# Disabled students as black belts



## miguksaram

In a nutshell if you have a mentally/physically disabled person as a student, can they reach a black belt in your school if they are unable to perform to the standards like non disabled students can?


----------



## Gnarlie

Yes.  I began in TKD with a physically disabled instructor.  The disability caused limitations in some areas e.g. balance on certain kicks, ability to run / bend the knee.  However, it also provided its own heavy weapon, and the inability to run away also places automatic priorities in other areas such as effective self defence on the spot.

There's no reason why someone with a disability can't reach black belt.  The set of standards that they hold themselves to may be different to those of others.

I feel that in the case of my original instructor, the additional challenges he faced had made him a better black belt than many I have met since.


----------



## Twin Fist

no.

this is a physical activity, all that matters is ability

now one of my students had osteoarthritis, he COULD NOT do what other people could. I allowed him to do things as well as he was able to. But he never got anywhere near BB level.

if they did the best they could, and there was no way they would improve? maybe an honorary belt.

no dan rank, and the cert would say "honorary" on it.

maybe


----------



## dancingalone

For conversation's sake, I'll quote what I said in the other thread:



> Call me a jerk, but I'll admit to having mixed feelings about it.  I'm  OK with some allowances granted for physical disability, but IMO there  needs to be some objective measure of achievement, sustainable outside  of "he is doing the best he can".  I regard it more like a college  degree of sorts - there are clear requirements that must be met before  the degree is conferred.



It's clear that a mentally or physically disabled person WON'T be able to perform identically to a person that doesn't have the same challenges, but this is true to an extent across all normal people anyway.  We all have different bodies and different minds, and what one can do well, another might find difficult.

So the real question is what modifications and allowances in the test are we talking about?  Is this something we are doing just for disabled people or are we being holistic in our evaluation for everyone in general?  

As an example, I might be willing to forgive a lot when it comes to aesthetic presentation in performing forms, but I doubt I would back off much on things like precision and power demonstrated by breaking boards and that's true for everyone, handicapped or not.


----------



## Dirty Dog

I think you have to say "it depends"...

Start by defining what you would consider a disability. I only have one eye. Is that a disability? 

It certainly impacts my performance. For example, I modify stances so that targets to my left are visible. That means my head, my torso, and my arms are not going to be exactly where they're "supposed" to be. It's a small but real difference. This doesn't mean the technique is any less effective, but it does mean that I'll always score lower. Were I trying to make the US Poomsae team, this would matter. 

Since none of us are perfect, then it must be admited that when we test we're only performing "close enough" to the ideal. I think that if the student can reach the level of "close enough" then they earn the rank. If they cannot, then they don't. A person who cannot kick probably cannot earn a black belt in TKD. That doesn't make them any less worthy as a person.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

miguksaram said:


> In a nutshell if you have a mentally/physically disabled person as a student, can they reach a black belt in your school if they are unable to perform to the standards like non disabled students can?



This is an excellent question Jeremy, thank you for posting it.  I think the answer will ultimately depend upon the focus and/or goals of the school.  If the school is sport, as an example, and the focus is competition-based then someone physically/mentally challenged 'may' not be able to compete within the scope of the contest.  They 'may' not be able to do what is required at the BB level.  However, if the focus is towards SD, then perhaps yes.

As far as SD, I can answer only for my own school with authority.  Our sole purpose is SD (and the aspects that are involved with SD).  With this in mind, we do not teach cookie-cutter forms without application explanation i.e. we don't follow a 'learn a form-get a new belt' methodology.  Our sole form is taught with the goal of in-depth application for every movement.  The strengths of the individual student are addressed, which means by default that the weaknesses are addressed as well.  The form is tailored to each student individually based on those strengths and weaknesses.  

Let me use an example;  Tom and Jerry are both MSK KSD students.  Tom blew out his knee in the military jumping out of perfectly good airplanes (a little military humor).  He walks with a limp.  He isn't able to always put full weight on that leg.  The weather may affect the injury.  As a result, Tom just isn't a good kicker.  So we tailor the MSK form to his strengths from a SD perspective.  Tom is built like a fire plug and if he gets a hand on you then he can wrap you up and put you in a shoe box.  He can fight inside a phone booth.  Jerry on the other hand has limited use in his right shoulder due to a rotatory cuff injury.  As a result, he's not real adept at grappling or throwing someone.  Stuff that requires some strength and leverage.  But Jerry can kick a quarter out of someone's hand and leave fifteen cents change.  Well, we tailor the MSK form to fit his needs.  Can both reach BB and beyond?  Yes, given that they fully utilize what they have to work with and can effectively defend themselves against a realworld, violent threat.

For us, it isn't about 'pretty', it's about results against a resisting attacker.


----------



## shesulsa

Rank progression at my school goes: White - Orange - Yellow - Green - Purple - Blue - Brown - Red - Half-red/half-black - Black.  Younger children learn an abbreviated syllabus in each rank so they run in junior color ranks up to Jr. Black.

I have a 12-year-old autistic student who is currently ranked at Junior Blue, decided rank.  He requires repetitive correction in things like techniques, but does pretty darn well at grappling, jousting and touch-sparring despite his tactile sensitivity. He can pass his jok sul (kicking combination test) in under 3 seconds. His memory is improving and he's starting to remember more material than just the rank he's in.

He is still making progress all the time, so I'm keeping the potential for full rank on the table at this point.  

I anticipate having to decide the litmus test (if you will) factor as to whether he will be full or decided rank. 

I think it may come down to whether he can make use of his knowledge to help himself and whether he can control his emotions and impulses to keep his abilities at bay when appropriate.  I can say right now I really want to see his physical ability continue to improve, his memory continue to expand and his self-control to improve.  Pie-in-the-sky goal is for him to be able to share his knowledge with someone else - adequately teach some basic skills to another student - and have some decent level of discussion on tactics.

That's just me and my student.  I'm frankly not impressed with what other styles call black belt, but from a progression standpoint, I guess I can see it.  I would proffer this consideration: if a 5-year-old can have a black rank, why can't this young man?  :lol2:


----------



## Instructor

For what it's worth I would rather have one disabled student who always attends class and gives me his or her all than ten healthy people who drift in and out of class and then quit after three months.

Black Belt isn't just about demonstrating techniques it's about the person and their will and attitude.  The spirit to overcome counts for a lot.


----------



## Twin Fist

you dont graduate from college cuz you tried hard.

you graduate by achieving success and passing the minimium standards.

I treat rank the same way.

there is a minimum standard of ability that is required.

otherwise? thats what honorary belts are for



Instructor said:


> Black Belt isn't just about demonstrating techniques it's about the person and their will and attitude.  The spirit to overcome counts for a lot.


----------



## Gnarlie

What about if the person can't do all the things that an able bodied person can do (for example, physical limitations around high kicking and running), but could still beat the snot out of an equivalent graded able bodied person?  Do they get a Dan grade?  Where is the line?


----------



## Dirty Dog

I came up with another example. 

Look at my avatar. I think that's a pretty fair kick from a worn out tired old fat man, landed on a 1st Dan 30 years my junior. But, clearly, my left hand/arm position would be considered less than ideal. Why? Because I had a broken hand at the time, and was in a cast. Keeping that arm out of the way was safest for both myself and my opponent. And good practice, since in a self defense situation, you can't necessarily stop because of an injury.

If adapting to the disability can be done while maintaining effectiveness, then we're back to "close enough".


----------



## dancingalone

Gnarlie said:


> What about if the person can't do all the things that an able bodied person can do (for example, physical limitations around high kicking and running), but could still beat the snot out of an equivalent graded able bodied person?  Do they get a Dan grade?  Where is the line?



Sparring and/or fighting ability trumps a lot of other things in my book.  In the end, we are looking for the application of all this stuff we practice right?  If so, the ability to USE what we learn is the highest measure there is.


----------



## Gnarlie

I used to have a student with a detached retina in one eye.  He was very agile, and could always beat me in sparring unless I deliberately took advantage of the blind spot.  Which of course, I did, and because of that he adapted over time to beat me anyway.  I'm working on new advantages for next time I visit .  He's just got his first dan.


----------



## Twin Fist

proof is in the puddling


----------



## Gnarlie

dancingalone said:


> Sparring and/or fighting ability trumps a lot of other things in my book.  In the end, we are looking for the application of all this stuff we practice right?  If so, the ability to USE what we learn is the highest measure there is.



Totally agree, I was asking Twin Fist, who I thought had taken the hard line, but maybe not judging from his second post.

Can someone who can't kick do TKD if they are great with their hand techniques and can use them as effectively as a kicker can kick?


----------



## Restita D.

Instructor said:


> For what it's worth I would rather have one disabled student who always attends class and gives me his or her all than ten healthy people who drift in and out of class and then quit after three months.
> 
> Black Belt isn't just about demonstrating techniques it's about the person and their will and attitude.  The spirit to overcome counts for a lot.



I wholeheartedly agree.  Does "black belt" only mean "physically capable with all limbs,  faculties, and senses? " I think not.  I've had many physically capable students quit after a few months of hard work,  while less capable or very challenged people stick around each and every day working their button off to learn to perform forms,  techniques and self protection in a way that works effectively for *them* while still trying to keep a certain standard of posture,  intention,  or power.  

-Restita


----------



## lifespantkd

Valuing Taekwondo only for its physical aspects is, for some and quite naturally and understandably, the result of viewing an Eastern martial art through the lense of a Western worldview. When viewed through the lense of an Eastern worldview--the original paradigm in which Taekwondo and other Eastern martial arts are grounded--Taekwondo can be seen to be a holistic physical-mental-spiritual path of human development. In the context of the original Eastern worldview, a high level of physical development in Taekwondo is a grossly inadequate marker of success if that physical skill is not accompanied by a sincere commitment to mental and spiritual development. Through the course of a lifetime, the capacity to continue to develop in non-physical ways persists much longer, on average, than the capacity to maintain a high level of physical ability. When Taekwondo is valued only for its physical aspects, it can only be practiced by an elite few for a relatively small portion of their lifetimes. When it is valued for its physical-mental-spiritual aspects, it can be practiced by almost anyone throughout the lifespan. In this view, success is not found just in the "doing" of physical techniques and rank attainment. It is also found in the mental and spiritual "being" and "becoming" of the practitioner.

Peace,

Cynthia


----------



## Twin Fist

absolutely

it is tae KWON do

if they can kick knee high thats good enough for me. Plus, the end result is, can they fight? as long as they can fight, i can forgive a LOT



Gnarlie said:


> Totally agree, I was asking Twin Fist, who I thought had taken the hard line, but maybe not judging from his second post.
> 
> Can someone who can't kick do TKD if they are great with their hand techniques and can use them as effectively as a kicker can kick?


----------



## Steve

Great thread.  This is a topic I'm interested in, and while it's in the TKD area, it seems that there are many issues that transcend style.  

I've commented on similar threads before, and I will always fall back on my experience working as a professional with folks who are disabled.  I've had supervisors who were blind, had peers who were disabled in many different ways, and have also been a supervisor for employees with various disabilities: blindness, deafness, as well as physical disabilities.

These experiences have shaped my opinions, but they've also helped me clarify and simplify the issue.  

The key for me is to carefully identify what's really important.  As Brad Pitt said in Moneyball, "Guys.  We're asking the wrong questions."  The question isn't whether you should or shouldn't compromise your standards by awarding rank to someone who doesn't qualify.  Clearly, I believe, the answer is self evident. You should not.  

The real question is, "What's are the critical, requisite skills and attributes needed to earn a black belt (at your school)?"  

As others have already noted, no two people have the same skills or talents.  Everyone is already starting off different.  So, in the band of human interaction and ability, where are the lines drawn?

I'd recommend that in order to really get to the root of this issue and begin to fix it, we start by defining standards, and then distinguishing these standards from the means by which we measure success in these standards.  

For example, in BJJ, the standard for earning a blue belt could be "a demonstrable foundation in BJJ techniques."  This isn't very specific, and that's the idea.  Standards are guides, and should be pretty much iron clad.  But if overly defined, they can be limiting and result in situations where you risk compromising your standards unnecessarily. 

Measures ARE specific.  So, a demonstrable foundation in BJJ techniques can be reflected in a number of specific ways.  I'm not as flexible as some, so upside down guard isn't a place I often find myself, but I can discuss tactics and strategies.  I can execute techniques in sparring.  While gold eludes me, I've got a few silver medals under my belt from competition.  I have earned a blue belt, and I've gone on to earn a purple belt.  While my jiu jitsu looks different than others', and there are techniques I can't do that others can, the standard is consistent.  

I don't have a lot of time to really flesh out what I'm thinking, but hopefully, you guys get the idea.  It's about distinguishing the standards from the measurements of those standards.  It's about the spirit or intent of a rank, and the myriad of ways in which that spirit or intent can be demonstrated or judged.


----------



## Steve

Twin Fist said:


> you dont graduate from college cuz you tried hard.
> 
> you graduate by achieving success and passing the minimium standards.
> 
> I treat rank the same way.
> 
> there is a minimum standard of ability that is required.
> 
> otherwise? thats what honorary belts are for


But in college, there are accommodations made.  The key isn't to compromise standards.  In college, a deaf student can have an interpreter.  If the measure of success in a math class is the ability to learn and execute the math functions being taught, and the student is being unnecessarily handicapped not by their impairment, but by the mechanism of instruction, then the student could fail for reasons unrelated to the standards of the school.

Say there's a student in a wheelchair unable to enter the lecture hall because there is no ramp and he can't navigate the stairs.  It's pretty clear that the student will fail the class if he can't attend the lectures.  But is he failing due to his disability?  I'd argue not, and that the reason for his failure is a fundamental misunderstanding of the true nature of the standards for the school.  In this example, we haven't even allowed the student the opportunity to meet the standards. 

In the same way, a martial arts school has standards, but are folks with impairments failing to meet the standards due to their impairment or due to your inability or unwillingness to accommodate their impairment.


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> Sparring and/or fighting ability trumps a lot of other things in my book.  In the end, we are looking for the application of all this stuff we practice right?



Wrong.


----------



## puunui

Steve said:


> But in college, there are accommodations made.  The key isn't to compromise standards.  In college, a deaf student can have an interpreter.  If the measure of success in a math class is the ability to learn and execute the math functions being taught, and the student is being unnecessarily handicapped not by their impairment, but by the mechanism of instruction, then the student could fail for reasons unrelated to the standards of the school.



And in a public school, if accommodations are not made, then it opens up the school and school district to a discrimination claim. You go to a store, there are handicap stalls in the restrooms and handicap parking in the lot in front. Of course accommodations are made for those who are both mentally and physically challenged. This includes taekwondo as well. For example, the WTF has a World Para Taekwondo Championships. We have a competitor from the US who regularly competes and he only has one arm. Technically, he does not qualify for a 1st Dan, because he is unable to do the poomsae movements with the missing arm. And yet he is allowed to compete in the black belt divisions at World Championships.


----------



## SahBumNimRush

I have not had many people that would consider truly "disabled."  I had a blind man who achieved black belt.  He was not born blind, he had been shot in the face with a shotgun about 10 years prior in a turkey hunting accident.  He was able to break boards with a jump back pivot, and he was able to spar with proficiency.  Therefore, I would not say that he was disabled as much as i would say that he was handicapped.  

As for the those with cerebral palsy, that is a different story altogether.  There is a minimum standard, but I grade on those who are realizing their potential.  Have they tried their best, are they committed to their training?  I have held back students who are on the cusp of the "bare minimum" who haven't put forth effort, whereas passed students who are at the bare minimum because they have put forth the best effort that they can.  However, it does all come back to a set standard.


----------



## puunui

And on this subject, I think that the USAT should look into creating an organization for physically and/or mentally challenged practitioners, in the same way that we have separate collegiate and military organizations.


----------



## puunui

SahBumNimRush said:


> There is a minimum standard, but I grade on those who are realizing their potential.  Have they tried their best, are they committed to their training?  I have held back students who are on the cusp of the "bare minimum" who haven't put forth effort, whereas passed students who are at the bare minimum because they have put forth the best effort that they can.  However, it does all come back to a set standard.



Taekwondo is, by definition, an inclusive martial art. All kwan and all schools are a part of it. Everyone should be allowed in and everyone should be allowed the same opportunities to advance and participate.


----------



## Twin Fist

on one hand, you can say college is an intellectual exercise, and there shouldnt be a physical limitation allowed, like wheelchairs and the availability of ramps, only intellectual ones. Bottom line, you have to be smart enough to pass the classes

thats a fair standard

the practice of martial arts is a physical pursuit, so physical impairment is a fair reason to limit someone....at the end of the day, you have to be able to meet the standards.


----------



## puunui

Twin Fist said:


> the practice of martial arts is a physical pursuit, so physical impairment is a fair reason to limit someone....at the end of the day, you have to be able to meet the standards.



PE is a required course in I think every high school. If you cannot do the PE class due to a disability, does that mean you should not be allowed to graduate from high school?


----------



## dancingalone

puunui said:


> Wrong.



Really?  If we seek to study Eastern philosophy solely or even primarily, it would be a much more direct route to seek instruction in another setting.  A temple or monastery comes to mind, perhaps even an academic setting like a university.  A dojang seems to be full of other extraneous things in comparison.

It's certainly possible that pondering the I Ching or reading the writings of Laozi or Sun Tzu can help us grow as martial artists, but the foundation of martial arts, taekwondo included, rests first upon the training of our physical bodies.  Without this first step, there can be no other - this is why prospective monks and priests in the eastern traditions often work hard physical labor in the beginning of their training, to let weariness in their body free them from distractions and thus sharpen the senses and the mind ultimately.

What is TKD without first honing the body?  If beginner has no concept of what and where their body is in relation to the outside, how can he proceed towards self-mastery and then later the 'mastery' of others?


----------



## Markku P

Restita D. said:


> I wholeheartedly agree.  Does "black belt" only mean "physically capable with all limbs,  faculties, and senses? " I think not.  I've had many physically capable students quit after a few months of hard work,  while less capable or very challenged people stick around each and every day working their button off to learn to perform forms,  techniques and self protection in a way that works effectively for *them* while still trying to keep a certain standard of posture,  intention,  or power.
> 
> -Restita



We have to use common sense.  I had a student who couldn't even walk without pain and she still came and did her Taekwondo training with me almost 4 years.
she couldn't do any high kicks, jumping kicks or any spinning movements. But mentally she was one of strongest student I ever had. ( She got her black belt )
Yes, everyone should be able to to train Taekwondo and we have to adjust our black belt tests if needed.

Yours,

Markku P.


----------



## Steve

Twin Fist said:


> on one hand, you can say college is an intellectual exercise, and there shouldnt be a physical limitation allowed, like wheelchairs and the availability of ramps, only intellectual ones. Bottom line, you have to be smart enough to pass the classes
> 
> thats a fair standard
> 
> the practice of martial arts is a physical pursuit, so physical impairment is a fair reason to limit someone....at the end of the day, you have to be able to meet the standards.


I completely agree with this.  The key point I'm making is that there is often confusion about what is a standard and what is a measure.  Often... usually... I'd say that when the discussion turns to specifics, we're talking about measures, where there is room for accommodation.  

And, ultimately, as with people who have no obvious physical or mental impairment, some can hang and others can't.  Plenty of people fail, regardless of whether they are disabled.  

What I'm talking about isn't whether or not a disabled person can fail to earn a black belt.  As with those who are not disabled, some will fail and some will succeed.  What I'm really getting at is, for those of you in positions of influence or authority in your school, are you doing what you can to distill your instruction down to what's really important?


----------



## Steve

Also, someone brought up the legal obligations of a school owner to accommodate under the ADA.  That was actually a thread I started a few years back.  I dug up the link for any who are interested.  I learned a lot from that discussions.  As I said in the opening post of that thread, I'm pretty familiar with work place issues, but was curious to learn more about non-workplace discrimination and the associated issues.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?71712-ADA-and-Martial-Arts-Schools


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

miguksaram said:


> In a nutshell if you have a mentally/physically disabled person as a student, can they reach a black belt in your school if they are unable to perform to the standards like non disabled students can?


Being a kendo instructor, there is no 'belt' in my class, but we do have first dan.

It would really be dependent upon the nature of the disability. A person who does not have the use of their hands would be unable to practice kendo barring some major advancement in prosthetics. On the other hand, a person without the use of their legs could at least learn to use the sword. While it isn't kendo, there is a wheel chair division in fencing.

Mental disabilities are another where I would be hesitant to just say yes/no because not all mental disabilities are the same. 

Forrest Gump was mentioned in another thread. While a gent like ol' Gump might be unable to pursue theoretical physics, he'd do just dandy in martial arts. A person with a mental illness that causes them to be violent, however, I would refuse to arm with a weapon.

In short, I would say that it would be a case by case basis. 

I also think that for people with disabilities, certain arts are a better fit depending upon the disability. Someone posted an article here on MT a few years back about a blind judoka. The gent was the target of an attempted mugging, but once the mugger was touching him, he had no trouble making a pretzel out of the mugger. On the other hand, striking arts might not be the best fit.

Finally, I think that we need to draw a distinction between training a disabled person and whether or not their particular disability would prevent them from earning a first dan in our system.  Part of that depends upon the nature of the disability and part of it depends upon what a first dan represents in a particular school/style/org.


----------



## SahBumNimRush

puunui said:


> Taekwondo is, by definition, an inclusive martial art. All kwan and all schools are a part of it. Everyone should be allowed in and everyone should be allowed the same opportunities to advance and participate.



