# Dan Ranks: A Comparison of Ideologies



## MadMartigan (May 1, 2021)

So let me start by saying, this is in no way intended to be inflammatory. I am very interested in the discussion and hearing various views on the subject... and why you feel that way.

In TKD (and most traditional 'kick/punch' MA) the road to the higher Dan ranks is paved in grueling sweat and blood. I've seen YouTube clips of people testing for 9th Dan. While other times, the higher BB ranks are often awarded for service to the MA and experience.

Conversely, BJJ handles things in the completely opposite way. My understanding is that after receiving your 1st Dan; ALL future rank advancements are given through lineage for time and contributions... with no further gradings.

Now, I understand that it is comparing dissimilar things in some ways. It takes an average of 10-15 years for most people to get their BJJ black belt... while it is (unfortunately in my opinion) all to common for TKD students to obtain theirs in as little as 2 years. (My own road there took 5.5 years).

I am not suggesting that TKD should adopt the no more grading practice... the arts are too different. I do wonder though; why the fixation on aggressive grading requirements for black belts that are often past their physical prime.
While my personal views tend toward knowledge and experience being more important than high flying physical skills; I would love to learn more from a more broad section of our population on the topic. At what point do you think it should change to a recognition model?
Thanks.

(Ps. We all come from different places and experiences, so lets please keep that 1st Tenet in mind while we discuss this loaded topic. 'We can disagree in the end; but we can still be friends').


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 1, 2021)

As has been said many many times, it all comes down to what "black belt" means in a given school.  
What you're trying to compare is apples and oranges.

If BJJ promotions above 1st Dan are strictly time and service awards, then that means that by 1st Dan you are assumed to understand and be able to apply the entire system. Which seems reasonable for the 10-15 year time frame you mention.

So you need to compare that to not the same rank, but the same MEANING in other systems.
In KKW systems, especially in Korea, 1st Dan can be earned in as little as one year. But 1st Dan is considered a beginner rank. The first "teaching" rank is 4th Dan. At an absolute minimum, that takes 7 years, but I have a feeling most people take longer than that. I stopped after KKW 2nd Dan, so someone with tighter connections to them would know more.

In our Moo Duk Kwan system, the "service" ranks are 7th Dan and higher. So by 6th Dan you're assumed to understand and be able to apply the entire system. Now, we don't really have absolute time in grade rules; we have guidelines. But typically, that progression to 6th Dan would require 20+ years.

Now, I'm actually going to reduce that. Because while promotions through 6th Dan require tests, the only new material above 4th Dan is a new form. There are no new techniques or principles to learn. Which actually makes a bit of sense, since 4th Dan is where we award the title of Master. So 1-3 are "teaching" ranks, 4-6 are "Master" ranks, and 7-9 are "Grandmaster" (service) ranks. So if we base our timeline on 4th Dan, then you're looking at (typically) 14-16 years. Pretty much the same as BJJ.

It all makes more sense if you think about what the rank means within a given style, instead of the arbitrary label.


----------



## isshinryuronin (May 1, 2021)

While in my Okinawan system all the formal curriculum is traditionally completed by 4th dan (11-14 years, continuous training) that does not mean learning and development stops.  There is a visible difference between the way a good 4th dan moves and how a good 7th dan moves (another 12-15 years.)

It's not that the 4th dan is doing anything wrong and it's difficult to verbalize how he could improve. Yet, the 7th dan does it somehow better.  He's not stronger or faster, not more technically correct, but then, what is the difference?

The 4th dan is excellent.  The 7th is excellent with less effort (mental or physical.)  There is a smoothness, a more natural expression of the technique.  In other words, the technique is more a part of his essential being.

I'm not just talking muscle memory - it's deeper than that, and takes much more time to develop.  It's not something you can practice or strive for.  There is no test for it.  It just arrives.  "Master" is a title we do not bestow until 8th dan, (but in Dirty Dog's system would be similar to "Grand Master," a term we don't use.) Only then is this essential quality commonly manifested.

