might be true that certain aspects may be able to be improved upon, I think it important to (first) learn the original method of those technique's application (before any so-called “improvements” are introduced, or even attempted).

    

  More often than not, those modern applications are nothing more than a re-hashing of previously tried (and dis-proven) methodologies. The majority that I've had shown to me, have been almost comical in their application, yet I can view local (area) web-pages and find numerous schools teaching the same sht-uff.

   

  The Japanese are the ideal example of “F-ing-up” a perfectly good system (though I do lay blame upon Funakoshi for much of that corruption). They managed to do so, even while being able to speak the same language, and being close enough to contact those who could have corrected them.

   

  I happen to be very aware (and critical) of our American ability to “F-up” a martial art, but I do allow slack (for us) in regards to monkeying with the performance of them. We were shown/taught damaged goods to begin with.

   

  Studying with Taika has assisted (at least myself) with cleaning-up a lot of those minor discrepancy's. I've come to appreciate the similarities between systems (as well as the differences). That doesn't mean I agree with those differences, but I (at least) understand how/why they have them.

   

  From what I've observed, the individual's who rack-up those multitudes of Dan-ranks, only seem to do so for the aforementioned bragging rights. They certainly don't display any manner of exceptional abilities (either on their part, or in those of their students).

      

  Presently (at least from my own internet observations), the standard “rank” of instructor's would seem to be seventh-dan (nanadan). This is usually in conjunction with 2 or 3 additional (if not equivalent) yudansha rankings in as many other systems/methods. Even disregarding the age of these individual's, I have a difficult time understanding, or even believing that these are legitimate rankings.

    

Does anyone else view this with as skeptical an eye as myself?