I don't disagree, to a point.  For example, we had a perspective student years ago with significant birth defects that presented serious physical handicaps.  Not that he didn't have the mental ability to learn, but his skull was very thin and very soft, which made the practice of Taekwondo a serious risk for him.  It was against his doctors' recommendations to participate, and ultimately our instructor chose not to accept him as a student.  He had inner ear problems which gave him significant balance problems (which if that were the only problem it wouldn't have been an issue).  If he were to even fall during floor exercises it could have left him with a serious concussion, even with matted floors.  At what point does a desire to learn/participate outweigh the risk of serious harm/potential death?  What responsibility does an instructor/school owner have on taking vs. denying a potential student?  

We have modified requirements for those with limitations, just as you had mentioned about the Taekwondoin with one arm (which I don't consider a disability so much as I do a handicap).  So while there has only been one potential student at our school that I can ever remember that has been turned away, IMO it was with good reason and sound judgement.


----------



## chrispillertkd

miguksaram said:


> In a nutshell if you have a mentally/physically disabled person as a student, can they reach a black belt in your school if they are unable to perform to the standards like non disabled students can?



I met one gentleman who had no arms and was a II dan in Taekwon-Do. He was, to put it mildly, an awesome kicker. He demonstrated his version of the patterns, which consisted completely of foot techniques. I know it would be very difficult for me to do them nearly as well as he did (his Kwang-Gae was very cool). 

A teenager used to train at my instructors' school who only  had one arm. He quit at 3rd gup, IIRC, but was every bit as good as students of the same rank who had no physical limitation. 

Grand Master Ra, Young-Chul was missing one of his hands (and part of his forearm, I think). He was phenomenal.

I trained with a student at my instructors' school who was mentally slow (most likely he had mild mental retardation). He got his I dan and all of the students present were very impressed at how good his test was. He totally dominated in free sparring. He was an excellent black belt.

The point of all these examples is that people can overcome handicaps and excell at whatever endeavor they engage in. The real question is why are people _without_ such disabilities being promoted in the first place when their training can only be described as lackluster? I've seen more non-disable people promoted to black belt who either couldn't or wouldn't put forth any effort than I have seen disabled people who weren't worthy of being promoted. Not exactly answering your question, but  I hope you see my point.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> Really?  If we seek to study Eastern philosophy solely or even primarily, it would be a much more direct route to seek instruction in another setting.  A temple or monastery comes to mind, perhaps even an academic setting like a university.  A dojang seems to be full of other extraneous things in comparison.
> 
> It's certainly possible that pondering the I Ching or reading the writings of Laozi or Sun Tzu can help us grow as martial artists, but the foundation of martial arts, taekwondo included, rests first upon the training of our physical bodies.  Without this first step, there can be no other - this is why prospective monks and priests in the eastern traditions often work hard physical labor in the beginning of their training, to let weariness in their body free them from distractions and thus sharpen the senses and the mind ultimately.
> 
> What is TKD without first honing the body?  If beginner has no concept of what and where their body is in relation to the outside, how can he proceed towards self-mastery and then later the 'mastery' of others?



But that is not what you said. You said this: 



dancingalone said:


> Sparring and/or fighting ability trumps a lot of other things in my  book.  In the end, we are looking for the application of all this stuff  we practice right?



Not everyone is looking for sparring, fighting ability or application of the stuff we practice. I would even go so far as to say most people are not interested in this. Most people, which are white and color belt beginners, are there to get some exercise, lose weight, improve concentration or coordination, gain self confidence, etc. They are not there to learn how to fight. Even the ones who are focused on these things, when young, often times continue their training in their older years for different reasons, health being the biggest one.


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> The real question is why are people _without_ such disabilities being promoted in the first place when their training can only be described as lackluster? I've seen more non-disable people promoted to black belt who either couldn't or wouldn't put forth any effort than I have seen disabled people who weren't worthy of being promoted. Not exactly answering your question, but  I hope you see my point.



I suppose there are those who, having no students of their own, feel the need or desire to judge other people's students. For me personally, if an instructor chooses to promote someone to whatever rank, then I feel we should respect that decision. Otherwise, we end up being the nosy neighbor who constantly criticizes what others are doing around the block. I don't care what my neighbor's lawn looks like, or how they raise their kids. That's their business.


----------



## TKDinAK

Markku P said:


> We have to use common sense.  I had a student who couldn't even walk without pain and she still came and did her Taekwondo training with me almost 4 years.
> she couldn't do any high kicks, jumping kicks or any spinning movements. But mentally she was one of strongest student I ever had. ( She got her black belt )
> Yes, everyone should be able to to train Taekwondo and we have to adjust our black belt tests if needed.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Markku P.



We have several autistic people training in our dojang. I believe it's part of an off site program that one of our students is a part of of. She is always in attendance with them, and gives them a little extra attention. But when they test, they are required to complete all the physical aspects.

That said... and without speaking to my instructor about it yet... it seems he has the same attitude as you Markku. He adjusts his requirements... to what extent, I don't know.


----------



## Carol

Steve said:


> But in college, there are accommodations made.  The key isn't to compromise standards.  In college, a deaf student can have an interpreter.  If the measure of success in a math class is the ability to learn and execute the math functions being taught, and the student is being unnecessarily handicapped not by their impairment, but by the mechanism of instruction, then the student could fail for reasons unrelated to the standards of the school.
> 
> Say there's a student in a wheelchair unable to enter the lecture hall because there is no ramp and he can't navigate the stairs.  It's pretty clear that the student will fail the class if he can't attend the lectures.  But is he failing due to his disability?  I'd argue not, and that the reason for his failure is a fundamental misunderstanding of the true nature of the standards for the school.  In this example, we haven't even allowed the student the opportunity to meet the standards.
> 
> In the same way, a martial arts school has standards, but are folks with impairments failing to meet the standards due to their impairment or due to your inability or unwillingness to accommodate their impairment.



Even more on point -- colleges are about learning, yet many colleges have outreach for the learning-disabled.  There are even colleges such as Landmark in Vermont who have decided to focus exclusively on teaching the learning-disabled.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/education/edlife/09landmark-t.html?pagewanted=all

Travis Miller is a 5th degree in American Kenpo.  I wouldn't mess with him or his 400 pound wheelchair.    I dare anyone to tell him to his face that he shouldn't be a black belt because he can't kick.  Oh, and put it on youtube, eh?  :lol:


----------



## puunui

Carol said:


> Even more on point -- colleges are about learning, yet many colleges have outreach for the learning-disabled.  There are even colleges such as Landmark in Vermont who have decided to focus exclusively on teaching the learning-disabled.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/education/edlife/09landmark-t.html?pagewanted=all



There is also gallaudet university for the deaf in washington dc.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

puunui said:


> Not everyone is looking for sparring, fighting ability or application of the stuff we practice. I would even go so far as to say most people are not interested in this. Most people, which are white and color belt beginners, are there to get some exercise, lose weight, improve concentration or coordination, gain self confidence, etc. They are not there to learn how to fight. Even the ones who are focused on these things, when young, often times continue their training in their older years for different reasons, health being the biggest one.



What are you using to support this position?  Is this your opinion or is there data to suggest why the majority of people are taking TKD?


----------



## SahBumNimRush

Kong Soo Do said:


> What are you using to support this position?  Is this your opinion or is there data to suggest why the majority of people are taking TKD?



While I have no data to back it up, annectodetally, I find Glenn's statement to be true; at least in my dojang.  Kids come in because it sounds fun, they see stuff on TV or the movies, or their parents bring them in for various reasons.  Teens and Adults, by in large, come in for health/fitness/self defense reasons, most are not looking to be the next heavyweight champion.  

I will admit that those seeking self-defense training are in-directly (or directly perhaps) looking to learn how to fight, but those people are still the minority in my class.  I'm sure depending on how you market your school, you may attract specific audiences to your classes though.

However, no matter their reason for joining, they all learn how to handle themselves in a physical altercation in my class.  Some sooner and easier than others.. .


----------



## Kong Soo Do

SahBumNimRush said:


> While I have no data to back it up, annectodetally, I find Glenn's statement to be true; at least in my dojang.  Kids come in because it sounds fun, they see stuff on TV or the movies, or their parents bring them in for various reasons.  Teens and Adults, by in large, come in for health/fitness/self defense reasons, most are not looking to be the next heavyweight champion.
> 
> I will admit that those seeking self-defense training are in-directly (or directly perhaps) looking to learn how to fight, but those people are still the minority in my class.  I'm sure depending on how you market your school, you may attract specific audiences to your classes though.
> 
> However, no matter their reason for joining, they all learn how to handle themselves in a physical altercation in my class.  Some sooner and easier than others.. .



I appreciate your input.  I can fully see the children falling into this category.


----------



## dancingalone

puunui said:


> But that is not what you said. You said this:



Yes, there does seem to be a break in the flow of thought there.  I'll try to clarify.

The highest bodily expression of any martial art is to engage physically with one (or more) person and to seek to defeat him using the tactics and skills we have learned.  It's the culmination of what we have studied for, using innate and developed physical and mental assets all within a span of minutes if not seconds.  Things like perception, comprehension, decision-making, response, endurance, toughness, willpower, and so on.  We develop these qualities a few at a time through disciplined practice, but we never get to utilize them all except when confronting another skilled martial artist/fighter in an effort to best him.

I argue that accordingly this is the capstone of the physical aspect of martial arts and in some respects the mental part too.  

Now can you train for a lesser goal intentionally or otherwise?  Of course, but then you're missing out on much of the reason for martial arts in the first place.  If you're into healthy exercise, I think there are lots of other avenues more targeted towards cardio work, towards suppleness, towards strength building, or towards whatever health benefit we want to derive.  If you're into spiritual development, there are probably better sources than the average TKD instructor.  Martial arts can help someone reach those goals, but really there's much extraneous stuff to sift through in the process.

So why not get back to basics?  What is a martial art, taekwondo included, for?  I argue fighting first and foremost.




puunui said:


> Not everyone is looking for sparring, fighting ability or application of the stuff we practice. I would even go so far as to say most people are not interested in this. Most people, which are white and color belt beginners, are there to get some exercise, lose weight, improve concentration or coordination, gain self confidence, etc. They are not there to learn how to fight. Even the ones who are focused on these things, when young, often times continue their training in their older years for different reasons, health being the biggest one.



I don't necessarily disagree with the accuracy of what you are saying.  I do feel somewhat however that we have lost our way by becoming defacto health clubs and daycares.


----------



## lifespantkd

SahBumNimRush said:


> While I have no data to back it up, annectodetally, I find Glenn's statement to be true; at least in my dojang. Kids come in because it sounds fun, they see stuff on TV or the movies, or their parents bring them in for various reasons. Teens and Adults, by in large, come in for health/fitness/self defense reasons, most are not looking to be the next heavyweight champion.



None of the new students in a family class for beginners that I teach started practicing Taekwondo in order to learn self defense. I know this for a fact because I ask each student to complete a new student survey so that I can get to know them. In part of that survey, I ask them to put a check mark by various aspects of Taekwondo that represent what they are interested in learning. Self-defense is on that list. So far, no one has checked it--not one adult for him- or herself and not one adult on behalf of his or her child. While this is hardly a randomized national survey and people's motivations for practicing Taekwondo can (and often do) change over time, it certainly lends support to what my overall impression has been: if you market to the general public (not blatantly to a niche subpopulation), most people are not initially interested in learning self defense. Of course, that doesn't have to solely be what drives your curriculum. But, it's essential to know what motivates a learner if your want your teaching to be effective, perhaps especially if you think it's important that students eventually learn something that they're not initially interested in learning, such as self defense.

Cynthia


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> I don't necessarily disagree with the accuracy of what you are saying.  I do feel somewhat however that we have lost our way by becoming defacto health clubs and daycares.



Believe me, I understand how you feel. It is disappointing to me as well. But you have to roll with the times. Of course, you can try to continue to be a dinosaur and stress hard core self defense training to be ready for the bogeyman that never comes, but you will end up with a very tiny pool from which to develop students. Which may not be a bad thing. Afterall, the Okinawan practitioners did not run large classes. They practiced in their backyards with a couple few people. Adopt their mentality, and you will invariably adopt their student numbers as well, which is where I suspect the vast majority of anti kukkiwon, anti sport anti this or that types are operating, with no school or a tiny school operating out of someone's garage, shaking their fists at the moon and decrying the commercialization of the martial arts, as the successful dojang operators drive to the other side of town in automobiles which cost about as much or more than the houses of the anti types. 

You have a commercial dojang now. Which road do you want to head down, the path that leads to two hard core students, or the one that leads to 500 happy smiling ones whose positive attitudes their parents credit to you?


----------



## puunui

lifespantkd said:


> While this is hardly a randomized national survey and people's motivations for practicing Taekwondo can (and often do) change over time, it certainly lends support to what my overall impression has been: if you market to the general public (not blatantly to a niche subpopulation), most people are not initially interested in learning self defense.



If this is news to someone, then I would say that that person is grossly out of touch with what is going on out there as far as the martial arts and the public at large. This is obvious to anyone who is out there, young old parent child, it doesn't really matter. Some people are interested in primarily self defense, but they are not generally attracted to taekwondo schools. Which is fine with me, to tell the truth. Taekwondo or any art really, does not have to be everything for everyone.


----------



## mastercole

puunui said:


> Believe me, I understand how you feel. It is disappointing to me as well. But you have to roll with the times. Of course, you can try to continue to be a dinosaur and stress hard core self defense training to be ready for the bogeyman that never comes, but you will end up with a very tiny pool from which to develop students. Which may not be a bad thing. Afterall, the Okinawan practitioners did not run large classes. They practiced in their backyards with a couple few people. Adopt their mentality, and you will invariably adopt their student numbers as well, which is where I suspect the vast majority of anti kukkiwon, anti sport anti this or that types are operating, with no school or a tiny school operating out of someone's garage, shaking their fists at the moon and decrying the commercialization of the martial arts, as the successful dojang operators drive to the other side of town in automobiles which cost about as much or more than the houses of the anti types.
> 
> You have a commercial dojang now. Which road do you want to head down, the path that leads to two hard core students, or the one that leads to 500 happy smiling ones whose positive attitudes their parents credit to you?



The solution is simple for me.  Why not have both?   Teach the best you can for the masses, tolerate it and search out the students with potential, invited those to intense training with other like minded students.  That is what I do.  They in turn set a great example for your regular students to follow.


----------



## mastercole

The disabled should be able to climb as high as they can in Taekwondo.  We have examples of that today.

I know a guy who is missing part of his brain. Amazingly enough, at his last Dan test, the testing panel decided to skip him from 2nd to 4th Dan.


----------



## mastercole

puunui said:


> I suppose there are those who, having no students of their own, feel the need or desire to judge other people's students. For me personally, if an instructor chooses to promote someone to whatever rank, then I feel we should respect that decision. Otherwise, we end up being the nosy neighbor who constantly criticizes what others are doing around the block. I don't care what my neighbor's lawn looks like, or how they raise their kids. That's their business.



"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~ C.S. Lewis


----------



## SahBumNimRush

lifespantkd said:


> None of the new students in a family class for beginners that I teach started practicing Taekwondo in order to learn self defense. I know this for a fact because I ask each student to complete a new student survey so that I can get to know them. In part of that survey, I ask them to put a check mark by various aspects of Taekwondo that represent what they are interested in learning. Self-defense is on that list. *So far, no one has checked it*--not one adult for him- or herself and not one adult on behalf of his or her child. While this is hardly a randomized national survey and people's motivations for practicing Taekwondo can (and often do) change over time, it certainly lends support to what my overall impression has been: if you market to the general public (not blatantly to a niche subpopulation), most people are not initially interested in learning self defense. Of course, that doesn't have to solely be what drives your curriculum. But, it's essential to know what motivates a learner if your want your teaching to be effective, perhaps especially if you think it's important that students eventually learn something that they're not initially interested in learning, such as self defense.
> 
> Cynthia



I think that it is really important to understand why your students are joining your class and what they expect to gain out of participating, so I applaud your effort to do so.  

However, in the 40 years the we've had a school in this small town, we've had many who joined for SD reasons.  I could be that we are one of the only "reputable" martial arts schools in a very small town, so people don't have a lot of options if they are seeking self-defense skills.  We've had battered/raped women, law enforcement (although not so much SD oriented), bullied children/teens/adults, and parents enrolling their teens prior to going off to college on their own; that have all joined for the primary reason of learning how to defend themselves.

While this is still the minority in reasons for joining, I cannot state, like you have, that it has *never* happened.  

**As a side note, we've also had many students who've been attacked outside of class, and all of them have successfully defended themselves.  Many have been our female students against a male aggressor.**


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

While this is the taekwondo section, I thought this video was appropriate.  It is a kendo documentary, but one of the people that they focus on is a one armed kendoka.  Very inspiring.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de6umoFjDMo&feature=related


----------



## Twin Fist

this is the biggest bunch of elitest snobbery i have seen on this board.






puunui said:


> which is where I suspect the vast majority of anti kukkiwon, anti sport anti this or that types are operating, with no school or a tiny school operating out of someone's garage, shaking their fists at the moon and decrying the commercialization of the martial arts, as the successful dojang operators drive to the other side of town in automobiles which cost about as much or more than the houses of the anti types.
> 
> You have a commercial dojang now. Which road do you want to head down, the path that leads to two hard core students, or the one that leads to 500 happy smiling ones whose positive attitudes their parents credit to you?


----------



## Twin Fist

mastercole said:


> The disabled should be able to climb as high as they can in Taekwondo.  We have examples of that today.
> 
> I know a guy who is missing part of his brain. Amazingly enough, at his last Dan test, the testing panel decided to skip him from 2nd to 4th Dan.



seriously? you are not clever, everyone knows what you just did


----------



## dancingalone

lifespantkd said:


> None of the new students in a family class for beginners that I teach started practicing Taekwondo in order to learn self defense. I know this for a fact because I ask each student to complete a new student survey so that I can get to know them.



Your sample population already has the type of student pre-selected to a great extent.  As Sabumnim Rush has stated, marketing can influence the type of students that come in the door.  

As do things like location and facilities.  I've hired a physical trainer who is young and very fit to greet prospects.  As a result, I believe we're signing a higher rate of people who might eventually be interested in learning an elite level of martial arts once they assimilate and see there is more to TKD than just getting or maintaining physical fitness.  I've also erected six permanent hanging heavy bags and plan on adding a boxing ring which I think will add to the serious look of the school.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

puunui said:


> Believe me, I understand how you feel. It is disappointing to me as well. But you have to roll with the times. Of course, you can try to continue to be a dinosaur and stress hard core self defense training to be ready for the bogeyman that never comes, but you will end up with a very tiny pool from which to develop students. Which may not be a bad thing. Afterall, the Okinawan practitioners did not run large classes. They practiced in their backyards with a couple few people. Adopt their mentality, and you will invariably adopt their student numbers as well, which is where I suspect the vast majority of anti kukkiwon, anti sport anti this or that types are operating, with no school or a tiny school operating out of someone's garage, shaking their fists at the moon and decrying the commercialization of the martial arts, as the successful dojang operators drive to the other side of town in automobiles which cost about as much or more than the houses of the anti types.
> 
> You have a commercial dojang now. Which road do you want to head down, the path that leads to two hard core students, or the one that leads to 500 happy smiling ones whose positive attitudes their parents credit to you?


Generally, the only part of commercialization that most of us, KKW or not, decry is obvious money grabs.  I have no problem with a commercial school, but I do have a problem with the commercialization of the art.

It isn't just taekwondo or the martial arts that suffer this either.  Commercialization generally kills what makes a product unique and good unless the commercial entities that purvey it are very careful to keep that from happening.  Look at the original Scion cars.  They were marketed in a unique way and very thoughtfully designed.  And so they became popular.  Then Toyota produced the second generation, which, while still good cars, had none of the appeal or thoughtfulness of the first generation.  Now they have an entire division that makes cars that few people want that competes with their bread and butter compacts (Yaris and Corolla). 

I think that a large commercial school has the means to do great things for the art and for the students.  Even one that uses a "McDojo" style business model.

It isn't being large and successful that people decry.  It is forgetting what made the art special and why you started teaching it in the first place.


----------



## dancingalone

mastercole said:


> The solution is simple for me.  Why not have both?   Teach the best you can for the masses, tolerate it and search out the students with potential, invited those to intense training with other like minded students.  That is what I do.  They in turn set a great example for your regular students to follow.



I've read a few of your posts on the subject with interest.  Some of the Chinese schools I am familiar with do something similar also.  They run a regular fun school for the masses and those that show interest and ability are invited into another class where the training is more in depth and tougher.


----------



## Grenadier

Thread closed, pending staff review.  

-Ronald Shin
-MT Assistant Administrator


----------



## MJS

Admin Note

Folks,

I don't think I have to remind anyone of the rules here.  I'm sure everyone has been here long enough to know that personal shots are a forum violation.  Keep the personal dislikes off the board please.

MJS
MT Asst. Admin


----------



## MJS

*Admin Note

This thread is now being reopened.  Please remember the rules, and keep things civil.  Further disruption will result in it being reclosed.

MJS
MT Asst. Admin*


----------



## Steve

First, thanks to the mods for reopening this thread. 



