The first video is a good reason why TKD black belts are considered wimps - the TKDoka used his kicks, but the Muay Thai boxer caught the legs and tripped him up.

The second one, however, shows what TKD can do. The TKD guy used multiple kicks and did knock the Muay Thai boxer down. The comments posted below this second video seem skeptical that a TKD guy can do this, and I would agree it would be hard, but the point remains that a TKD black belt, if properly trained, can be a match for any other martial artist.

I am not saying this to denigrate Muay Thai, because I know of their reputation for being tough and wiping the floor with Kung Fu and TKD practitioners; I am saying this to try and defend my martial art.

It's real easy to get caught up in these types of debates.
The truth is though, it's not the art that's being represented it's the fighter.

Any "art" can be deadly. It all depends on how you train. I mean if you were to train Tai Chi with the intensity of a MT guy, then you would see that Tai Chi is not the soft gentle "art" that old people practice at the park all slowly.

You would see a serious pushing and shoving match which would eventually lead to someone being shoved on their a$$.

An art is only limited to how you train in it.

"Use no way as way; use no limitation as limitation" -Bruce Lee

You should try looking at arts as the sum of parts and not as the whole. Put them in their proper ranges. Every art punches, kicks, and have so many other things in common.

Now think of style as what types of technique the particular "art" emphasizes. For example grappling arts(range) have styles where different schools focus on different aspects such has joint locks, sweep & throws, ground grappling, pressure point.

I agree. I have been wondering if I should go for my 2nd Dan, but after all these years, perhaps I should go with Bruce Lee and not worry about belt rankings.

There is nothing wrong with belt rankings. They are not for everyone. But a systematic approach to training with a competent instrcutor and testing at certain intervals by a competent examiner can be very benefical in ones development and motivation. This is especially true if one wants to learn more than just the necessary tools for self defense.

It is not specifc to the martial arts as many forms of learning can benefit

Agreed, especially since humans need some hierarchy.

But I think the Japanese/Korean styles have gone too far, with their multiple dans, grandmasters, and (insert superlative) grandmasters.

After the brown belt level, there's not much difference in fighting levels.

Agree. Especially with the whole hierarchy after BB

Yes I would say from a tkd perspective red, black, 2nd, or 3rd little relevence to fighting ability

I personally love the way the Gracie's set up there ranking system. Actually I'm not 100% sure it was them but there belt ranking system makes perfect sense to me. 2-4 years in order to earn your blue belt. However, by the time you earn your blue belt you have learned the most street ready techniques for self defense. So even though your just getting your first belt above white, you have put many hours of work into self defense training. And are actually qualified to teach others up to blue belt rank.

Their blue belt in many cases is the equivalent to a black belt in most other schools.

Given that the first techniques you learn for blue belt are the most reliable techniques found in BJJ it just goes to show that the major difference between the novice and the expert in BJJ is not the number of techniques but in the practitioner's seasoning. Something unique within this art which is based more on technique rather than strength.

Ugh - number of techniques. I've been to WTF and ITF schools that had so many forms that I began wondering if I was in a dance school. They should heed what Bruce Lee said - it's not daily increase; it's daily decrease.