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Generally, the only part of commercialization that most of us, KKW or not, decry is obvious money grabs.  I have no problem with a commercial school, but I do have a problem with the commercialization of the art.
> 
> It isn't just taekwondo or the martial arts that suffer this either.  Commercialization generally kills what makes a product unique and good unless the commercial entities that purvey it are very careful to keep that from happening.  Look at the original Scion cars.  They were marketed in a unique way and very thoughtfully designed.  And so they became popular.  Then Toyota produced the second generation, which, while still good cars, had none of the appeal or thoughtfulness of the first generation.  Now they have an entire division that makes cars that few people want that competes with their bread and butter compacts (Yaris and Corolla).
> 
> I think that a large commercial school has the means to do great things for the art and for the students.  Even one that uses a "McDojo" style business model.
> 
> It isn't being large and successful that people decry.  It is forgetting what made the art special and why you started teaching it in the first place.


I agree with almost everything you've said.  The only thing I'd add is, what made the art special includes transparency in what you're teaching, and integrity within the system.  In other words, if you compromise the standards of the system in order to make the style accessible to a wider student base (whether that's to open it up to children or whatever), it has to be done in a way that maintains the integrity of the style.


----------



## shesulsa

mastercole said:


> The solution is simple for me.  Why not have both?   Teach the best you can for the masses, tolerate it and search out the students with potential, invited those to intense training with other like minded students.  That is what I do.  They in turn set a great example for your regular students to follow.



This comes back to something I've said many times before, stand firm with in martial arts training philosophy and will reiterate here - people come to martial arts for a myriad of reasons. I like to see people try to stretch their limits, grow, do things they never saw themselves doing. I really like to see when people understand the science behind joint manipulation, pain compliance and the overall benefit to a full curriculum.  If they can make use of the material to serve their purposes and I feel they've worked REALLY hard to reach a plateau where they understand the basics, have them memorized and available to their consciousness, can be responsible with the knowledge they have and have come out on the other side improved ... what is really wrong with that?  Others come for personal enrichment. Others come for self-defense. Others come to find something they can take to competition. Others come to augment their physical training either for their amateur sport of interest or their profession.

Adaption for physical ability deficits (blindness, deafness, paralysis, neurotransmission, etcetera) would be in keeping with that philosophy, would it not?


----------



## shesulsa

Steve said:


> First, thanks to the mods for reopening this thread.
> 
> 
> I agree with almost everything you've said.  The only thing I'd add is, what made the art special includes transparency in what you're teaching, and integrity within the system.  In other words, if you compromise the standards of the system in order to make the style accessible to a wider student base (whether that's to open it up to children or whatever), it has to be done in a way that maintains the integrity of the style.



I agree - is that not a good testament as to a master teacher? The ability to understand how the art works so well that you can adapt it to different situations, such as if you have a broken arm or twisted knee? Self-defense techniques from a seated position? Would that not be, instead of compromising an art, enhancing it or at least applying it from a different perspective?

The way I see it, the possible compromise would have to come in training mentally, developmentally or intellectually challenged students and exactly how the accommodations you make for them actually "reduce" the quality of their training as it applies to the art.


----------



## Tez3

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Being a kendo instructor, there is no 'belt' in my class, but we do have first dan.
> 
> It would really be dependent upon the nature of the disability.* A person who does not have the use of their hands would be unable to practice kendo barring some major advancement in prosthetics.* On the other hand, a person without the use of their legs could at least learn to use the sword. While it isn't kendo, there is a wheel chair division in fencing.
> 
> Mental disabilities are another where I would be hesitant to just say yes/no because not all mental disabilities are the same.
> 
> Forrest Gump was mentioned in another thread. While a gent like ol' Gump might be unable to pursue theoretical physics, he'd do just dandy in martial arts. A person with a mental illness that causes them to be violent, however, I would refuse to arm with a weapon.
> 
> In short, I would say that it would be a case by case basis.
> 
> I also think that for people with disabilities, certain arts are a better fit depending upon the disability. Someone posted an article here on MT a few years back about a blind judoka. The gent was the target of an attempted mugging, but once the mugger was touching him, he had no trouble making a pretzel out of the mugger. On the other hand, striking arts might not be the best fit.
> 
> Finally, I think that we need to draw a distinction between training a disabled person and whether or not their particular disability would prevent them from earning a first dan in our system. Part of that depends upon the nature of the disability and part of it depends upon what a first dan represents in a particular school/style/org.




I'm so glad this thread has opened again as I've been dying to tell you that one of our soldiers who lost an arm in Afghan has gone to Austria to be fitted with a new prosthetic arm that he can control with his mind. It looks like he's a prospective Kendo student though I know he's more into motor biking.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-16702983


----------



## miguksaram

Kong Soo Do said:


> What are you using to support this position?  Is this your opinion or is there data to suggest why the majority of people are taking TKD?


I can support his opinion by using the data from my own classes.  I pooled all the parents who have their kids in my classes at the health club.  I currently have 32 kids.  Out of that 32 kids, I have only one that signed up for the main purpose of learning fighting techniques so he can compete in competition.  I have one student who was signed up to learn how to defend herself.  Outside of that I have 20 students who were signed up to help improve focus and discipline.  8 students who were signed up for the purpose of exercise and 2 students that were signed up to give them something to do while their parents worked out.

I have only 5 adults in my class.  None of them signed up to learn fighting skills as their main purpose.  They all signed up for a different way of exercising and increase flexibility.  Fighting or self-defense was more of an added perk.

So yes, not everyone signs up for the purpose of learning how to fight.


----------



## miguksaram

As an addition, out of my 32 kids, I have one high functioning autistic, one ADD and one with another form of learning disability.  To answer my own question, yes, they all have a chance to make it to black belt.  It just may take them a lot longer than most.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

miguksaram said:


> I can support his opinion by using the data from my own classes. I pooled all the parents who have their kids in my classes at the health club. I currently have 32 kids. Out of that 32 kids, I have only one that signed up for the main purpose of learning fighting techniques so he can compete in competition. I have one student who was signed up to learn how to defend herself. Outside of that I have 20 students who were signed up to help improve focus and discipline. 8 students who were signed up for the purpose of exercise and 2 students that were signed up to give them something to do while their parents worked out.
> 
> I have only 5 adults in my class. None of them signed up to learn fighting skills as their main purpose. They all signed up for a different way of exercising and increase flexibility. Fighting or self-defense was more of an added perk.
> 
> So yes, not everyone signs up for the purpose of learning how to fight.


My experience and observation is the same.  The classes are more fun than lifting weights or using stationary machines (stairmasters, treadmills, etc.) and the uniforms are more flattering to the average person than a lot of work out attire.  Parents send their kids to MA class because the kids think its cool and it gets them up off of their buts.

One observation though is that people who take the classes are aware that it is a fighting system, so the 'not only do I get into shape, but I can learn to fight' is an appeal to some, but their primary reason for signing up is not the fighting element.


----------



## puunui

Daniel Sullivan said:


> While this is the taekwondo section, I thought this video was appropriate.  It is a kendo documentary, but one of the people that they focus on is a one armed kendoka.  Very inspiring.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de6umoFjDMo&feature=related




There is a long time kendo practitioner here with no legs. He uses one arm to move around, and he holds his shinai one handed with the other. He's been around for at least 25 or more years because I remember watching a class and seeing him back then and recently saw him again at a different location.


----------



## lifespantkd

dancingalone said:


> Your sample population already has the type of student pre-selected to a great extent. As Sabumnim Rush has stated, marketing can influence the type of students that come in the door.
> 
> As do things like location and facilities. I've hired a physical trainer who is young and very fit to greet prospects. As a result, I believe we're signing a higher rate of people who might eventually be interested in learning an elite level of martial arts once they assimilate and see there is more to TKD than just getting or maintaining physical fitness. I've also erected six permanent hanging heavy bags and plan on adding a boxing ring which I think will add to the serious look of the school.



Yes, I'm sure you're right. I'm currently a volunteer who has just recently begun teaching an intergenerational class that is comprised of almost all brand new beginners. I don't have my own facility that conveys a particular image. But, by the very nature of the class being an intergenerational class, I agree that certain people are more likely to be interested than others. Interestingly, my information sheet about the group included a listing of various aspects of Taekwondo; self defense was on that list. Since I have just begun teaching, there's extremely little history of reported initial interest to consider. But, that's what it is so far: no one has checked "self defense" as an initial interest yet. I, however, am very interested in self defense and always have been, even when I first started learning Taekwondo--in a family class.

Cynthia


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

puunui said:


> There is a long time kendo practitioner here with no legs. He uses one arm to move around, and he holds his shinai one handed with the other. He's been around for at least 25 or more years because I remember watching a class and seeing him back then and recently saw him again at a different location.


Did he compete in shiai?  Regardless, I think that it is great that he's practicing.


----------



## Jason Striker II

Anent all this, I was thinking of Ted Vollrath, who I saw demo, when back when.

http://www.bohans-family.com/Articles/vollwrath/vollwrath.htm


----------



## Gemini

miguksaram said:


> In a nutshell if you have a mentally/physically disabled person as a student, can they reach a black belt in your school if they are unable to perform to the standards like non disabled students can?


This question is really no different than any other question asked with defined limitations. Once you start defining what's considered acceptable, everyone on this board is ultimately subject to fail. It's just a matter of asking the right question because we all have limitations. Especially when it focuses primarily on the physical. 


I believe training is for everyone. I believe the purpose of training in an art is to try to expand our abilities both physically, and mentally and for some, even spiritually. To be a better person on multiple levels. I can say in all honesty that I have never regretted mine or anyone else's decision to promote a handicapped individual. Unfortunately, I can't say that for some other "normal" folks. Questions like these pertain to only a single aspect of what we train. Like a "Black Belt" is some ultimate goal. What about those who are physically limited but very capable of nurturing junior students? At the same time I realize I would be naive to think some people do otherwise.


----------



## Steve

Gemini said:


> This question is really no different than any other question asked with defined limitations. Once you start defining what's considered acceptable, everyone on this board is ultimately subject to fail. It's just a matter of asking the right question because we all have limitations. Especially when it focuses primarily on the physical.
> 
> 
> I believe training is for everyone. I believe the purpose of training in an art is to try to expand our abilities both physically, and mentally and for some, even spiritually. To be a better person on multiple levels. I can say in all honesty that I have never regretted mine or anyone else's decision to promote a handicapped individual. Unfortunately, I can't say that for some other "normal" folks. Questions like these pertain to only a single aspect of what we train. Like a "Black Belt" is some ultimate goal. What about those who are physically limited but very capable of nurturing junior students? At the same time I realize I would be naive to think some people do otherwise.


I think you've redefined the question.  The OP didn't ask what's acceptable, or whether someone with a defined limitation (be it a physical impairment or something else) would benefit from training.  And it didn't suggest that people with a disability be precluded from training at all.

The question is, can a disabled student earn a black belt if they are unable to perform to the standards of a non-disabled student?  While I don't disagree with the spirit of your post, you're answering a question that wasn't asked.  It seems to me that you're really getting at whether a disabled student can benefit from training, and it sounds like we both agree that the answer is yes.


----------



## ETinCYQX

I'm sure this will be an unpopular view but to me, black belt is a very personal thing. What I want out of each person wearing the belt is very different.


----------



## Steve

ETinCYQX said:


> I'm sure this will be an unpopular view but to me, black belt is a very personal thing. What I want out of each person wearing the belt is very different.


I don't know about unpopular, but I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that your standards for black belt are arbitrary?


----------



## dancingalone

ETinCYQX said:


> I'm sure this will be an unpopular view but to me, black belt is a very personal thing. What I want out of each person wearing the belt is very different.



On the contrary.  I believe your position is actually the prevailing one.  

I still believe there should be some common objective criteria that needs to be met however.


----------



## ETinCYQX

No, I'm saying I don't expect a 55 year old bb candidate to do the same things I expect a 20 year old candidate to do.


----------



## Tez3

ETinCYQX said:


> No, I'm saying I don't expect a 55 year old bb candidate to do the same things I expect a 20 year old candidate to do.



Don't forget old and sneaky beats young and fit any day.


----------



## ETinCYQX

Sure 

I'll elaborate in a minute. Doing about 90 things right now


----------



## Gemini

Steve said:


> I think you've redefined the question.


 To some degree I did, but to me it all ties in together. I don't regard a black belt as an ultimate goal as miguksaram's question indicated, but more a milestone. It's a short term objective in a long process. I also focused on the point that if a student has a limitation defined for them as to what they can achieve, they will fail. As miguksaram phrased the question, to me, there should never be such a thing as a student with limitations imposed on them. The latter part of his question "_if they are unable to perform to the standards like non disabled students can". _I don't know any two people who perform standards at the same level, handicapped or otherwise. Why should "handicapped" even become part of the equation.


----------



## Carol

Gemini said:


> To some degree I did, but to me it all ties in together. I don't regard a black belt as an ultimate goal as miguksaram's question indicated, but more a milestone. It's a short term objective in a long process. I also focused on the point that if a student has a limitation defined for them as to what they can achieve, they will fail. As miguksaram phrased the question, to me, there should never be such a thing as a student with limitations imposed on them. The latter part of his question "_if they are unable to perform to the standards like non disabled students can". _I don't know any two people who perform standards at the same level, handicapped or otherwise. Why should "handicapped" even become part of the equation.



I agree with you, and the overall sentiment.  Earlier in the thread someone...I think it was Daniel...made the comment that a decision to take on a handicapped student would be made on a case by case basis.  I can understand what he is trying to say, perhaps there are people with disabilities that he doesn't feel he can work with.  But isn't a decision to take on any student made on a case-by-case basis?   I don't think "handicapped" should be part of the equation there either.   There will be students out there that aren't a fit for a school for many reasons.


----------



## Tez3

ETinCYQX said:


> Sure
> 
> I'll elaborate in a minute. Doing about 90 things right now



If it's age you think is a handicap look at this, a 55 year old man who did the Royal Marine Commando course and earned his Green Beret, not an honorory one, he went out and trained, earnt it.
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve..._tv/s/1016727_chris_right_in_the_line_of_fire


----------



## puunui

Tez3 said:


> Don't forget old and sneaky beats young and fit any day.



No it doesn't.


----------



## puunui

Gemini said:


> I don't regard a black belt as an ultimate goal as miguksaram's question indicated, but more a milestone. It's a short term objective in a long process.



A lot of people do think that the "black belt" is the ultimate goal. That's one of the reasons why so many quit after reaching that level.


----------



## Steve

Gemini said:


> To some degree I did, but to me it all ties in together. I don't regard a black belt as an ultimate goal as miguksaram's question indicated, but more a milestone. It's a short term objective in a long process. I also focused on the point that if a student has a limitation defined for them as to what they can achieve, they will fail. As miguksaram phrased the question, to me, there should never be such a thing as a student with limitations imposed on them. The latter part of his question "_if they are unable to perform to the standards like non disabled students can". _I don't know any two people who perform standards at the same level, handicapped or otherwise. Why should "handicapped" even become part of the equation.


Just to be clear, I agree with most of what you're saying, but where I run into problems is when you get to the point where you've essentially explained away any need for standards.

Am I the only one who sees no conflict between holding students to consistent standards and ALSO being able to understand that everyone is different? 

Ultimately, if everyone who trains long enough gets a black belt, it becomes pointless.  

Let me ask another question.  Is there such a thing for you as a student with a limitation so severe that they cannot achieve a black belt in your school?


----------



## Steve

puunui said:


> A lot of people do think that the "black belt" is the ultimate goal. That's one of the reasons why so many quit after reaching that level.


I would say that the problem is rapidly becoming just the opposite, where a lot of people think achieving a black belt is barely an accomplishment at all.


----------



## Steve

Carol said:


> I agree with you, and the overall sentiment.  Earlier in the thread someone...I think it was Daniel...made the comment that a decision to take on a handicapped student would be made on a case by case basis.  I can understand what he is trying to say, perhaps there are people with disabilities that he doesn't feel he can work with.  But isn't a decision to take on any student made on a case-by-case basis?   I don't think "handicapped" should be part of the equation there either.   There will be students out there that aren't a fit for a school for many reasons.


I agree with this, and I want to be clear that this in no way contradicts the point I'm trying to make.


----------



## Tez3

puunui said:


> No it doesn't.




Please go to the nearest quartermasters dept and draw yourself out a sense of humour, it's a long standing martial arts joke, been around for years.


----------



## Gemini

Steve said:


> Ultimately, if everyone who trains long enough gets a black belt, it becomes pointless.


 Ultimately, anyone who begins training with no hope of ever having that possibility will quit, Steve. Again, a black belt is a milestone to greater things, not an ultimate goal.



Steve said:


> Let me ask another question.  Is there such a thing for you as a student with a limitation so severe that they cannot achieve a black belt in your school?


I see where you're going with this,  Steve. If I say Yes, than I admit that there are limitations. If I say No, I'm a pushover and anyone who trains in my school can get a black belt because I have loose standards. Neither is accurate. As with most schools, most of my students do not reach the level of black belt. Students quit for many reasons. However, none ever because of a handicap. Any student can quit at any time or, if I feel a student no longer demonstrates a desire to continue, I may ask them to leave. But no student will ever enter my class with a predetermined limitation. Ever.


----------



## puunui

Steve said:


> I would say that the problem is rapidly becoming just the opposite, where a lot of people think achieving a black belt is barely an accomplishment at all.



What's wrong with that? It is barely an accomplishment.


----------



## puunui

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Did he compete in shiai?  Regardless, I think that it is great that he's practicing.



I don't know if he competes in tournaments, but he does "spar" during class. I don't have the right words, but he is definitely going for it during class. I think it is inspiring to watch him practice. I understand he is 3rd maybe 4th dan.


----------



## mastercole

Carol said:


> I agree with you, and the overall sentiment.  Earlier in the thread someone...I think it was Daniel...made the comment that a decision to take on a handicapped student would be made on a case by case basis.  I can understand what he is trying to say, perhaps there are people with disabilities that he doesn't feel he can work with.  But isn't a decision to take on any student made on a case-by-case basis?   I don't think "handicapped" should be part of the equation there either.   There will be students out there that aren't a fit for a school for many reasons.



In 2008 I was a guest examiner at a black belt test in Virginia. There were two military veterans in the group one was missing an arm, the other (Iraqi) had a spinal cord and brain injury. Both were able to keep pace with their assigned group performing 8 taegeuk, 8 palgwe, Koryo and Kuengang, plus breaking, sparring, one-steps, basic skills, etc. I was very interested in their performance and attitude. They were both very inspiring for everyone there.  After the exam, I ask the instructor what was unique about teaching these wounded warriors. He told me that they were an asset to his classes because everyone was so interested in their progress it cause the students to focus harder on their own progress. He also said that their biggest challenge was not the physical part, he said it was the mental and emotional part. They had tried to introduce other disabled friends, but most would watch and say they really had no interest, not just in Taekwondo but in things in general.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVBd910Mamc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdNmM88y0Y4


Having students with disabilities was not unfamiliar to me though, I have a student who started with me in 2004, still trains today, rarely misses a class with his kids. His leg was cut off in a farming accident 15 years ago. He uses a special designed titanium composite leg. But you would not know it to see him practice Taekwondo. He does everything excellent, even complex skills like badda chagi, spin back hook kick, sparring, etc.  Hearing what this other instructor said made me think that this disabled student, he is one of the most dedicated students we have, is actually a big reason others work so hard at my dojang.

Later in the day at dinner, I was introduced to a US military guy that was involved in the Military Program Paralympic Division from the US Olympic Training Center who also works with the Wounded Warrior program. We got to talking and he told me about the Paralympic Conference. I was planning to attend the 2009 Olympic University leadership course at Lake Placid, however, I decided to take the one in Colorado Springs instead because it was a day longer and also had the Paralympic Conference. I am glad I attended. A number of athletes with disabilities worked with us and several sports, my favorite was Judo and working with the US Paralympic Judo Champ. There were many people involved in all aspects of training people with disabilities, especially those in the Wounded Warrior program attended. I made a lot of new relationships and learned a lot about the emotional struggles that person with disabilities encounter and what it takes to over come them. After the course I wrote letters to both the USAT and the WTF encouraging them to develop Taekwondo into a Paralympic sport.

More on the program: 




So, I think everyone should have the opportunity to earn a black belt. I do not believe that every instructor is qualified to work with people who have disabilities, the psychological and emotional challenges that come with disabilities. I believe it takes special people. I don't necessarily think I am qualified, or all that capable of doing so. So a case by case choice has to be made, unfortunately. But there are conferences and courses out there, like the one at Kukkiwon's instructor academy, that help those instructors that wish to do so.

My ID badge from the conference: http://www.flickr.com/photos/grandmastercole/6794529540/in/pool-1667737@N25


----------



## mastercole

*WTF Applies for Official Program of 2016 Paralympic Games*


Ref.No.09/925
November 4, 2009

Mr. David Grevemberg
Executive Director
Sport and IF Relations
International Paralympic Committee (IPC)
Via e-mail: david.grevemberg@paralympic.org

Re:        Declaration of intent of the World Taekwondo Federation
             - For inclusion in the 2016 Paralympic Games Sports Programme

Dear Mr. Grevemberg,

On behalf of President Dr. Choue, I am pleased to submit the Declaration of Intent of the World Taekwondo Federation to apply for taekwondo inclusion in the 2016 Paralympic Games Sports Programme together with the letter of Intent signed by Dr. Choue. I am at your disposal should you have questions regarding this application.

This document will also be sent to you via express mail shortly to enable you to receive it within a couple of days.

Sincerely yours,

Jin Suk Yang
Secretary General

Encl.

Also..............   http://en.mastaekwondo.com/2011/07/international-taekwondo-symposium/


----------



## miguksaram

The question was geared to ask exactly what it asked, can a person with a physical or mental disability obtain a black belt at your school.  Regardless if that is their ultimate goal or if that is just something that happens along their journey in martial arts, is it obtainable for them in your school?  Again, this is not meant to pass judgment on those who say no nor is it meant to award those who say yes.  It is simply a curiosity question that I am asking to better understand your philosophy or view point about martial arts.


----------



## ETinCYQX

My point about black belt standards being different for different people was a bit poorly expanded on. Obviously there is a concrete standard for black belts. However, for a 55 year old candidate, maybe who has bad knees or whatever, I don't expect a jump spin hook kick but I'd expect that candidate to have shown some sense of responsibility and guidance towards the younger students/kids. Maybe help coach at tournaments, help run classes, etc. For a 18 year old candidate, I don't necessarily need that person to be a mentor towards kids to the same extent or act as a chaperone or teacher or whatever, but I do want the jump spin hook kick, the tornado kick, etc. 



Tez3 said:


> If it's age you think is a handicap look at this, a 55 year old man who did the Royal Marine Commando course and earned his Green Beret, not an honorory one, he went out and trained, earnt it.
> http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve..._tv/s/1016727_chris_right_in_the_line_of_fire



I get what you're saying, but unfortunately age _is_ a handicap, just as much as bad joints or lasting injuries. Not quite on the scale as everything else in this thread, but still it's a disadvantage in martial arts. Otherwise Olympians wouldn't be considered "too old" at 30.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Carol said:


> I agree with you, and the overall sentiment. Earlier in the thread someone...I think it was Daniel...made the comment that a decision to take on a handicapped student would be made on a case by case basis. I can understand what he is trying to say, perhaps there are people with disabilities that he doesn't feel he can work with. But isn't a decision to take on any student made on a case-by-case basis? I don't think "handicapped" should be part of the equation there either. There will be students out there that aren't a fit for a school for many reasons.


That was me that said case by case with regards to the first dan. 

Again, a lot depends upon the nature of the art and how the person administering the test views the art. 

If, for example, you view taekwondo as a systematized method of kicking and punching, and require that first dan candidates be able to proficiently perform a specific list of kicks and punches, then a disabled student who cannot perform the entirety of that list would be inelligible.

If you view taekwondo as a holistic approach to living that happens to include kicking and punching, then it comes down to how the candidate applies the spirit and mindset of taekwondo to what physical skills they can do.

A systematized approach as I mention above is analogous to academic testing; there are people, no matter how much you accomodate them, who will never be able to learn chemistry, physics, and higher math, and such people are usually aided in their life by various associations designed to help those with mental handicaps. The military is the same and does not allow entry to many people with disabilities and in many cases, conditions that are not a disability, but would prevent them from meeting the physical standard that the military has set.

Personally, I prefer the second approach. I am not the military. For a disabled student who is applying the methodology of the art in the areas that he or she can physically perform, I think that a test can be put together to sufficiently challenge that student.

Having said that, there are some people who have disabilities that would prevent them from, proficiently learning the bulk of the material in most MA classes and from having deep comprehension of the philosophy of the art, _but_ who would still benefit from taking the class. 

Can they earn a first dan? This is where 'case by case' comes in in my opinion.

In kendo, if you cannot hold a sword (no use of the hands, or limited use to the point that holding a sword is not a possiblity), most would have a hard time saying yes (I am unaffiliated and teach kendo independently at this point time, so I can actually make that call; kendo gradings beyond nikyu in the FIK are done before a pannel and not at the dojo level). But suppose that person loves being around kendo, does the foot work to the best of their ability, maybe shadowing the sword movements with their arms, and reads and studies sword related material and gains enough understanding that they can actually help other students to better understand the material? 

I'm not going to answer the question, as I do not believe that there is a correct answer. So long as they aren't issuing grades to whomever in order to collect a fee or barring people because they want to show off what a hardnose they are, I respect whatever decision a school owner might make. Different school owners have different opinions on this and can provide logical reasons for those opinions.

Personally, I have never had a student with a severe enough handicap that this would have been an issue, though I have worked with handicapped students.  If I ever am in a position that this would be a consideration for me, I can only say that I will do the best that I can to help that student do the best that he or she can.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

ETinCYQX said:


> I get what you're saying, but unfortunately age _is_ a handicap, just as much as bad joints or lasting injuries. Not quite on the scale as everything else in this thread, but still it's a disadvantage in martial arts. Otherwise Olympians wouldn't be considered "too old" at 30.


Age can be a handicap, but if the student isn't competing, it is not nearly as much of an issue.

In the same way that age can be a handicap, so too can morbid obesity.  I have a student who is 6'1 and weighs over 300 pounds.  His attendence is an issue because he has constant health problems and his knees bother him due to carrying far more weight than they were designed to carry.  I give him exercises that won't send him home in traction and that will develope the skills that he will need to progress.  Yes, he is improving, and hopefully, the class will help him in his personal goal of weight loss (he joined in order to improve his health).  

It isn't the weight itself that is a handicap, but the fact that *in his case*, it has cost him mobility and makes it difficult for him to make it through an entire class (I have him take small breaks here and there to facilitate him getting through the full hour and a half).  If he practices too intensely, he gets knee issues, which would make all but the lightest of sparring impossible for him right now.  That isn't an issue; he doesn't have bogu yet and is still very much a beginner (I generally don't want students in bogu until the rough equivalent of green belt).  The fact that he is morbidly obese in combination with being fifty just compounds things.

But, I do have every confidence that he will reach first dan should he decide that he wants to.  And if he does decide he wants to, I will make every effort to support him.


----------



## Steve

Gemini said:


> Ultimately, anyone who begins training with no hope of ever having that possibility will quit, Steve. Again, a black belt is a milestone to greater things, not an ultimate goal.


Not true.  People train in BJJ ALL THE TIME who never expect to get a blue belt, much less a black belt.  And they train because they love it.  Surprisingly, many of those people do very well over time, but it takes years.  





> I see where you're going with this,  Steve. If I say Yes, than I admit that there are limitations. If I say No, I'm a pushover and anyone who trains in my school can get a black belt because I have loose standards. Neither is accurate. As with most schools, most of my students do not reach the level of black belt. Students quit for many reasons. However, none ever because of a handicap. Any student can quit at any time or, if I feel a student no longer demonstrates a desire to continue, I may ask them to leave. But no student will ever enter my class with a predetermined limitation. Ever.


Ultimately, you guys are, IMO, seriously undervaluing your training.  You are on the one hand saying that a black belt isn't that big a deal, and on the other suggesting that without the carrot of a black belt, people won't train.  That's the point I'm making.  It's not a rhetorical trick.  It's trying to get you to see what I see.

I don't see this as difficult.  As I said earlier, you , boil your requirements down to standards and measurements, taking care to distinguish between the two.  Doing this will maintain the integrity of your program and will ensure that EVERYONE who achieves ANY rank in your system will be proud of it.  

And then, at the same time, you take every student as an individual, whether they have an overt impairment or not.  It's about communicating standards.  It's not about crushing dreams.  Just the opposite.  It's about saying to students, "Look.  Not all of you will get to black belt, regardless of how hard you work.  But, there is value in training and you are all better for it.  You will be stronger, more flexible, and more agile.  You will have fun.  You will learn some self defense skills.  And I can guarantee you that the rank you receive will be 100% earned by you."

It always boils down to this for me.  Why is there such a disconnect between the idea that we are all better for earning what we receive.  I agree 100% with you guys that everyone is different.  We all bring different things to the table.  I've said before that I'd rather be actively training in BJJ as an 80 year old purple belt I've earned, than to be a 45 year old black belt who has to stop training for any reason.  This is only meaningful, however, if the rank I wear is one I've earned.


As I said before, these two things are not contradictory, but unless you apply both with intention with EVERY student, you risk undermining your credibility as an instructor as well as the integrity of your program.


----------



## Steve

puunui said:


> What's wrong with that? It is barely an accomplishment.


In TKD, maybe.  Has it always been so?  I don't know.  Means something in many other arts.

Ultimately, how you value the belt doesn't matter to me.  Or, maybe better put, I completely understand that a black belt represents something different to you than to me.  I do think, however, that if you want to run a program with integrity, the belts represent a consistent standard across the board.  And if it's really meaningless, I'd frankly get rid of it and move to a system that does have value.  If the belts are barely an accomplishment, that directly translates in my mind to a functionless process that is a waste of everyone's time.


----------



## Gemini

Steve said:


> It's trying to get you to see what I see.


Great post, Steve. To clarify a point on the value of a black belt, I do agree different arts view these values at different levels. Some arts do recognize the black belt at the ultimate goal. In Taekwondo, black belt represents someone who has demonstrated acceptable ability of the fundamentals to _begin_ their training. Regardless of which camp you're from, it most certainly would have an impact on your perspective.

I think I have a good understanding of what you see and how you see it. I do not begrudge your opinion or even those whose opinion is completely opposite of mine. I believe it simply reflects the difference in those that live in world of the handicapped and those that only visit it.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Steve said:


> In TKD, maybe. Has it always been so? I don't know. Means something in many other arts.


In Korea, yes.  In other places it varries from school to school.



Steve said:


> Ultimately, how you value the belt doesn't matter to me. Or, maybe better put, I completely understand that a black belt represents something different to you than to me. I do think, however, that if you want to run a program with integrity, the belts represent a consistent standard across the board. And if it's really meaningless, I'd frankly get rid of it and move to a system that does have value. If the belts are barely an accomplishment, that directly translates in my mind to a functionless process that is a waste of everyone's time.


Accomplishment and function are not automatically equivocol. 

Belts provide a functional way of competition bracketing. They provide a functional tool with which a student can both measure progress and set goals. They function in a large class to differentiate at a glance where different students are in their curriculum. Oh, and they gather the dobok. 

I don't consider a high school diploma to be much of an accomplishment either; it is the bare minimum that one needs to go out into the professional world. One can go to college and attain advanced degrees and spend more time doing so than they did in high school. But that does not make high school, middle school, or elementary school a functionless process that is a waste of everyone's time.

Also, it is important to differentiate between the black belt and the rank of first dan. Lets be clear that 'blackbelt' is not a rank. It is the merit badge that represents a first or higher dan in taekwondo. Not all systems use the same belt colors. I understand that a red belt in BJJ represents a higher grade than does a black, while in taekondo, a red generally represents a grade one or two below what a black belt represents. In judo, I know that red belts also represent high dans.  In at least one Tang Soo Do organization, they use a navy colored belt to represent dan grades. In kendo, we have the same grades, but don't wear belts at all. While I know that aikido has belts, I have never seen an aikidoka wearing one.


----------



## Steve

Gemini said:


> Great post, Steve. To clarify a point on the value of a black belt, I do agree different arts view these values at different levels. Some arts do recognize the black belt at the ultimate goal. In Taekwondo, black belt represents someone who has demonstrated acceptable ability of the fundamentals to _begin_ their training. Regardless of which camp you're from, it most certainly would have an impact on your perspective.
> 
> I think I have a good understanding of what you see and how you see it. I do not begrudge your opinion or even those whose opinion is completely opposite of mine. I believe it simply reflects the difference in those that live in world of the handicapped and those that only visit it.


I don't know what kind of experience you have with accommodating disability.  But for what it's worth, I'll share a little about mine.  I have worked directly with people who have any number of disabilities for over 15 years now.  I have worked with them from the position of a case manager as a claims representative, dealing with all manner of physical and mental disabilities, often compounded by substance abuse, homelessness and a lack of consistent medical care.  I have worked with them as their subordinate, having had several direct supervisors who have been disabled, including blindness, deafness and loss of mobility.  I have worked with them as peers, and I have supervised them.  On a professional and social level, I would bet that I have experience with a wider and more severe array of physical and mental challenges over my career than just about anyone else on here.  And my experience is specific to this kind of interaction.  While medical professionals have lots of experience with disability, there is a clear difference between _treating _disability as a medical professional and working/living/teaching people who are disabled outside of the medical profession.  I have been involved in some extremely creative ways to accommodate severe impairments that have allowed disabled employees to be fully successful in their jobs.  This isn't to say that my experience is more valuable than yours.  I'm simply saying that this isn't a world I am visiting.  It's an issue that is very close to me, and one that I think about often.

Also, to be clear, whether you believe that a black belt is the pinnacle of training or merely a low level stepping stone, if your expectations are inconsistent, you are compromising your standards.  And that's not good for anyone.  I'm not advocating that you change your personal position on what a black belt means.  It is what it is, and your definition is no more or less correct than mine.  I'm talking about being internally consistent.  If you tell me one day that a black belt is worth while, but then through your actions on another day make it clear that literally anyone who trains for a certain length of time can get one, you are losing credibility with me.  Simply put, your actions have to match your rhetoric.


----------



## StudentCarl

Steve said:


> If you tell me one day that a black belt is worth while, but then through your actions on another day make it clear that literally anyone who trains for a certain length of time can get one, you are losing credibility with me.



Would you explain your implied position that for something to be worthwhile it must not be available to everyone?


----------



## Steve

StudentCarl said:


> Would you explain your implied position that for something to be worthwhile it must not be available to everyone?


In order to explain it, it would have to be my position (implied or otherwise).  Could you be a little more clear what I've said that led you to this question?  I'll be happy to explain further, but I can't comment on something being available to everyone, because I've never intentionally said anything of the kind.

Edit:  I think I might understand the mix up.  First, you're ascribing value judgements to me that I haven't made and don't believe.  Worthwhile isn't something I've said in a negative way (or at least I don't think so...).  In fact, just the opposite.  I have specifically said that an activity can be worthwhile even without rank or the potential of achieving a black belt.  And taken a step further, I've said that it is my belief that an activity is MORE worthwhile if the rank given is earned without compromising standards, regardless of whether a person has a physical/mental impairment or not.  

Second, I'd recommend substituting "available" with "attainable."  The first is unnecessarily discriminatory and often untrue.  The second, however, is absolutely true.  There are people who cannot do what must be done to meet the minimum standards for... anything, really.  Name an activity and there are some people who cannot do it, regardless of how badly they want to or how hard they try.  That shouldn't keep us (anyone in a position of influence or authority) from trying to be creative in approaching these situations because, as we all know, "can't now" doesn't mean "can't ever."   

But, that's the entire point I have made consistently about distinguishing between standards and measurements.  Standards should be consistent, whatever standards we choose to apply.  Measuring success in these standards, however, can be done in many different ways that are unique to the individual.   Make sense?


----------



## puunui

Steve said:


> In TKD, maybe.  Has it always been so?  I don't know.  Means something in many other arts.



I believe 1st dan has always been considered an "accomplishment", but not a particularly great or high one, especially when you look at it from the standpoint that it is the lowest grade that goes from 1 through 9 or 10, with increasingly longer time in grade for each promotion. No one is saying that a 1st Dan means, nothing, rather they or at least I am saying that it isn't a particularly great or lofty one. It's a 1st Dan. 




Steve said:


> Ultimately, how you value the belt doesn't matter to me.  Or, maybe better put, I completely understand that a black belt represents something different to you than to me.



ok. 



Steve said:


> I do think, however, that if you want to run a program with integrity, the belts represent a consistent standard across the board.  And if it's really meaningless, I'd frankly get rid of it and move to a system that does have value.  If the belts are barely an accomplishment, that directly translates in my mind to a functionless process that is a waste of everyone's time.



1st Dan is "barely an accomplishment", when compared to and looked at from the perspective that the rank is the lowest grade that goes from 1 through 9 or 10, with increasingly longer time in grade for each promotion. I think you are thinking that it means nothing, and therefore get rid of it. And at some point, there is that idea, but perhaps that is not a concept for a 1st Dan to grasp. I know I couldn't grasp the idea that "rank is nothing" when I was a newly promoted 1st Dan.


----------



## puunui

Steve said:


> Not true.  People train in BJJ ALL THE TIME who never expect to get a blue belt, much less a black belt.  And they train because they love it.  Surprisingly, many of those people do very well over time, but it takes years.



I don't know how it operates in other places, but I will say that here, at least under Relson Gracie, if you are a blue belt, you should be able to consistent beat white belts. If you are a purple belt, then you should consistently beat white and blue belts, and so on. It is very hard to earn a black belt in Hawaii under Relson Gracie. People come from the mainland all the time and they get beat by lower ranks here. I do believe that the standard is different for jiujitsu. My next door neighbor is a Relson Black Belt and we often talk about how slow his promotions are, and why. 




Steve said:


> Ultimately, you guys are, IMO, seriously undervaluing your training.  You are on the one hand saying that a black belt isn't that big a deal, and on the other suggesting that without the carrot of a black belt, people won't train.  That's the point I'm making.  It's not a rhetorical trick.  It's trying to get you to see what I see.



There is no undervaluing training, or a rhetorical trick. A 1st Dan black belt isn't a big deal, in taekwondo, especially when looked at ffrom the standpoint that it is the lowest grade that goes from 1 through  9 or 10, with increasingly longer time in grade for each promotion. So it does have value, just maybe not what you believe it is. And it is also true that even though a 1st Dan is a low rank, "barely an accomplishment" especially when looked at ffrom the standpoint that it is the lowest grade that goes from 1 through  9 or 10, with increasingly longer time in grade for each promotion, the fact remains that reaching black belt is a motivator for students to continue training.


----------



## Twin Fist

black belt doesnt mean much when you give them away after a year a training like some orgs do.

in other, more serious schools, 1st dan means a lot, but 2nd means a LOT more, and so on.


----------



## lifespantkd

puunui said:


> I believe 1st dan has always been considered an "accomplishment", but not a particularly great or high one, especially when you look at it from the standpoint that it is the lowest grade that goes from 1 through 9 or 10, with increasingly longer time in grade for each promotion. No one is saying that a 1st Dan means, nothing, rather they or at least I am saying that it isn't a particularly great or lofty one. It's a 1st Dan.



When I was a colored belt, my view of first dan was very different from what it is now. Continued study of Taekwondo has been and continues to be a humbling experience for me because the further I go the more I realize how much there still is for me to learn. In my experience, the practice of Taekwondo rather mirrors the living of life. Rank attained is just a moment in a lifetime of practice, just like attainment of a particular age is just a moment in living one's life. It's the learning, the process, the journey that matters.

Cynthia


----------



## StudentCarl

Steve said:


> If you tell me one day that a black belt is worth while, but then through your actions on another day make it clear that literally anyone who trains for a certain length of time can get one, you are losing credibility with me.  Simply put, your actions have to match your rhetoric.



Hopefully I can be more clear. Your wording of the sentence suggested to me that he loses credibility with you because the two clauses you wrote before your conclusion are somehow incompatible, i.e. that a black belt cannot be both worthwhile and available as you say and still meet your standard for credibility. Perhaps your intent was to reduce his position to the idea that one is being awarded a black belt based upon time served, which is not how I read it. I ascribed your value judgements to your grammar. Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant, and thanks for the courteous clarification.

I wonder if the difference of opinions here is in the idea of the standard to be met, that your position is perhaps that the standard to earn a black belt should be an objective, fixed standard and not a relative or flexible one? I think that issue is at the root of a number of posts in this thread. I'll share my opinion in hopes that we can explore this further. I understand the position that fixed standards are more palatable and commonly preferred because they ascribe definite meaning. The question for me is when it's appropriate to consider a fixed standard vs. a flexible one. I'm open to others, but I think the best example of when a standard should be fixed is when the safety or material impact on others is causally tied to the standard. For example, I am in favor of a fixed standard for how good a person's vision needs to be to get a driver's license. A relative standard would not preserve safety; "My vision is better than last year" isn't good enough if you're still legally blind because you might kill someone if allowed to drive.  If there is no physical or material harm to others, I don't think that is a valid reason to keep a standard fixed. I'll have to work on other situations that argue for a fixed standard, but I want to get the gist of this idea down before training. 

It's good to ask what argument there is in favor of relative/flexible standards at all. Should all standards be fixed? Much of parenting and teaching is based on successive approximations--praising improvement and effort. I think that relative/flexible standards are appropriate as milestones on a path of continuing progress. If a black belt represents, for example, four years of dedicated training for an average person, and your disabled student has trained with dedication, effort, and improvement relative to his/her potential and where he/she began, I think there's a point where the student can earn a black belt relative to his/her place on his/her path of development. I think that awarding a belt in that situation considers the growth of the whole person relative to him/herself. We look at how an average toddler walks differently from the average six year old. I don't tell toddlers their walking is ugly and wrong because it's appropriate for their development.  With the high school special education students I teach, I am aware of their absolute progress but evaluate vs. where they begin and how they work to improve. 

I don't think that awarding a black belt to a dedicated student with a disability diminishes the quality of others' achievements. I do think that an instructor can appropriately award a black belt based on the relative growth of a student on that student's path. As with all junior black belts, I hope such a student continues on his/her journey of growth. 

Carl


----------



## puunui

Steve said:


> It always boils down to this for me.  Why is there such a disconnect between the idea that we are all better for earning what we receive.  I agree 100% with you guys that everyone is different.  We all bring different things to the table.  I've said before that I'd rather be actively training in BJJ as an 80 year old purple belt I've earned, than to be a 45 year old black belt who has to stop training for any reason.  This is only meaningful, however, if the rank I wear is one I've earned.



And who decides whether you have "earned" your rank or not? You or your instructor? I think the biggest issue here is that you are applying your jiujitsu mentality and standards to a different art and using that different standard from a different art, that the different art (in this case taekwondo) has lost credibility. Do you think that is a fair approach to take? Frankly, I don't see any taekwondo practitioners here making any sort of judgments on how you promote in jiujitsu. Having said that, the question that begs to be asked is why do you feel the need to judge taekwondo instructors on how they promote their students, using jiujitsu standards?


----------



## Steve

puunui said:


> I don't know how it operates in other places, but I will say that here, at least under Relson Gracie, if you are a blue belt, you should be able to consistent beat white belts. If you are a purple belt, then you should consistently beat white and blue belts, and so on. It is very hard to earn a black belt in Hawaii under Relson Gracie. People come from the mainland all the time and they get beat by lower ranks here. I do believe that the standard is different for jiujitsu. My next door neighbor is a Relson Black Belt and we often talk about how slow his promotions are, and why.


I think that's a fair assessment of how it goes in BJJ just about everywhere.  While there is some slight variation from area to area, the belt standards in BJJ are pretty consistent.  





> There is no undervaluing training, or a rhetorical trick. A 1st Dan black belt isn't a big deal, in taekwondo, especially when looked at ffrom the standpoint that it is the lowest grade that goes from 1 through  9 or 10, with increasingly longer time in grade for each promotion. So it does have value, just maybe not what you believe it is. And it is also true that even though a 1st Dan is a low rank, "barely an accomplishment" especially when looked at ffrom the standpoint that it is the lowest grade that goes from 1 through  9 or 10, with increasingly longer time in grade for each promotion, the fact remains that reaching black belt is a motivator for students to continue training.


Thank you for further explaining your perspective on rank in TKD.  I appreciate it.


----------



## Steve

puunui said:


> And who decides whether you have "earned" your rank or not? You or your instructor? I think the biggest issue here is that you are applying your jiujitsu mentality and standards to a different art and using that different standard from a different art, that the different art (in this case taekwondo) has lost credibility. Do you think that is a fair approach to take? Frankly, I don't see any taekwondo practitioners here making any sort of judgments on how you promote in jiujitsu. Having said that, the question that begs to be asked is why do you feel the need to judge taekwondo instructors on how they promote their students, using jiujitsu standards?


If your school has standards that are transparent and consistent, you will be confident that you have earned the rank.  You mentioned Relson Gracie in Hawaii.  If you were awarded a purple belt by him, would you doubt you earned it?   The key here isn't the specific style or the specific standards.  It's that this academy HAS standards and that they are applied in a consistent, transparent manner.  It's not about BJJ vs TKD or the differences between the two.    

Backing up just a bit, though, it appears to me that you're attempting to make this a style vs style argument.  Once again, whatever value or standards you apply to a black belt are not an issue for me.  That is your system, your school and I have no interest in judging you right or wrong.  

What I am saying is that if you, in your system, at your school, apply inconsistent standards and/or your rhetoric around promotions and belt ranking is incongruent with your actions, you are damaging your credibility and undermining the integrity of your own rank system.   If Relson Gracie began making exceptions for people and awarding blue, purple, brown and black belts to people who did not meet the well established standards of the school and the style, his reputation would quickly diminish.  A school in any style which chooses to promote people based upon fluid, inconsistent standards will do the same.


----------



## Steve

StudentCarl said:


> Hopefully I can be more clear. Your wording of the sentence suggested to me that he loses credibility with you because the two clauses you wrote before your conclusion are somehow incompatible, i.e. that a black belt cannot be both worthwhile and available as you say and still meet your standard for credibility. Perhaps your intent was to reduce his position to the idea that one is being awarded a black belt based upon time served, which is not how I read it. I ascribed your value judgements to your grammar. Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant, and thanks for the courteous clarification.
> 
> I wonder if the difference of opinions here is in the idea of the standard to be met, that your position is perhaps that the standard to earn a black belt should be an objective, fixed standard and not a relative or flexible one? I think that issue is at the root of a number of posts in this thread. I'll share my opinion in hopes that we can explore this further. I understand the position that fixed standards are more palatable and commonly preferred because they ascribe definite meaning. The question for me is when it's appropriate to consider a fixed standard vs. a flexible one. I'm open to others, but I think the best example of when a standard should be fixed is when the safety or material impact on others is causally tied to the standard. For example, I am in favor of a fixed standard for how good a person's vision needs to be to get a driver's license. A relative standard would not preserve safety; "My vision is better than last year" isn't good enough if you're still legally blind because you might kill someone if allowed to drive.  If there is no physical or material harm to others, I don't think that is a valid reason to keep a standard fixed. I'll have to work on other situations that argue for a fixed standard, but I want to get the gist of this idea down before training.
> 
> It's good to ask what argument there is in favor of relative/flexible standards at all. Should all standards be fixed? Much of parenting and teaching is based on successive approximations--praising improvement and effort. I think that relative/flexible standards are appropriate as milestones on a path of continuing progress. If a black belt represents, for example, four years of dedicated training for an average person, and your disabled student has trained with dedication, effort, and improvement relative to his/her potential and where he/she began, I think there's a point where the student can earn a black belt relative to his/her place on his/her path of development. I think that awarding a belt in that situation considers the growth of the whole person relative to him/herself. We look at how an average toddler walks differently from the average six year old. I don't tell toddlers their walking is ugly and wrong because it's appropriate for their development.  With the high school special education students I teach, I am aware of their absolute progress but evaluate vs. where they begin and how they work to improve.
> 
> I don't think that awarding a black belt to a dedicated student with a disability diminishes the quality of others' achievements. I do think that an instructor can appropriately award a black belt based on the relative growth of a student on that student's path. As with all junior black belts, I hope such a student continues on his/her journey of growth.
> 
> Carl


Just to get this out there, I don't edit my posts.  They're all rough drafts.  So, thanks for attempting to understand the intent of my sentences rather than getting caught up in diction and grammar.  

The point I was making is simply that the actions and the words need to be consistent.  

Regarding the rest, if you haven't, please go back and read my posts where I try to make clear a distinction between a standard and a measurement, and the caution that I put out that standards should be general and broad.

Punuui brought up Relson Gracie and provided what I believe is a very succinct example of a standard.  A blue belt should be able to consistently beat a white belt.  A purple belt should be able to consistently beat blue and white belts.   Now, without going into whether or not I agree, this is an excellent example of a standard.  If a blue belt isn't flexible enough to make certain positions work, or maybe doesn't know a lot of techniques, or maybe only knows a handful, but executes them perfectly... or maybe has lost use of his right hand and has had to adjust his execution of techniques... all of that doesn't matter.  Does the blue belt consistently "beat" other blue belts and white belts?  If yes, he meets the standard.  If no, he does not.  

Taken a step further, should the standard be waived if he's disabled?  I'd say no.  Does that mean he should be precluded from training?  Absolutely not.  He should be encouraged to train, and every effort should be made to adjust the style to him, just as would be done for a 50 year old guy, or an overweight guy or a very small guy.  Will he benefit from training?  Of course, just like anyone else would.  

And, presuming all of the above is true, a guy who has lost the use of a hand, or arm or eye or both legs or whatever, who is given a blue belt in Relson Gracie's school in Hawaii can be very sure that he has earned his blue belt just like everyone else.  

Does that make sense?  I am trying to make things as plain and clear as I can.


----------



## lifespantkd

A similar question--the answer of which may help clarify key issues related to the original question--is what should be done if a black belt *becomes* disabled? *If* the qualifications of black belt status are defined purely on a practitioner's physical ability meeting a universally applied standard without exception or variation or flexibility of any kind and the ability of the dan holder has suddenly or gradually decreased (e.g., due to injury, accident, aging, disease), then, logically, one could argue that he or she should be stripped of his/her rank. If the dan holder can no longer perform physically better than practitioners of a lower rank in an art/organization/school in which criteria are purely physically based, then none of us should retain our dan rankings as we age--no matter how devoted we remain to our own physical, mental, and/or spiritual development to the best of our ability and no matter how much we contribute to the development of our art and/or the development of our students. Would any of you advocate for such demotions? And, if not, then shouldn't there be room for at least some accommodation for variation in ability evident prior to rank attainment?

I certainly don't have all of the answers for the many hypothetical situations one could propose related to disability, especially given my relatively low level of experience as an instructor. Yet, in my view, I feel certain that Taekwondo was not intended to be only for elite athletes of extraordinary physical ability. I believe that it is a vehicle through which people--gifted, ordinary, and challenged--may develop to the best of their abilities. Exactly how I will enact that philosophy while teaching real people is something I look forward to discovering.

Cynthia


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Twin Fist said:


> black belt doesnt mean much when you give them away after a year a training like some orgs do.


This is an obvious reference to the KKW.  You are also mistaken; The KKW doesn't issue black belts; they register the student according to the paperwork submitted by the school owner.  The school owner issues the belt.  

If the KKW did as they do in the AUSKF, and required candidates for ilgeup and ildan to test before a panel of federation examiners, you'd probably feel that they're telling you how to run your school and interfering with your right to grade your own students.  But they don't; they set a base curriculum to which you can add if you wish, and give school owners the latitude to grade their students as they see fit.

It is not the organization that signs off on the the student's qualification, but the instructor.  A KKW school owner could force his students to train for twenty years if they so chose, as there is no organizational time in grade for geub ranks.  

The national average for time in grade for a first dan candidate is one year *in Korea*.  Schools in the same organization in different parts of the world do not have the same time in grade average.

When it comes down to it, in the KKW, it is the school owner who determines if a person, disabled or not, is promoted to first dan.  If you were a KKW school owner, you could make the same time in grade requirements that you currently do.  Nothing is stopping any KKW school owner from doing so.  In the US, the average for a KKW school is from two to four years.  



Twin Fist said:


> in other, more serious schools, 1st dan means a lot, but 2nd means a LOT more, and so on.


I disagree with your connecting of time in grade with the seriousness of the school.  I also don't find the jab at the KKW to be appropriate in the context of this thread. 

You run an independent school and you have designated the first dan rank as the marker for a four year time in grade and test your students accordingly.  Which is fine.  Other schools have different time in grade requirements and designate different grades to correspond to them.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

I don't have a set time in grade for first dan candidates in my own  independent school.  

When I think that they're ready, they test.  I  teach material and as the students gain proficiency, I teach them more  material.  When they've learned the kyu grade syllabus, we talk about  testing.  My tests are very physical.  I am mainly concerned that  students are proficient in the material, physically fit enough to get  through the test, and mentally prepared.

Since I don't issue  belts in kendo, nobody cares when they test for first dan anyway; it  only means that I'm pickier about their technique.  Since I don't  collect a fee, I have nothing riding on how quickly students test.

In response to the OP, I  have no students that could be legally classified as handicapped, so  the premise of this thread does not apply to me at present.  

However, I  would be more than willing to accommodate a student with a disability  and would grade them based in part on how well they do what they are able  to do, but mostly on the same things I grade everyone else on, which is  all non-physical.  

In spite of the fact that my tests are very  physical, it is actually the mental that I am evaluating.  Yes, I  evaluate the physical, but that is a formality.  If the student is there mentally, the physical will tell.  Kind of like refining gold in fire, I suppose.

Thus, I am less concerned with whether or not a disabled person can do the exact same physical things that an able person can, but whether or not they display the elements of mind and spirit that I am looking for.  Again, if those elements are there, then the physical will bear that out.

I have people fill out an extensive questionnaire prior to taking them on.  Mainly, I want to be aware of anything that is a risk factor for the student.  I have no problem with giving a student with health problems or some other issue a pace that they can manage without injury.


----------



## dancingalone

lifespantkd said:


> A similar question--the answer of which may help clarify key issues related to the original question--is what should be done if a black belt *becomes* disabled? *If* the qualifications of black belt status are defined purely on a practitioner's physical ability meeting a universally applied standard without exception or variation or flexibility of any kind and the ability of the dan holder has suddenly or gradually decreased (e.g., due to injury, accident, aging, disease), then, logically, one could argue that he or she should be stripped of his/her rank. If the dan holder can no longer perform physically better than practitioners of a lower rank in an art/organization/school in which criteria are purely physically based, then none of us should retain our dan rankings as we age--no matter how devoted we remain to our own physical, mental, and/or spiritual development to the best of our ability and no matter how much we contribute to the development of our art and/or the development of our students. Would any of you advocate for such demotions? And, if not, then shouldn't there be room for at least some accommodation for variation in ability evident prior to rank attainment?



A big difference in that scenario is that the BB has already earned his belt through passing presumably a set of requirements with some objective evaluation of his performance to a set standard.  He knows what it is like to throw thousands upon thousands of good kicks.  He has excellent precision in his techs and patterns.  He has broken the required number of boards.

That's not the same as someone who hasn't earned the rank yet.




lifespantkd said:


> I certainly don't have all of the answers for the many hypothetical situations one could propose related to disability, especially given my relatively low level of experience as an instructor. Yet, in my view, I feel certain that Taekwondo was not intended to be only for elite athletes of extraordinary physical ability. I believe that it is a vehicle through which people--gifted, ordinary, and challenged--may develop to the best of their abilities. Exactly how I will enact that philosophy while teaching real people is something I look forward to discovering.



I don't think anyone is saying that TKD is only for athletes only.  Some believe however as I do that the award of rank needs to be tied to a clear progression of skills.  I believe such an evaluation can be holistic and tailored as needed to the individual, but at the same time just saying 'this is the best this particular person can do' seems too lenient to me.  TKD is still a physical martial art once we get down to the nitty gritty.  If someone is overweight, autistic, old, has a bad back or knees, whatever - I wouldn't have a problem with modifying the requirements around their needs.  In the end however, there's some objective measures of skill I won't compromise on, like a display of power and precision by breaking boards along with some exhibition of technique and heart in sparring.


----------



## puunui

Steve said:


> If your school has standards that are transparent and consistent, you will be confident that you have earned the rank.  You mentioned Relson Gracie in Hawaii.  If you were awarded a purple belt by him, would you doubt you earned it?



Relson doesn't have his own school anymore and he may have moved out of state. Or at least I heard that was the plan. But irrespective of that, the black belts under him have different standards of what the color belts mean. I think that they are generally consistent within the same school, but might not be once you venture to other schools under the Relson Gracie banner. And the standards for Relson's mainland students are much more laxed than what is going on in Hawaii. 




Steve said:


> Backing up just a bit, though, it appears to me that you're attempting to make this a style vs style argument.



Incorrect. What I am saying is it seems that you are applying jiujitsu standards and a jiujitsu mentality, especially regarding the rank of 1st dan, to taekwondo and judging taekwondo by that jiujitsu standard and mentality.




Steve said:


> What I am saying is that if you, in your system, at your school, apply inconsistent standards and/or your rhetoric around promotions and belt ranking is incongruent with your actions, you are damaging your credibility and undermining the integrity of your own rank system.   If Relson Gracie began making exceptions for people and awarding blue, purple, brown and black belts to people who did not meet the well established standards of the school and the style, his reputation would quickly diminish.  A school in any style which chooses to promote people based upon fluid, inconsistent standards will do the same.



Relson actually did do that, for at least one black belt here. Or at least some feel that way. The particular black belt had ok skills, but he went to every seminar, took notes, opened his own school, put on seminars for Relson, etc. So Relson promoted him to black belt. This black belt has a lot of students, but the other Relson black belts dislike him tremendously. Plus this black belt will not roll with other black belts, or even brown belts, preferring instead to "teach" white and blue belts. 

Then there is the noticeable difference in standards for the mainland students and the hawaii students. Hawaii students are held to a much higher standard and take longer to promote than those on the mainland. Or so I am told. 

But I don't think that diminishes Relson's reputation any. Certainly no one is willing to say such things to his face, or while they are rolling with him for example. Instead, they choose to quietly understand why he does what he does, and instead of judging him, they cut him slack and realize that he can do whatever he wants with any of his students or student's students, since he is, after all, the man in charge.


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that TKD is only for athletes only.  Some believe however as I do that the award of rank needs to be tied to a clear progression of skills.  I believe such an evaluation can be holistic and tailored as needed to the individual, but at the same time just saying 'this is the best this particular person can do' seems too lenient to me.  TKD is still a physical martial art once we get down to the nitty gritty.  If someone is overweight, autistic, old, has a bad back or knees, whatever - I wouldn't have a problem with modifying the requirements around their needs.  In the end however, there's some objective measures of skill I won't compromise on, like a display of power and precision by breaking boards along with some exhibition of technique and heart in sparring.



I used to have board breaking at testing. But there came a point where I stopped the board breaking, as a waste of time and money. No one asks about it or misses it. I notice other schools are also moving away from board breaking as well. Board breaking, in reality, was test of one's training diligence with a makiwara. Today, few schools do makiwara training. And if that is the case, no makiwara training, then in my opinion, there is no need for makiwara training testing, which is what board breaking is.


----------



## lifespantkd

dancingalone said:


> A big difference in that scenario is that the BB has already earned his belt through passing presumably a set of requirements with some objective evaluation of his performance to a set standard. He knows what it is like to throw thousands upon thousands of good kicks. He has excellent precision in his techs and patterns. He has broken the required number of boards.
> 
> That's not the same as someone who hasn't earned the rank yet.




Yes, of course.




dancingalone said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that TKD is only for athletes only. Some believe however as I do that the award of rank needs to be tied to a clear progression of skills. I believe such an evaluation can be holistic and tailored as needed to the individual, but at the same time just saying 'this is the best this particular person can do' seems too lenient to me. TKD is still a physical martial art once we get down to the nitty gritty. If someone is overweight, autistic, old, has a bad back or knees, whatever - I wouldn't have a problem with modifying the requirements around their needs. In the end however, there's some objective measures of skill I won't compromise on, like a display of power and precision by breaking boards along with some exhibition of technique and heart in sparring.



I agree that either end of the spectrum--"anything is acceptable" vs. "nothing but strict adherence to inflexible standards is acceptable"--is not workable (for lack of a better word) when teaching real people in the real world. In my opinion, finding the right place on the spectrum will be unique to the art, the instructor, and the student in question.

Cynthia


----------



## dancingalone

puunui said:


> I used to have board breaking at testing. But there came a point where I stopped the board breaking, as a waste of time and money. No one asks about it or misses it. I notice other schools are also moving away from board breaking as well. Board breaking, in reality, was test of one's training diligence with a makiwara. Today, few schools do makiwara training. And if that is the case, no makiwara training, then in my opinion, there is no need for makiwara training testing, which is what board breaking is.



It's a test of precision and power.  If you can't break a few stationary pieces of wood, you'd probably find it even more difficult to actually hit a moving person with sufficient force to hurt him.

I'm all ears if anyone had a substitute that will save trees (and don't say rebreakable boards).  

And yah I am a big fan of makiwara practice, though we get by with kicking shields and heavy bags at my dojang.


----------



## dancingalone

lifespantkd said:


> I agree that either end of the spectrum--"anything is acceptable" vs. "nothing but strict adherence to inflexible standards is acceptable"--is not workable (for lack of a better word) when teaching real people in the real world. In my opinion, finding the right place on the spectrum will be unique to the art, the instructor, and the student in question.



Indeed.  That's the very definition of holistic.


----------



## Steve

lifespantkd said:


> A similar question--the answer of which may help clarify key issues related to the original question--is what should be done if a black belt *becomes* disabled? *If* the qualifications of black belt status are defined purely on a practitioner's physical ability meeting a universally applied standard without exception or variation or flexibility of any kind and the ability of the dan holder has suddenly or gradually decreased (e.g., due to injury, accident, aging, disease), then, logically, one could argue that he or she should be stripped of his/her rank. If the dan holder can no longer perform physically better than practitioners of a lower rank in an art/organization/school in which criteria are purely physically based, then none of us should retain our dan rankings as we age--no matter how devoted we remain to our own physical, mental, and/or spiritual development to the best of our ability and no matter how much we contribute to the development of our art and/or the development of our students. Would any of you advocate for such demotions? And, if not, then shouldn't there be room for at least some accommodation for variation in ability evident prior to rank attainment?
> 
> I certainly don't have all of the answers for the many hypothetical situations one could propose related to disability, especially given my relatively low level of experience as an instructor. Yet, in my view, I feel certain that Taekwondo was not intended to be only for elite athletes of extraordinary physical ability. I believe that it is a vehicle through which people--gifted, ordinary, and challenged--may develop to the best of their abilities. Exactly how I will enact that philosophy while teaching real people is something I look forward to discovering.
> 
> Cynthia



Lol.  Okay.  Would a university strip a phd from a man who suffers from Alzheimer's or some other form of dementia?  Let's keep it real, guys.



Sent using Tapatalk.  Please ignore typos.


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> It's a test of precision and power.  If you can't break a few stationary pieces of wood, you'd probably find it even more difficult to actually hit a moving person with sufficient force to hurt him.



That's what board breaking is today, but that isn't the original reason. And really it wasn't even board breaking, at least with respect to korean martial arts. That's because wood is highly prized in south korea and it is a waste of wood to use it for martial arts purposes. Wood is so valued there that the paper in books is made out of stone, not wood. Try lugging back a bag full of books from Korea; it's like dragging around a bag of rocks. Instead, korean martial artists used roofing tiles to break. 




dancingalone said:


> And yah I am a big fan of makiwara practice, though we get by with kicking shields and heavy bags at my dojang.



Kicking shields and heavy bags are the same as a makiwara. I consider makiwara like an okinawan soloflex.


----------



## Steve

puunui said:


> Relson doesn't have his own school anymore and he may have moved out of state. Or at least I heard that was the plan. But irrespective of that, the black belts under him have different standards of what the color belts mean. I think that they are generally consistent within the same school, but might not be once you venture to other schools under the Relson Gracie banner. And the standards for Relson's mainland students are much more laxed than what is going on in Hawaii.


and this is relevant how?





> Incorrect. What I am saying is it seems that you are applying jiujitsu standards and a jiujitsu mentality, especially regarding the rank of 1st dan, to taekwondo and judging taekwondo by that jiujitsu standard and mentality.


and if you believe this, you have fundamentally misunderstood my posts.  My point is the same independent of style.  It would be the same regardless of sport.



> Relson actually did do that, for at least one black belt here. Or at least some feel that way. The particular black belt had ok skills, but he went to every seminar, took notes, opened his own school, put on seminars for Relson, etc. So Relson promoted him to black belt. This black belt has a lot of students, but the other Relson black belts dislike him tremendously. Plus this black belt will not roll with other black belts, or even brown belts, preferring instead to "teach" white and blue belts.


presuming this is true, you don't see how this supports exactly what I'm saying?





> Then there is the noticeable difference in standards for the mainland students and the hawaii students. Hawaii students are held to a much higher standard and take longer to promote than those on the mainland. Or so I am told.


frankly, it's beginning to sound like you're changing your story from post to post in order to disagree with a straw man that you're pretending represents my posts.  The relative standards between Hawaii and the mainland are irrelevant.  If the standards of the school are consistent, that's enough.  As an aside, are you digging on my rank?  Pretty lame.  If Hawaii standards were too far out of whack, the Hawaiians would be killing at the pan ams and Mundials.  





> But I don't think that diminishes Relson's reputation any. Certainly no one is willing to say such things to his face, or while they are rolling with him for example. Instead, they choose to quietly understand why he does what he does, and instead of judging him, they cut him slack and realize that he can do whatever he wants with any of his students or student's students, since he is, after all, the man in charge.


once again, this is anecdotal, but taking your statements at face value, how do you not see that you are helping me make my point?


Maybe you should back up and try to be specific about where you think you disagree with me.  From what I see, you're providing anecdotal evidence that directly supports my previous posts.  While I have no idea if anything you're posting is true, if taken at face value, you're providing a specific instance where a well respected instructor is fostering dissent, damaging the credibility of his rank structure and causing problems among his students because he chose to arbitrarily bend his own rules.  


Sent using Tapatalk.  Please ignore typos.


----------



## puunui

Steve said:


> and this is relevant how?



It's relevant to the point that there are no standards, even within the same small organization. Ranking is subjective. Every teacher has a different point of view on it.  When some students grumbled about this or that person getting promoted, my hapkido teacher used to point to his hand and ask "Which finger is the same as any other?" His point was that everyone is different, and therefore you have to treat them differently. When I was about to open my own school, I asked him if he wanted me to concentrate on anything, his response was to do whatever I wanted, that for me, hapkido had no rules. However, for other students, he doesn't say that and in fact tells them that they have to this or that technique a certain way. Different people get treated differently. That's how it always is and that is how it always will be. I don't know if you have brothers and sisters, but the lament of older children tends to be that the younger kids have it easier, that their parents don't treat the younger kids or the baby in the same way that they were treated. People change, their standards change, their perspective changes. Let's have this same conversation in five or ten years and perhaps both of our perspectives and positions will change. I know I do not think the same thoughts as I did ten years ago. Are you? 




Steve said:


> and if you believe this, you have fundamentally misunderstood my posts.  My point is the same independent of style.  It would be the same regardless of sport.



You think it is independent of style, but in reality, how can it be? After all, your perspective comes in part from the style that you study, which I think is brazilian jiujitsu. 




Steve said:


> presuming this is true, you don't see how this supports exactly what I'm saying?



Perhaps. Or perhaps it is yet another example of the type of unnecessary judgmental behavior that it out there. 




Steve said:


> frankly, it's beginning to sound like you're changing your story from post to post in order to disagree with a straw man that you're pretending represents my posts.



Not at all. Within the same school, higher ranks in theory should be able to consistently defeat lower belts. At least that is how it was explained to me. But that concept gets thrown out the window when you move outside of that particular school and start interacting with other schools. For example, one club here is very good in gi. Another is very good in no gi, because that was the instructor's interest. And now their students reflect that, even though they all came from the same instructor. 




Steve said:


> The relative standards between Hawaii and the mainland are irrelevant.  If the standards of the school are consistent, that's enough.  As an aside, are you digging on my rank?  Pretty lame.  If Hawaii standards were too far out of whack, the Hawaiians would be killing at the pan ams and Mundials.  once again, this is anecdotal, but taking your statements at face value, how do you not see that you are helping me make my point?



Are you a Relson Gracie student? If not, then the discussion about Relson Gracie and his students doesn't apply to you. And I don't know what your rank is. But the point is, even within the same organization, under the same instructor, there are different standards, because people are different. And those standards get stretched even further when the geographical distances become greater. My understanding is that Relson holds higher standards for hawaii students because he has been here first, he has lived here for 25 years, he spends the most time here, and so forth. The people on the mainland learn primarily at infrequent seminars, as opposed to the hawaii people who have more access. And when they come to Hawaii to roll, it shows. 

But it is not a cookie cutter world. I understand your point, but the practical reality of a school and an instructor, especially one who has multiple schools under him, makes for exceptions.


----------



## Steve

What exactly do you think my position is, Punuui?  Because, you say you understand my point, but everything else you say is either completely irrelevant or directly in support of my point, but said like you're disagreeing with me.  If it's not too much trouble, instead of telling me that you understand my position, if you could just sum it up in a couple of sentences it would help me understand where we're missing each other.


----------



## puunui

Steve said:


> Would a university strip a phd from a man who suffers from Alzheimer's or some other form of dementia?  Let's keep it real, guys.



I think that once you obtain a certain rank, especially dan rank, then you pretty much keep it for the rest of your life, even if you stop training and participating. But I know there are others out there that subscribe to the "boiling water" theory, that if you don't constantly apply heat to your water, and let it get cold, then you no longer deserve your rank and should give it up.


----------



## puunui

Steve said:


> What exactly do you think my position is, Punuui?  Because, you say you understand my point, but everything else you say is  either completely irrelevant or directly in support of my point, but  said like you're disagreeing with me.  If it's not too much trouble,  instead of telling me that you understand my position, if you could just  sum it up in a couple of sentences it would help me understand where  we're missing each other.




Within the context of this topic, your basic position is that there should be consistent standards and because of that, a disabled person may not be able to obtain a black belt, because they may be unable to meet that consistent standard due to the disability. But you do feel that even if they are unable to obtain a black belt because of those consistent standards, that they should still be allowed to train. 

My position in summary is that I agree with you that everyone should be allowed to train. But where we disagree is on the idea that allowances can and should be made for individual students, including but not limited to rank standards. 

To me, anyone can and should be able to obtain a 1st Dan black belt. You don't, which is where our opinions basically differ.


----------



## shesulsa

I think the conversation is pointing more towards what a black belt means - which I understand is a bit of a sub-discussion here of the convo, but let's not travel on that tangent too far for much longer.

I'm interested in specific circumstances where we might alter standard material for a challenge.  Can we get into the specifics of this?  I think this may help supplement the quality debate.

For instance - I have a different student who clearly has some kind of undiagnosed challenge. It became clear he is just completely unable to recall the first three ranks of material in their sum.  With my autistic student, I conceded to focus on current rank requirements and work on his memorization by review.  This has been a long-time challenge.  He has advanced more rapidly than this other student.  So, I recently decided to be more flexible on this. This required him to get REALLY GOOD at his current rank.  As these skills improve, his retention improves as well.  I worry about both of these kids having the ability to retain ALL color rank information in the future and will not consider giving full rank to them without it, hence they are currently both "decided ranks."  

Should they each continue to improve on their recall and contain all the information and the ability to understand it as a progressive learning module, I may reconsider and I think this is reasonable.

Thoughts?


----------



## lifespantkd

puunui said:


> I think that once you obtain a certain rank, especially dan rank, then you pretty much keep it for the rest of your life, even if you stop training and participating. But I know there are others out there that subscribe to the "boiling water" theory, that if you don't constantly apply heat to your water, and let it get cold, then you no longer deserve your rank and should give it up.



Yes, I have seen the "boiling water" theory, too.

Cynthia


----------



## lifespantkd

shesulsa said:


> I think the conversation is pointing more towards what a black belt means - which I understand is a bit of a sub-discussion here of the convo, but let's not travel on that tangent too far for much longer.
> 
> I'm interested in specific circumstances where we might alter standard material for a challenge. Can we get into the specifics of this? I think this may help supplement the quality debate.
> 
> For instance - I have a different student who clearly has some kind of undiagnosed challenge. It became clear he is just completely unable to recall the first three ranks of material in their sum. With my autistic student, I conceded to focus on current rank requirements and work on his memorization by review. This has been a long-time challenge. He has advanced more rapidly than this other student. So, I recently decided to be more flexible on this. This required him to get REALLY GOOD at his current rank. As these skills improve, his retention improves as well. I worry about both of these kids having the ability to retain ALL color rank information in the future and will not consider giving full rank to them without it, hence they are currently both "decided ranks."
> 
> Should they each continue to improve on their recall and contain all the information and the ability to understand it as a progressive learning module, I may reconsider and I think this is reasonable.
> 
> Thoughts?



This is a great example of how the need for accommodation can come into play. Sometimes, the accommodation has to be made in terms of *how* we teach. *In theory* a student may be able to learn what is required of him or her, but may not be able to learn it in the way that most others can learn it. If we cannot figure out how to make that accommodation in our approach to teaching, that student may not be able to meet whatever criteria is set for a particular rank. But, is this a true inability? Or is it a failure of the instructor to respond effectively to the diversity in the dojang?

Please note that I am *not* saying that you are failing. On the contrary, it is evident that you are carefully observing what is happening and thinking deeply about how to be effective. I just think it's an excellent example of a situation in which an instructor *could* be the road block to a student's ability to earn a particular rank. Figuring out how to teach a particular student could require an instructor to learn more about teaching, in general, or about specific situations that can influence what a student needs to learn successfully, such as learning disabilities, autism, sensory integration, and so on. In such a case, the student's learning is dependent on the instructor's willingness and ability to learn how to effectively teach.

Cynthia


----------



## lifespantkd

Steve said:


> Lol. Okay. Would a university strip a phd from a man who suffers from Alzheimer's or some other form of dementia? Let's keep it real, guys.



I am hardly arguing for such an action. But those who subscribe to the "boiling water" theory in the context of Taekwondo would. In the context of Taekwondo the right to wear a particular belt, like the right to hold some types of professional certifications and licenses, depends on what that belt is believed to represent. The nature of that belief is not a universal understanding across schools.

Peace,

Cynthia


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

lifespantkd said:


> A similar question--the answer of which may help clarify key issues related to the original question--is what should be done if a black belt *becomes* disabled? *If* the qualifications of black belt status are defined purely on a practitioner's physical ability meeting a universally applied standard without exception or variation or flexibility of any kind and the ability of the dan holder has suddenly or gradually decreased (e.g., due to injury, accident, aging, disease), then, logically, one could argue that he or she should be stripped of his/her rank. If the dan holder can no longer perform physically better than practitioners of a lower rank in an art/organization/school in which criteria are purely physically based, then none of us should retain our dan rankings as we age--no matter how devoted we remain to our own physical, mental, and/or spiritual development to the best of our ability and no matter how much we contribute to the development of our art and/or the development of our students. Would any of you advocate for such demotions? And, if not, then shouldn't there be room for at least some accommodation for variation in ability evident prior to rank attainment?


No, I would not advocate for such demotions. It would be like taking a college degree away from a person who has lost their mental faculaties; the degree represents work that they have done, not what they currently are. And colleges do not accept everyone. The degree represents that you were accepted and completed whatever course of study you received your degree in.

That degree qualifies you to take jobs for which is required. If you lose your mental faculties and are unable to do the job, the degree has no bearing on that. Likewise, a first dan allows you to compete in certain divisions within the confines of your age, weight, and gender. If you are already disabled, and if your art has competition geared towards disabled practitioners, then that factors in as well. 

As I age, I am moved from one age bracket to the next in competition. In my last TKD competition I was in super executive, meaning over forty. So having the black belt did not put me in the ring with eighteen year olds. 

If you're not competing, then being aged/disabled/injured/whatever doesn't really matter with regards to having the belt. You still have the knowledge, and besides, it isn't as if a mugger is going to ask for our dan card prior to mugging us, and leave us alone should we present one.

Modern martial arts are as much about growing as people as they are about learning the system. The black belt represents a milestone that we reached at a point in time in our lives. Successive degrees represent later milestones. We should never stop growing as people.

Consider that the words we translate as 'martial arts' in JMA and KMA are budo and mudo, which actually mean, 'martial way,' not martial art. A crippled person can still follow the martial path in the way that they live their lives. It has nothing to do with how high you can kick.



lifespantkd said:


> I certainly don't have all of the answers for the many hypothetical situations one could propose related to disability, especially given my relatively low level of experience as an instructor. Yet, in my view, I feel certain that Taekwondo was not intended to be only for elite athletes of extraordinary physical ability. I believe that it is a vehicle through which people--gifted, ordinary, and challenged--may develop to the best of their abilities. Exactly how I will enact that philosophy while teaching real people is something I look forward to discovering.
> 
> Cynthia


Absolutely!


----------



## dancingalone

puunui said:


> That's what board breaking is today, but that isn't the original reason. And really it wasn't even board breaking, at least with respect to korean martial arts. That's because wood is highly prized in south korea and it is a waste of wood to use it for martial arts purposes. Wood is so valued there that the paper in books is made out of stone, not wood. Try lugging back a bag full of books from Korea; it's like dragging around a bag of rocks. Instead, korean martial artists used roofing tiles to break.



That is an interesting factoid.  

I continue to use breaking in tests because it is a tangible test with the results clearly visible for both the examinee and any onlookers.  It's always a crowd-pleaser and the spectacle is good for both the students and their family members.


----------



## Steve

puunui said:


> Within the context of this topic, your basic position is that there should be consistent standards


Yes.  And that there is an important difference between a standard and how that standard is measured.  The two are often confused, making real life situations like this unnecessarily complicated.





> and because of that, a disabled person may not be able to obtain a black belt, because they may be unable to meet that consistent standard due to the disability.


I would even remove the word disabled.  Laziness could, in some situations, be considered a more serious impediment to earning a black belt than loss of vision.  





> But you do feel that even if they are unable to obtain a black belt because of those consistent standards, that they should still be allowed to train.


This is close.  I think that if there is value in an activity, whatever that activity might be, than rank and pursuit of promotions is irrelevant anyway.  However, if you're learning to do an activity in a structure that includes rank promotions, it's an issue if that structure lacks integrity.  In other words, these are two separate issues that are being conflated.  

Will a lazy but otherwise healthy person benefit from training in TKD?  I don't know firsthand, but I would presume so.  Even if he only did it for a year and failed to reach black belt.  Would you agree?  The rank is a side issue, and I see it as being less about the style, (although systemic issues can come up), and more about the integrity of the school and the system in which you're training.  It just simply causes problems and erodes trust.  Your anecdotes about Relson Gracie support this.  He compromised his standards only one time, according to your story, and it caused strife among his students.  Just one time, in your story.  Imagine the lack of faith in his system were he to apply no visible, consistent standards.  



> My position in summary is that I agree with you that everyone should be allowed to train. But where we disagree is on the idea that allowances can and should be made for individual students, including but not limited to rank standards.
> 
> To me, anyone can and should be able to obtain a 1st Dan black belt. You don't, which is where our opinions basically differ.


This is fair.  See above.  I'm not suggesting that you hold black belts to a high standard.  That's for you to decide.  I'm saying that whatever standards you determine are fit for you, you should apply them consistently.  Further, how you MEASURE those standards is where you have room to be very creative, making allowances for each individual.  This is where I used Relson's blue belt standard.  The standard is pretty clear.  How that standard looks on different people will be very different.  

Hope this clears things up.


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> I continue to use breaking in tests because it is a tangible test with the results clearly visible for both the examinee and any onlookers.  It's always a crowd-pleaser and the spectacle is good for both the students and their family members.



The instructors who are moving away from board breaking are those who are finding people are quitting due to apprehension or fear of increasingly harder breaks as you progress in ranks. Personally, I think the solution is to train people in board breaking, if that is what you want them to do at tests. Most instructors devote very little or no time in class to prepare students for breaking. 

Some instructors that keep board breaking are using skinnier boards rather than the standard 3/4 inch pine. 

PS: The books in korea really are made out of stone. I brought back a duffel bag filled on one trip, and when I got to baggage claim, the handles on the bag had ripped off and were missing.


----------



## Steve

puunui said:


> where we disagree is on the idea that allowances can and should be made for individual students, including but not limited to rank standards.
> 
> To me, anyone can and should be able to obtain a 1st Dan black belt. You don't, which is where our opinions basically differ.



 I want clarify another thing.   If anyone can get a black belt in your school, I'm totally cool with that.  That speaks to your standards, and once again, if you are transparent (ie, ALL of your students are aware of your standards and understand them) and you are consistent, you're fine in my book.  

For the record, I haven't yet shared my own standards, as they are completely irrelevant to this discussion.  


Sent using Tapatalk.  Please ignore typos.


----------



## puunui

Steve said:


> I want clarify another thing.   If anyone can get a black belt in your school, I'm totally cool with that.  That speaks to your standards, and once again, if you are transparent (ie, ALL of your students are aware of your standards and understand them) and you are consistent, you're fine in my book.



I do believe that everyone should be able to reach the 1st dan level, just like I feel that everyone should be able to obtain a high school diploma. I don't believe that everyone can make it to 9th Dan though. 




Steve said:


> For the record, I haven't yet shared my own standards, as they are completely irrelevant to this discussion.



ok.


----------



## Steve

A bit of time has gone by, but the topic of disability within the martial arts has resurfaced.  We have a lot of new people on the boards, and I'd be very interested in hearing some new opinions weighing in on this.


----------



## TrueJim

It seem to me there are only three choices when deciding upon a standard for achieving black belt:

Have a universal standard for all students that is rather high
Have a universal standard for all students that is somewhat lower
Adjust the standard to fit each student individually
If you go with the first option, then really only your very fit (and probably youthful) adults are going to pass the test.

If you go with the second option, then your very fit students are not going to feel very challenged (the test will be too easy).

The third option seems to me to make the most sense. Adjust the standard so that it challenges the student to the limits of their potential. Given that, I don't see why a disabled person can't be a black belt...you adjust the standard to reflect their potential in light of their disability.


----------



## Steve

TrueJim said:


> It seem to me there are only three choices when deciding upon a standard for achieving black belt:
> 
> Have a universal standard for all students that is rather high
> Have a universal standard for all students that is somewhat lower
> Adjust the standard to fit each student individually
> If you go with the first option, then really only your very fit (and probably youthful) adults are going to pass the test.
> 
> If you go with the second option, then your very fit students are not going to feel very challenged (the test will be too easy).
> 
> The third option seems to me to make the most sense. Adjust the standard so that it challenges the student to the limits of their potential. Given that, I don't see why a disabled person can't be a black belt...you adjust the standard to reflect their potential in light of their disability.


Option four is the baby bear standard, just right.   You go from too high, to too low and then to tossing standards out the window.  There are other options.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> A bit of time has gone by, but the topic of disability within the martial arts has resurfaced.  We have a lot of new people on the boards, and I'd be very interested in hearing some new opinions weighing in on this.


Steve, well done on resurrecting this thread. I think I kept out of it when it was first running because most of the practitioners involved are TKD. But of most interest was your passionate arguing of your position, something I haven't seen you do before. For what it's worth, I agree with what you were arguing.

What I am saying is not in the context of TKD as I think it has gone well beyond that at this stage. Can I first say I am entirely responsible for grading my students, at least until they reach a high level of proficiency when I want them to be graded on their merit outside of my small world.

Can I say at the outset, I put a high value on a black belt. I had to work hard to get mine and although that doesn't mean I want to punish those who follow me, I do want them to achieve a level of proficiency of which they are proud. Can I also say that when I did teach juniors I did not award a single junior black belt. Juniors had a junior rank, designated by a white stripe through their belt. To get their black they had to be able to match it with adults. If a someone wearing a black belt, junior or not, can be towelled by an adult white belt then the black belt loses all meaning.

Where does that leave us with disability? Well, for a start, not everyone can be an astronaut. Many may dream but few are chosen. Most of the early guys were top fighter pilots. Not many of us could get there either. Even to be an airline pilot has stringent requirements. Very few if any airline pilots with an obvious mental issue will pass the medical. Some of us may have had dreams of being in the special forces. How many guys with a severe physical disability would be selected for the basic training? I guess what I am saying is that most of us have had dreams of being something that in the end we really had little hope of being.

So back to the martial arts. Back a hundred years or so we wouldn't be having this arguement. Until Kano introduced coloured belts to denote progress there was no such thing as a black belt. People just learned whatever they were learning. Some people got very good and some people didn't. There was no marker to say I'm good or I'm really good.

To me, and I think to the broader non-martial art community, a black belt denotes a level of martial ability above your average punter. I would not give a black belt to anyone I thought could not match up to a blackbelt from a similar style. I have had my coloured belts come back from other places where they have encountered black belts with less ability than them and I would prefer to keep it that way.

So can a person with a disability be a black belt? Of course they can but they must be capable of reaching a certain level of proficiency. Someone in a wheelchair with limited use of his legs may well be able to hit hard and grapple strongly. Why would such a person expect to reach black belt level in say TKD where such emphasis is on kicking? He would be much more suited to a different skill set that he might find in say Aikido or Jujutsu or even Karate.

It is admirable that someone with a disability would take on a martial art. Years ago we had a guy with a wooden leg (literally), below knee amputee. His mobility was pretty good but his kick was awesome. I never did find out if he got through to black belt but I have no doubt he had the ability.

What I am saying is, to me a black belt is an important marker of ability. Not everyone, disabled or not, will reach that level. We all have to live within our limits and make appropriate choices.


----------



## Jenna

I do not know about any of this though I feel some times we all need to get our noses out of our bowls and see there is a bigger world than our own MA, our own petty standards, our protected fragile traditions, our own dogmas.. Perhaps our own prejudices..  I see in all of this debate the attitude that never ask what is the purpose of our MA teachings?  What are we even trying to achieve? 

If your BB in your art is a measured standard PURELY of technical competence, is rigid and immovable because it was written on a tablet of stone on an ancient mountaintop then fine, plainly there is a market for it and you will produce the most technically proficient and socially narrowest range of BBs.. 'twas ever thus in MAs

And but surely then you MUST make this policy clear on your front door "NO ADMITTANCE HERE FOR GRADING IF YOU CANNOT PERFORM X, Y & Z THE WAY IT WAS DONE IN THE BEGINNING" then every one will know where they stand, nobody will whinge at you about discrimination nonsense and any one who has an infirmity, a disability (or the parents or guardians of those persons) can take their interest and their business elsewhere. 

Jx


----------



## TrueJim

Steve said:


> Option four is the baby bear standard, just right. You go from too high, to too low and then to tossing standards out the window.  There are other options.



I'm sorry, but I believe you are mistaken. Logically, there are only three options:

Either set a high standard
Or set a standard that is lower than that
Or set a varying standard
Your "just right" approach is really the same thing as my option #2: set a standard that is lower than high. 

I think what you're trying to say is that the "just right" standard (aka the "lower standard") may be low, but it should not be TOO low, and that seems fair. I would argue though that that approach still doesn't get you out of the original pickle: your athletically gifted students will still not be challenged by the "just right" standard. In order to keep them engaged and interested as they advance, you'll be tempted to challenge them to excel at a higher standard, and then you're back to square one: using approach 3, a varying standard.

By the way, nobody ever suggested "tossing standards out the window." What I said was, assess the potential of each student, and make that the standard for that student.


----------



## TrueJim

K-man said:


> Where does that leave us with disability? Well, for a start, not everyone can be an astronaut. Many may dream but few are chosen. Most of the early guys were top fighter pilots. Not many of us could get there either. Even to be an airline pilot has stringent requirements. Very few if any airline pilots with an obvious mental issue will pass the medical. Some of us may have had dreams of being in the special forces. How many guys with a severe physical disability would be selected for the basic training? I guess what I am saying is that most of us have had dreams of being something that in the end we really had little hope of being.



By this line of reasoning then, would you say that if a black belt were to become disabled, would we then take away his or her black belt? Perhaps we should give them a special stripe on their belt that denotes, "This person used to be a black belt, but is no longer?"


----------



## Steve

TrueJim said:


> I'm sorry, but I believe you are mistaken. Logically, there are only three options:
> 
> Either set a high standard
> Or set a standard that is lower than that
> Or set a varying standard
> Your "just right" approach is really the same thing as my option #2: set a standard that is lower than high.
> 
> I think what you're trying to say is that the "just right" standard (aka the "lower standard") may be low, but it should not be TOO low, and that seems fair. I would argue though that that approach still doesn't get you out of the original pickle: your athletically gifted students will still not be challenged by the "just right" standard. In order to keep them engaged and interested as they advance, you'll be tempted to challenge them to excel at a higher standard, and then you're back to square one: using approach 3, a varying standard.
> 
> By the way, nobody ever suggested "tossing standards out the window." What I said was, assess the potential of each student, and make that the standard for that student.


I'm sorry, truejim, but logically, it is you who is mistaken.  I'm not suggesting lowering or compromising standards.   I don't think that's a good idea at all.   I'm suggesting that standards can be reasonable, and not arbitrary.  I do think that often, the standards are not well thought out,  and that's the root of the problem.   I've explained it at length earlier in this thread.  
Having different standards for each student is functionally the same as not having standards at all.   Better,min think,mot have reasonable standards that reflect the core requirements for the rank, while providing flexibility for measuring the standards.  I've explained this at length earlier in the thread, and think that you will see this is perfectly reasonable if you read my earlier posts.


----------



## Steve

TrueJim said:


> By this line of reasoning then, would you say that if a black belt were to become disabled, would we then take away his or her black belt? Perhaps we should give them a special stripe on their belt that denotes, "This person used to be a black belt, but is no longer?"


Truejim, this was asked earlier.  As I said then, would you take away a professors phd if he suffers from a brain injury or Alzheimer's?  Of course not.


----------



## TrueJim

K-man said:


> Back a hundred years or so we wouldn't be having this argument. Until Kano introduced coloured belts to denote progress there was no such thing as a black belt. People just learned whatever they were learning. Some people got very good and some people didn't. There was no marker to say I'm good or I'm really good.



They say that once upon a time everybody's belt was white, and the belts would just naturally darken with age...hence the connotation of _expertise_ associated with a dark belt. So arguably then, if we were to return to our roots, a black belt would not denote any standard at all, but merely the fact that the practitioner has been working at the art for a very long time. I'm not arguing in favor of this, I just think you raise a good point: in the oldest traditions, there were no standards associated with a dark belt at all, other than the single standard "he's been at this for a very long time."


----------



## Instructor

Our standard has always been effectiveness when it counts.  If you judge a student on that standard you should be okay.  So what if he can't do a jump spinning crescent kick, how many would use that technique in an actual fight?  We live in a day that soldiers lose a leg, strap on a prosthesis, and grab their rucksack and weapon and go back to war.  Combat effectiveness..


----------



## K-man

TrueJim said:


> By this line of reasoning then, would you say that if a black belt were to become disabled, would we then take away his or her black belt? Perhaps we should give them a special stripe on their belt that denotes, "This person used to be a black belt, but is no longer?"


Not at all. It was an achievement that was earned. As has been said earlier, an academic achievement is the same. In my previous life I had to demonstrate competency to retain my registration. When I retired I lost the right to practice but I still have the degree. Flying is the same. Once you have your flying licence it is for life. However to fly you need to have a current medical certificate and demonstrate competency every two years.

If you have earned a black belt then you retain the rank. What you do with it is up to you. If you cannot demonstrate competency are you going to flash it about?

But let's look at disability after someone has reached the rank of Shodan or higher. If that person wishes to continue training to the level of his ability, there is nothing to say he shouldn't. It is up to him to decide if he can keep going. If the disability came about at say brown belt level, again, he may or may not be able to continue training and he may or may not ever achieve that next level.

In earlier threads people were talking about different grading requirements, in particular breaking. Now this is a TKD thread so that may apply to TKD but none of my styles require breaking as a grading requirement. So if we go back to my hypothetical guy in a wheelchair, I couldn't care less if he couldn't kick to break a board. Kicking, to me, is vastly over rated, but then I don't train anything that relies on kicks. But if he can punch and grapple there is no reason for him not to reach black belt in another style that recognises the skills he possesses. What I am saying is that a person with a disability must select an art that he can fit into and progress to black belt if that is what he desires. My guy in the chair is obviously not suited to TKD but may well be able to train in another style.


----------



## K-man

TrueJim said:


> They say that once upon a time everybody's belt was white, and the belts would just naturally darken with age...hence the connotation of _expertise_ associated with a dark belt. So arguably then, if we were to return to our roots, a black belt would not denote any standard at all, but merely the fact that the practitioner has been working at the art for a very long time. I'm not arguing in favor of this, I just think you raise a good point: in the oldest traditions, there were no standards associated with a dark belt at all, other than the single standard "he's been at this for a very long time."


Yes and no. I agree with the sentiment and I have heard the story about the darkening belt. Just that, I'm not sure that it is more than a good yarn.


----------



## Steve

TrueJim said:


> They say that once upon a time everybody's belt was white, and the belts would just naturally darken with age...hence the connotation of _expertise_ associated with a dark belt. So arguably then, if we were to return to our roots, a black belt would not denote any standard at all, but merely the fact that the practitioner has been working at the art for a very long time. I'm not arguing in favor of this, I just think you raise a good point: in the oldest traditions, there were no standards associated with a dark belt at all, other than the single standard "he's been at this for a very long time."


Fwiw, if this is the standard and it is consistent and clearly communicated, It's a good example of a happy "just right."   Doesn't mean this should or even could the the sole standard for every art or school.  Simply a good example.


----------



## TrueJim

Steve said:


> I'm sorry, truejim, but logically, *it is you who is mistaken*.  I'm not suggesting lowering or compromising standards.   I don't think that's a good idea at all.



This is what I said: There are only three options...

Set a high standard
Set a standard that is lower than that
Use a varying standard
You said: No, there is a fourth option. You claimed that that fourth option is to use a "just right" standard...but *that is the same as my second option*. How am I "mistaken?"

There only three options: high, lower, or varying.



Steve said:


> I'm suggesting that standards can be reasonable, and not arbitrary.



Sir, I believe you are trolling. Nobody has suggested an _arbitrary_ standard. What has been suggested is a sliding standard that's based on an assessment of the potential of a student. That is not _arbitrary_.

One could argue though that this is _arbitrary_:

"It's okay if the standard varies by _style_"
"It's okay if the standard varies by _school_"
"It's okay if the standard varies by _instructor_"

"But it's *not* okay if the standard varies by student"


----------



## K-man

TrueJim said:


> This is what I said: There are only three options...
> 
> Set a high standard
> Set a standard that is lower than that
> Use a varying standard
> You said: No, there is a fourth option. You claimed that that fourth option is to use a "just right" standard...but *that is the same as my second option*. How am I "mistaken?"
> 
> There only three options: high, lower, or varying.
> 
> 
> 
> Sir, I believe you are trolling. Nobody has suggested an _arbitrary_ standard. What has been suggested is a sliding standard that's based on an assessment of the potential of a student. That is not _arbitrary_.
> 
> One could argue though that this is _arbitrary_:
> 
> "It's okay if the standard varies by _style_"
> "It's okay if the standard varies by _school_"
> "It's okay if the standard varies by _instructor_"
> 
> "But it's *not* okay if the standard varies by student"


Fair's fair. I have had my disagreements with Steve over recent times but one thing he is not, is a troll. I think you are simply discussing shades of grey.


----------



## Steve

TrueJim said:


> This is what I said: There are only three options...
> 
> Set a high standard
> Set a standard that is lower than that
> Use a varying standard
> You said: No, there is a fourth option. You claimed that that fourth option is to use a "just right" standard...but *that is the same as my second option*. How am I "mistaken?"
> 
> There only three options: high, lower, or varying.
> 
> 
> 
> Sir, I believe you are trolling. Nobody has suggested an _arbitrary_ standard. What has been suggested is a sliding standard that's based on an assessment of the potential of a student. That is not _arbitrary_.
> 
> One could argue though that this is _arbitrary_:
> 
> "It's okay if the standard varies by _style_"
> "It's okay if the standard varies by _school_"
> "It's okay if the standard varies by _instructor_"
> 
> "But it's *not* okay if the standard varies by student"


I think you would benefit from reading the entire thread.   If after yiu have done this, you still don't understand what I mean when I say that there are options other than the three you suggest, we can continue.  In the meantime, it's clear you're getting a little frustrated.


----------



## andyjeffries

TrueJim said:


> They say that once upon a time everybody's belt was white, and the belts would just naturally darken with age...hence the connotation of _expertise_ associated with a dark belt.



Actually there was an article by a martial arts historian called Don Cunningham where he stated there is actually no evidence of belts denoting practitioner seniority before Jigoro Kano.  Before him, they just used the menkyo system.  So while it's a lovely story, it seems more martial myth than martial fact.


----------



## andyjeffries

Steve said:


> I think you would benefit from reading the entire thread.   If after yiu have done this, you still don't understand what I mean when I say that there are options other than the three you suggest, we can continue.  In the meantime, it's clear you're getting a little frustrated.



I've read the thread (originally and now) and don't understand logically what the fourth option is...  Could you explain it, maybe a different way, for me?


----------



## Steve

andyjeffries said:


> I've read the thread (originally and now) and don't understand logically what the fourth option is...  Could you explain it, maybe a different way, for me?


    Okay.  I'll do what I can.  First, let's be clear what I mean when I use the term "standard."  In this context, we're talking about the bar that is met.  When a manager evaluates your work, they are doing so against a standard which is expected to be met or exceeded. 

What TrueJim has created is an either/or situation.  You either have high standards or you have low standards.  The third option is somewhat illusory, because it's essentially no standards.  When you create a unique set of standards for each person, it's no longer a standard at all. 

What I am suggesting is that high or low standards is irrelevant.  I'm suggesting that consistency is the key, whatever the standard.   One can have high standards that are not consistently enforced.  One can also have low standards that are inconsistently enforced.  Further, the very use of the terms "high" and "low" are subjective.  What is a high standard?  For you, that may be something completely different than for me.

As a quick aside, when you frame the situation up as TrueJim has done, you are creating a red herring (and also a false dilemma).  For what that's worth, it's technically illogical for at least two reasons. 

Getting back to the point, though, the key isn't to worry at all about what the standards are elsewhere.  Rather, what is the standard in this system, in this school?  And how do we measure performance against this standard in a way that is consistent and equitable?  Where the standards are arbitrary, they become meaningless.  Where they are consistently applied, they are meaningful. 

If your school has one single standard for earning a black belt, and that's time on the mats, great.  You have a clear standard that can be communicated to all and managed consistently.  X hours on the mat = Black Belt.  Whether you are in a wheelchair or not, deaf, blind, whatever. 

If the standard is that the blue belts should be able to consistently perform well against white belts, and so on, then that is an okay standard.  It's clear and able to be managed consistently. 

The confusion comes about when people use the term "standard" and "measure" interchangeably.  The standard is fixed.  How you measure performance against the standard isn't necessarily so, and that's where you can both maintain the integrity of your standards while accommodating disabilities in creative and positive ways.


----------



## Buka

This is an interesting thread. I missed it the first go round, catching up now.


----------



## TrueJim

*To my mind, this is the crux of the situation, right here:*

*If all a black belt means is that you've worked very hard for a very long time, regardless of your impairments, then a black belt means a LOT. *But if a black belt also means, "and you happened to have done that while you were young and unimpaired" then a black belt arguably means _less_.

I believe that you feel like you are arguing in favor of a black belt meaning "more," but I believe you are actually arguing in favor of it meaning _less_.  You are arguing that it's not about: have you worked really hard for a very long time to be the best that you can be. You're arguing that it's about that, plus "...and did you happened to have done that during a time in your life when you were fortunate enough to have no infirmities."

I believe that encumbering the definition of a black belt with that second clause actually _diminishes_ the meaning of a black belt.



K-man said:


> Not at all. It was an achievement that was earned...



So you're saying this: "A black belt doesn't mean that you can do X, but it does mean that once upon a time you could do X."  Furthermore, if a person has a disability that prevents them from ever being able to do X, they should never receive a black belt.

So then I suppose the question becomes...what should X be?  If we make X be something that only very athletic young men and women can do (i.e., requiring a very high standard of athleticism), then a black belt essentially winds up meaning two things: (1) you've worked very hard for a long time, but also (2) you are young and athletic (or at least you were back when you got your black belt).

If on the other hand we make X be something that even young teens and older adults -- or even disabled people -- can do (i.e., requiring a lower level of athleticism), then the black belt means only one thing: (1) you've worked very hard. 

Personally, to me, it seems entirely random to encumber the meaning of the black belt to include the second thing: that you were young and athletic with no disabilities back when you get your black belt. Unless one is subscribing to a very *Hollywood* definition of black belt, why should one's stage in life and physical impairments be part of the definition? It seems to me that the _years of effort_ and level of _hard-work_ put-in is much closer to a good definition of being a martial artist.


----------



## TrueJim

[QUOTE="Steve, post: 1708613, member: 17506]What TrueJim has created is an either/or situation.[/QUOTE]

But that's because it *is* an either/or situation.

Either you have a common standard for everybody, or varying standards by individual
If it's a common standard for everybody, you either make it a high standard, or something lower than that
[QUOTE="Steve, post: 1708613, member: 17506]You either have high standards or you have low standards.[/QUOTE]

Nobody has even mentioned *low* standards. What I said was, you either make the standard to be high, or you pick a standard that's somewhat lower.

[QUOTE="Steve, post: 1708613, member: 17506]The third option is somewhat illusory, because it's essentially no standards. When you create a unique set of standards for each person, it's no longer a standard at all.[/QUOTE]

I understand your point, but I don't think it's true. As an analogy, if I were coaching a track team, I could say that everybody has to decrease their track time by 10% by the end of the season. That's still a standard, even though the track time goal would vary depending on the individual.

You can do the same thing in martial arts. Assess where a person is, assess where they could be, and assign merit based on how much they've improved. That's still a standard, just like 10% speed increases would be a standard.

[QUOTE="Steve, post: 1708613, member: 17506]As a quick aside, when you frame the situation up as TrueJim has done, you are creating a red herring (and also a false dilemma).[/QUOTE]

That's just not true. It's not a _false_ dilemma: *it's a real, actual dilemma*. Should we set a standard so high that only a few could ever meet it? Do we set it somewhere lower than that, so that more people can meet it? Or do we vary the standard to reflect the potential of the student?  That's not a _false_ dilemma. It's a real honest-to-goodness dilemma. If it weren't, there wouldn't be 8 pages of discussion in this thread. It's the fact that it's a dilemma that makes this an interesting discussion!

[QUOTE="Steve, post: 1708613, member: 17506]For what that's worth, it's technically illogical for at least two reasons.[/QUOTE]

What two reasons?

[QUOTE="Steve, post: 1708613, member: 17506]Where the standards are arbitrary, they become meaningless. Where they are consistently applied, they are meaningful.[/QUOTE]

I wholeheartedly agree with you on both points. (1) arbitrary standards are meaningless, and (2) standards are meaningful only when applied consistently.

But there's nothing arbitrary about saying "decrease your running time by 10%" and there's nothing inconsistent about saying, "and that applies to everybody on the track team." If you can use a standard like that for track & field, or swimming, or just about any other individual sport, there's no reason one can't use it for martial arts as well. And if you can use it for martial arts, then you can use it for _disabled_ people in martial arts.


----------



## Steve

TrueJim said:


> I wholeheartedly agree with you on both points. (1) arbitrary standards are meaningless, and (2) standards are meaningful only when applied consistently.
> 
> But there's nothing arbitrary about saying "decrease your running time by 10%" and there's nothing inconsistent about saying, "and that applies to everybody on the track team." If you can use a standard like that for track & field, or swimming, or just about any other individual sport, there's no reason one can't use it for martial arts as well. And if you can use it for martial arts, then you can use it for _disabled_ people in martial arts.


 
I had responded to the rest, but in the interest of trying to stem off anything that seems confrontational, I'll snip it to this part.  This gives me hope, because what you are syaing here fully supports my position throughout this thread. Standards and measures. Seriously. Go back and read through my posts. You seem to think you're disagreeing with me, but when you provide an example of what you mean, it's perfectly aligned with what I've been saying all along.  

10% decrease in running time is a great example of a standard that can be both applied consistently and without compromise AND measured individually with room for accommodation for mental or physical impairments.


----------



## Gwai Lo Dan

Steve said:


> 10% decrease in running time is a great example of a standard that can be both applied consistently and without compromise AND measured individually with room for accommodation for mental or physical impairments.


That leads to sandbagging IMO.  Don't try hard, then slowly ramp up a little.  

I joined the military after high school, and I found out one guy was a competitive 10 km runner.  I was surprised because he would only finish slightly ahead of me, and I had never really trained. He said, "oh, I don't try.  So long as I come in first, they can't say anything.  If I were to try, it would ruin my real workout in the evening with the track club."  Sandbagging in action!


----------



## TrueJim

Gwai Lo Dan said:


> That leads to sandbagging IMO.



I think the bottom line is, there is no _perfect_ way to do this. All you can do is choose the lesser of evils.

You can set a high standard that only athletic and relatively youthful adults can reach, in which case most of your other students will never reach black belt


You can set a somewhat lower standard that less-fit people can reach, in which case your very-fit students will never be challenged


You can vary the standard based on the potential of the student, in which case yes...some students could try to sandbag you
Any one of these approaches has its own set of problems..that's what makes this a dilemma. At least in the case of sandbagging you as an instructor have the opportunity to mitigate the problem by trying to learn over time what your students are really capable of. I would argue that it's more difficult for an instructor to mitigate the disadvantages of the first and second approaches: If you set too high a standard, ultimately you'll reach very few students...how does one mitigate that? If you set too low a standard, you'll fail to reach your most talented students...how does one mitigate that? At least by varying the standard, you have the potential to challenge _all_ your students, and at least you as an instructor have the opportunity to deal on a case-by-case basis with the sandbaggers.


----------



## Steve

TrueJim said:


> I think the bottom line is, there is no _perfect_ way to do this. All you can do is choose the lesser of evils.
> 
> You can set a high standard that only athletic and relatively youthful adults can reach, in which case most of your other students will never reach black belt
> 
> 
> You can set a somewhat lower standard that less-fit people can reach, in which case your very-fit students will never be challenged
> 
> 
> You can vary the standard based on the potential of the student, in which case yes...some students could try to sandbag you
> Any one of these approaches has its own set of problems..that's what makes this a dilemma. At least in the case of sandbagging you as an instructor have the opportunity to mitigate the problem by trying to learn over time what your students are really capable of. I would argue that it's more difficult for an instructor to mitigate the disadvantages of the first and second approaches: If you set too high a standard, ultimately you'll reach very few students...how does one mitigate that? If you set too low a standard, you'll fail to reach your most talented students...how does one mitigate that? At least by varying the standard, you have the potential to challenge _all_ your students, and at least you as an instructor have the opportunity to deal on a case-by-case basis with the sandbaggers.


LOL.  There's always option 4.


----------



## Gwai Lo Dan

My option 4 is different than your option 4, and it's the option I took for myself: let the student decide for himself / herself when he / she is "blackbelt" quality and ready to test.

Personally, my goal before getting to BB was:
1) to be comfortable doing kicks as difficult as tornado and spinning hook kicks, and doing them fluidly and without losing balance, and
2) not having flexibility issues in my left leg (due to injury) such that I could do crescent and axe kicks with my left leg.

Since I wasn't there, I declined my previous school's offer / request to test.

I'm now at the level but have declined BB testing for a few reason.  First, I know how good and bad I am, and don't need a belt to reassure me.  Second, I like my $300-600 in my pocket. Third, with BB being more a matter of time and effort than ability, there are many so-so BB's, and hence the belt doesn't mean much to me. And finally, my poomsae is less than impressive but passable, and I would be told I need to get better and practice every day; I am about to move, and about to get a new job, so my TKD time is lower priority. Consequently I have declined my current school's offer to test, but may purse testing in a few months just for the portability of a BB rank.


----------



## K-man

TrueJim said:


> So you're saying this: "A black belt doesn't mean that you can do X, but it does mean that once upon a time you could do X."  Furthermore, if a person has a disability that prevents them from ever being able to do X, they should never receive a black belt.


Not at all. You are twisting words to fit your version of events. Certainly a black belt could mean you could do X and if X is the grading requirement of a particular style then if you can't perform X you don't receive a black belt, disability or not. So training that style, knowing the requirement, and knowing that you can't ever hope to achieve that requirement, and expecting to be awarded a black belt for trying, is just plain stupid. Normally a person would choose a system where he could achieve the level to which he aspires.



TrueJim said:


> So then I suppose the question becomes...what should X be?  If we make X be something that only very athletic young men and women can do (i.e., requiring a very high standard of athleticism), then a black belt essentially winds up meaning two things: (1) you've worked very hard for a long time, but also (2) you are young and athletic (or at least you were back when you got your black belt).


Again, totally out of context. I was 64 when I gained my black belt in aikido. I am neither young or athletic, and I did work hard for a reasonably long time. If instead of starting Aikido, I had decided I wanted to learn, say, TKD and represent my country in the Olympics, I would be dreaming. Do you think the selection committee would include me in the TKD team just for trying my best? Come on, time for a reality check.



TrueJim said:


> If on the other hand we make X be something that even young teens and older adults -- or even disabled people -- can do (i.e., requiring a lower level of athleticism), then the black belt means only one thing: (1) you've worked very hard.


And it would, in the context of martial arts, mean nothing. I am probably still fit enough to roll and potentially take up BJJ. Whether I could last the ten years or so to get to black belt is a valid concern. I would not be asking for any dispensation for my age. I would succeed or fail on my ability and if I didn't get to black belt so be it. I certainly wouldn't expect someone to say, "Mate you really are too old for this but you've given it your best shot. Here's a black belt for trying." That cheapens it for everyone.



TrueJim said:


> Personally, to me, it seems entirely random to encumber the meaning of the black belt to include the second thing: that you were young and athletic with no disabilities back when you get your black belt. Unless one is subscribing to a very *Hollywood* definition of black belt, why should one's stage in life and physical impairments be part of the definition? It seems to me that the _years of effort_ and level of _hard-work_ put-in is much closer to a good definition of being a martial artist.


There is a huge difference between being a martial artist and achieving the level of black belt. You can put in years of hard work and never get to that level. Perhaps my most diligent student, a man who started karate at 62, will never get his black belt. I will not promote him beyond the level of his ability. He knows that and understands why. He is a good martial artist and he has put in years of hard work. If I promote him beyond his ability there is then a greater expectation on him from others and that could even lead to injury and him giving his training away, something I don't want to happen.



TrueJim said:


>


This is exactly what I am talking about. These guys are demonstrating their ability to match it with the best. More strength to their arm. They deserve everything they have achieved. They are doing what they do despite disability, not asking for a sympathy vote.


----------



## Blindside

In my old kenpo school the blackbelt was an instructor, the student had to be able to remember, understand, demonstrate, and teach the material.  If they couldn't do that, they couldn't be a black belt.  We had an older student who just couldn't retain the material for whatever reason, she certainly tried hard but at some point after lots and lots and lots of work with many different instructors in the school we still didn't test her.  My instructors comment was "sometimes desire isn't enough."  It wasn't a perfect scale, I would drive a talented student harder and expect more of him/her than a less talented student because I knew they had the capability.  But there was still the minimum standard they had to reach, don't reach it, no next belt.

As a kali instructor we don't have a visible rank structure, and my first promotion in the system was to something like "apprentice instructor" which I think is equivalent to a black belt in many systems, and I have retained that tradition with my students, we don't do rank until you start becoming an instructor.  I have one student now who timewise is in the same experience level as a couple of guy who should be ramping up for that first instructor rank.  Great student, nice guy, great attitude, but the most uncoordinated guy I have ever trained.  He may never be an instructor (and I hope he proves me wrong), but again, "desire is not enough."  If I had a student who was disabled in some way that prevented him from attaining my standards for that "apprentice instructor" I would hope that they can see why.  If I lowered the standard and promoted the disabled student over my uncoordinated student, would that be fair?  I don't think so.


----------



## IcemanSK

It's pretty apparent that the majority of folks who have responded to this thread have very little experience neither teaching students with disabilities, nor actually having a disability, so it has become (once again) a never-ending discussion on "what is your standard for black belt" and/or "my way of thinking about black belt is better than your's." It's completely understandable. If you have no experience with it, you're going to veer off into either speculation, or find a more comfortable vague part of the topic that is more comfortable for you.

For those of you who don't know me, let me introduce myself. I'm in my late 40's,I've trained Taekwondo, Western boxing & full-contact rules kickboxing since 1982, and I have a relatively mild case of Cerebral Palsy (CP) that affects the right side of my body. To give you an understanding of my disability, I have much weaker muscles in my right arm and hand. I cannot make an effective knife-hand motion with my right hand. I also cannot pull back the toes of my right foot, and I walk with a limp. I have trained alongside several members of this forum ( Miles, MSUTKD, ArchTKD, DOrtiz, and Master Earl Weiss, to name a few) they can attest to both my abilities and disabilities on the mat. Among MA-ists, I stand out because of my disability. Among people with CP, I stand out because of my ability. I have run my own dojang for the past 10 years. I teach students both with and without disabilities. I've had more students without disabilities than with, but I'm comfortable teaching both.

I started under a Korean master in a time when MA schools would not have thought of teaching, let alone marketing classes toward students with disabilities. I started class with my very athletic friend, and I was treated no differently than he was by our master or the other students. Expectations were high, but appreciation and understanding were part of my master's teaching. Before you decide what that might mean, let me give you an example. I was not as physically gifted as my buddy, but he couldn't remember Korean terminology for belt tests to save his life. Exceptions were made for his inability because he had a nice round kick for a yellow belt. With every belt test I had, more was expected of me by my master. If everyone else at my rank broke a board with one technique, I was required to break an additional board with an additional technique. I did the same push-up requirements as the others (it just took longer). Few masters would have been as patient as mine was. By this thread, I can clearly see that is still the case.

When teaching students (disabled or not) every instructor makes allowances, works around issues, etc. with students, otherwise they won't be in business very long. And each one of us can look to a 17 year old student who has been with us a few years who's side kick (front kick, or whatever) is better than our's is currently (if we are honest with ourselves). So, the argument of a standard that is set in stone goes out the window quickly. Let's not kid ourselves into believing anything else.

To answer the OP, yes, one can achieve BB with a disability. However, I'd also say that BB isn't for every disabled student, any more than it is for every able-bodied student. Things such as maturity, and effort the student puts forth are factors to consider when testing a student with a disability, as well as the able-bodied. A friend taught TKD in an organization mainly for people with disabilities, but he also had many able-bodied folks. For the folks with mental disabilities, he devised a belt system (with a white stripe through the center of the belt) just for them. Things like head contact & aggressiveness were closely monitored. Most stayed at whatever rank for a long time  (often due to struggling with new material, like Poomsae). He never tested any of those folks for BB, because no one stayed long enough before moving on to something else (or the found their comfort level at a certain rank.)

The WTF has a para-TKD program that serves mainly amputees. Folks with physical disabilities (like CP) or mental disabilities are not part of that program, yet.

If a student with a disability comes into to your dojang take a chance; not just on them but yourself. Learn about their issues. Learn about what the student does in school. Be a part of their IEP, if they have one. They might help you to REALLY look at what you teach in a new way.

GM Jae Kyu LEE is a very well respected TKD master from the Milwaukee, WI area. Evan is his student (bellow). My guess is that GM LEE learned to see TKD in a way as he teaches Evan.


----------



## TrueJim

IcemanSK said:


> When teaching students (disabled or not) every instructor makes allowances, works around issues, etc. with students, otherwise they won't be in business very long.



Be careful, you're about to incur the wrath of those who think that martial arts should not be sullied by the vulgar worldliness of _staying in business_. 

But seriously...even it's not a business...even if it's just a local club...your point is well taken. You're not going to remain together as a club very long either if you're not making allowances and working around issues.



IcemanSK said:


> So, the argument of a standard that is set in stone goes out the window quickly. Let's not kid ourselves into believing anything else.



I was thinking the same thing myself a couple pages back. As much as some folks may say, "We use a universal standard in my school!" I'm not sure I even believe that. It's human nature to think (for example), "Well, that wasn't a great break, but I know he's still recovering from an injury, so we'll cut him some slack there, especially since his sparring is so good" ...that sort of thing. I think a lot of people -- even those who aspire to a universal standard -- make those kinds of mental calculations all the time when evaluating performances. I could be wrong; it's just a guess. But yah...internally I was using the same words you used: we're probably kidding ourselves if we believe we're applying our universal standard consistently.


Also, one thing I've noticed elsewhere in the past is that when folks say "We should maintain a reasonably high standard," what that often translate into is: "the standard should be high enough so that it's challenging for *me*, but no higher, and certainly no lower." If it were lower, they'd moan, "Oh, we've lost our standards...we've become a belt mill!" If it were higher, they would argue, "That standard is unreasonable! Normal people can't do that!" It's a stunningly provincial mindset; it's like they're saying, "My amount of potential is what's normal for a human, so gear the standard to _*me*_, because I'm the norm."


----------



## Buka

I read every post. Hell of an interesting thread.

I'm glad there's no universal board determining exactly what a Black Belt should be. Although if all of us here made up that board it would probably be all puppies and ice cream. 

I've only had one disabled student in all the years I've taught. (Amputee an inch below the knee.)
Trained with us for five or six years, so I really don't have the experience to comment on the thread as he stopped training as a green belt.

I'm glad there's so many Martial arts schools in the world. Options for everyone is a pretty good idea.


----------



## Dirty Dog

I think setting and maintaining standards is good. And important.
I'm also a big fan of the statement "they're guidlines, not rules".
We have a student who is Chodanbo at the age of 61. We have another who is 1st geup at the age of 72. We have a younger, 2nd geup student with fetal alcohol syndrome who is bipolar. And we have plenty of students who are what society would consider "normal"

I don't see any reason not to expect all of them to reach 1st Dan, if they stick with their training.


----------



## TrueJim

While we're on the topic of interesting students...

We have one student at one of our sister-schools in our local chain, he got his 1st Dan when he was in his early 30s. Now after a long break, a few years ago he started up with taekwondo again, and just a while back got his 2nd Dan....at age 77!


----------



## The_Awesome_User

belts should be based off of ability. If they are not they lose their meaning. It leads to more and more exceptions and weak black belts until almost everyone will get one. I have seen it happen before. It gives taekwondo a bad name. That being said I know of disabled people who deserve their black belts. But if you wouldn't have given them a black belt if you didn't know they were disabled then you should not change your Standerds. What if jobs started promoting people because they were disabled?


----------



## K-man

The_Awesome_User said:


> belts should be based off of ability. If they are not they lose their meaning. It leads to more and more exceptions and weak black belts until almost everyone will get one. I have seen it happen before. It gives taekwondo a bad name. That being said I know of disabled people who deserve their black belts. But if you wouldn't have given them a black belt if you didn't know they were disabled then you should not change your Standerds. What if jobs started promoting people because they were disabled?


I think you are missing the point. It depends on the disability. Buka had a student who was a below knee amputee and I trained with one also. Despite his disability he was bloody good at his karate. His disability didn't diminish his performance. When you look at the para TKD guys, they were awesome. They were also very effective in what they were doing. 

Now you query whether they would get their black belt if you didn't know they were disabled. Well, should a person without legs be able to hold a drivers licence? By that definition, no, because he can't operate the vehicle. Modify the vehicle and that person could be equal to the best driver anywhere. So I agree, we don't want to drop standards but where people with disabilities work around those disabilities to demonstrate a similar level of competence, they should be able to achieve black belt status ... which is, what I hope, you were trying to say.


----------



## The_Awesome_User

K-man said:


> I think you are missing the point. It depends on the disability. Buka had a student who was a below knee amputee and I trained with one also. Despite his disability he was bloody good at his karate. His disability didn't diminish his performance. When you look at the para TKD guys, they were awesome. They were also very effective in what they were doing.
> 
> Now you query whether they would get their black belt if you didn't know they were disabled. Well, should a person without legs be able to hold a drivers licence? By that definition, no, because he can't operate the vehicle. Modify the vehicle and that person could be equal to the best driver anywhere. So I agree, we don't want to drop standards but where people with disabilities work around those disabilities to demonstrate a similar level of competence, they should be able to achieve black belt status ... which is, what I hope, you were trying to say.


This is what I said. People who are good inspite of their disability get black belts. But They have to hold up the standerds like everyone else.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> I think you are missing the point. It depends on the disability. Buka had a student who was a below knee amputee and I trained with one also. Despite his disability he was bloody good at his karate. His disability didn't diminish his performance. When you look at the para TKD guys, they were awesome. They were also very effective in what they were doing.
> 
> Now you query whether they would get their black belt if you didn't know they were disabled. Well, should a person without legs be able to hold a drivers licence? By that definition, no, because he can't operate the vehicle. Modify the vehicle and that person could be equal to the best driver anywhere. So I agree, we don't want to drop standards but where people with disabilities work around those disabilities to demonstrate a similar level of competence, they should be able to achieve black belt status ... which is, what I hope, you were trying to say.


Excellent post, K-man.  The example of driving is perfect.  Can a person without legs drive a typical car?  No, because he/she can't reach the pedals.  But is pushing pedals the goal?  No.  Driving safely is the goal.  Right?  While you might not be able to give a person without legs a way to push a gas pedal, you can enable a person to drive without their feet.  And driving safely is the goal.

Conversely, there are physical limitations that can't be overcome.  A person who is totally blind may not ever be able to drive.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Conversely, there are physical limitations that can't be overcome.  A person who is totally blind may not ever be able to drive.


Even that is changing with current technology.


----------



## Steve

Just to get back to TrueJim's points earlier.  The analogy of driving is a good one.  Driving safely is a static and immutable standard.  We don't want and can't have people we know are a danger to themselves or others operating at high speed a piece of metal that weighs a few thousand pounds.  The standard is fixed and doesn't change for anyone. 

But what can change is how we creatively approach the standard to enable the individual to succeed regardless of physical or mental impairment.  Provided we don't confuse the standard with how we measure the standard, we have room to be creative.  In other words, it would be easy to go as far as to say, "You don't have feet, so you can't drive."  And that's it.  This is discriminatory and unnecessary.  This is the equivalent to True Jim's Option A.  Fixed and rigid.

Option B is to lower the standards for everyone.  LIke saying, "Because he can't drive safely without legs, we won't require anyone to demosntrate that they can drive safely.  Licenses all around."  Clearly not a good option. 

TrueJim's option C (as stated, although I really think based upon his examples he intends more Option d):  "You don't have feet, so you can't drive well.  But because you're disabled, I'll give you a drivers license anyway."  Dangerous (in this case) and condescending.  Making an exception.  

Option D: A fourth (and best option, IMO) is to identify the actual core expectations and be open to measuring success against those standards creatively.  "You can't drive a typical car, but you can drive a specially modified car safely.  When you are in a specially modified car, you meet the standard and can, therefore, receive a license." 



There is a lot of application here to how martial arts schools approach their curriculums.


----------



## Gwai Lo Dan

K-man said:


> Even that is changing with current technology.


I saw a video about 25 years ago of this guy, born without arms due to thalidomide, driving a car: one foot on the gas, and one foot on the wheel.  See from about 0:30 - 1:30. I was very impressed how with practice a lot of challenges / tasks can be overcome.


----------



## Steve

Gwai Lo Dan said:


> That leads to sandbagging IMO.  Don't try hard, then slowly ramp up a little.
> 
> I joined the military after high school, and I found out one guy was a competitive 10 km runner.  I was surprised because he would only finish slightly ahead of me, and I had never really trained. He said, "oh, I don't try.  So long as I come in first, they can't say anything.  If I were to try, it would ruin my real workout in the evening with the track club."  Sandbagging in action!


Hey, i just realized I never responded to this.  Sandbagging...  couple of interesting things.

First is, if the standard is clear and consistent, does it matter by how much it is exceeded?   In this context, you either can or you cannot.  So, one guy works hard and barely meets the standard.  Another guy barely tries at all and blows the standard away.  Is that important?  Not particularly.   If the standard truly reflects the expectation than, knowing that everyone is different, it will be harder or easier for different people to meet that standard.  Using the car analogy again, it's very possible for a guy without arms to drive, but dang it takes a LOT of practice, desire and focus.   Even people with full use of two arms and legs will vary in skill and potential.  Not everyone can be a stunt driver or drive a race car.  Some people just can. 

Second, I'm not suggesting that sandbagging is okay.  I'm just saying it's not a standards/expectations issue.  Rather, it's a motivation and initiative concern.  How do you take someone for whom the standards are easily met and motivate them to excel?  Well, that's a completely different, complex and nuanced topic.


----------



## Dirty Dog

The_Awesome_User said:


> belts should be based off of ability. If they are not they lose their meaning. It leads to more and more exceptions and weak black belts until almost everyone will get one. I have seen it happen before. It gives taekwondo a bad name. That being said I know of disabled people who deserve their black belts. But if you wouldn't have given them a black belt if you didn't know they were disabled then you should not change your Standerds. What if jobs started promoting people because they were disabled?



If rank were nothing more than physical ability, you might have a point. 
It's not.
I'm not as fast or flexible as I was in my 20's. But I don't think I'll be returning my belt any time soon, nor do I think the people I teach would expect me to.


----------



## Buka

Going back toPuunui's posts from 2012 - I trained at Relson's school in Honolulu, too. It had the same standards I've seen from other schools of the same family lineage.

As for belts being taken away for any reason - good luck with that plan. My guess is that everyone here earned every sweat stained stitch of their belt.

A belt is the same as reaching a certain age. You ain't ever going to get any younger.


----------



## Metal

Nowadays whenever the question "Who gave that person a black belt?" comes to my mind it's immediately followed by "Who am I to judge?".

The older I get the less the "Who gave that person a black belt?" comes up though.


----------



## tshadowchaser

I admit to not going back and rereading this whole thread but going on the OP only I would have to say as others have said it depends. 
A totally blind person most likely would not attained a black belt in the system II am in because they would not be able to successfully pass on some of the information that is needed to be seen to understand. While a person with poor eyesight might because they can see enough to know what is happening in the movement or sequence.
I at this time have a couple people in class who mentally will will never be able to remember all that is needed for the test and most certainly would never be able to pass on that information, while a couple others have learning problems but could over time and maybe with the correct meds pass the test
What I am trying to say is there are different degrees of disabilities and the severity of those disabilities makes on difference on what a person is able to accomplish in the arts depending on what is required within a system
No matter what the disability martial arts may help a person in some way and most disabilities are not a reason to say a person can not study an art to the best of their ability , be it small or large


----------



## IcemanSK

tshadowchaser said:


> I admit to not going back and rereading this whole thread but going on the OP only I would have to say as others have said it depends.
> A totally blind person most likely would not attained a black belt in the system II am in because they would not be able to successfully pass on some of the information that is needed to be seen to understand. While a person with poor eyesight might because they can see enough to know what is happening in the movement or sequence.
> I at this time have a couple people in class who mentally will will never be able to remember all that is needed for the test and most certainly would never be able to pass on that information, while a couple others have learning problems but could over time and maybe with the correct meds pass the test
> What I am trying to say is there are different degrees of disabilities and the severity of those disabilities makes on difference on what a person is able to accomplish in the arts depending on what is required within a system
> No matter what the disability martial arts may help a person in some way and most disabilities are not a reason to say a person can not study an art to the best of their ability , be it small or large



You bring up a great point about the type of disability and the degree of disability. There are large ranges within many disability categories. There are no "one-size fits all" designation with any disabling conditions.


----------