They say "Hindsight is 20/20."  By the time you're in your 60's and have 30 or 40 years in the art, you have plenty of hindsight, perspective, and understanding.  You've been exposed to many practitioners, several different styles, and dealt with a wide variety of situations.  By this time, too, one has hopefully explored and experimented with all the kata moves and their many variations and applications.

So, advancing thru those higher dans, there is no end to learning - you're just learning things that cannot be taught.


----------



## skribs (May 1, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> The first "teaching" rank _(in Kukkiwon) _ is 4th Dan


I think this depends on what you define as "teaching".  You can be a KKW certified Instructor Level 1 at 2nd or 3rd Dan (if I remember correctly).  Level 2 (Master) is at 4th Dan, and I believe 7th Dan is required for Level 3 (Grand Master).

With that said, this is the Kukkiwon certification.  Realistically, anyone can teach at a school under the Master's direction.  At my school, you start assisting as instructors at 1st Keub (just before black belt).  Many of our instructors started leading small groups as black belts.  Personally, I started teaching as a blue belt (only half-way to black), but a big part of that was 4 years' experience I had prior to starting as a white belt at this school.



Dirty Dog said:


> Now, I'm actually going to reduce that. Because while promotions through 6th Dan require tests, the only new material above 4th Dan is a new form.



I'm very glad to hear schools taking this approach.  I do believe some schools promote too fast.  I also believe that other schools, in effort to "legitimize" their black belts, promote too slow.  What ends up happening is you hurt your career.  Imagine a KKW school where it takes 12 years to get your black belt, and then they require an extra year over KKW requirements to get each degree.  (I've heard of schools like this).  A student at this school would take over 20 years to get their Master rank.  Meanwhile, someone else can get it in 7 (like you said), or even 10-12 if they take a comfortable pace.

So this school makes sure their black belts are "legit" black belts...at the cost of severely crippling their career if they ever want to open their own school.  

There's also the ethical question of your average student in the 1st Dan bracket at a tournament having the same experience you'd expect a 4th or 5th Dan to have...


----------



## MadMartigan (May 1, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> While in my Okinawan system all the formal curriculum is traditionally completed by 4th dan (11-14 years, continuous training) that does not mean learning and development stops.


That makes me curious. On this related topic; besides new patterns (hyung, tul, kata), what were some of the things that you were not taught until after earning 1st Dan? 

Were there tangible new techniques that were saved for these ranks; or was the learning (post BB) more as described below?



isshinryuronin said:


> So, advancing thru those higher dans, there is no end to learning - you're just learning things that cannot be taught.



Still honestly curious. I come from an independent school in a small rural area. It's very educational to read other's experiences and thoughts on these processes.


----------



## jobo (May 2, 2021)

D Hall said:


> That makes me curious. On this related topic; besides new patterns (hyung, tul, kata), what were some of the things that you were not taught until after earning 1st Dan?
> 
> Were there tangible new techniques that were saved for these ranks; or was the learning (post BB) more as described below?
> 
> ...


well it really is different ideologiesI

that depend considerably on if yoyr learnibg to fight or learning an art, life long progression in to your 50 is definetly possible, as long as no fighting is involved and your seeing progres as artistic merit or even as outlined above as some ethereal indescribable quality that just happens over an unspecified time

or to put it another way, if you reach high level compitiction standard at tkd at say 25, there is no way your better with another 30 years of learning at 55, otherwise the Olympic teams would be full of pensioners and that's clearly not the case


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 2, 2021)

skribs said:


> I think this depends on what you define as "teaching".  You can be a KKW certified Instructor Level 1 at 2nd or 3rd Dan (if I remember correctly).  Level 2 (Master) is at 4th Dan, and I believe 7th Dan is required for Level 3 (Grand Master).


I'm defining it as "being able to train and promote your own students". Doing stuff under the supervision of someone who holds teaching rank isn't teaching, per se, it's learning to teach. I do that all the time. I'll call a geup rank up and tell them "run the class though [group drill]" and step back. I'll often wander the class during this time and give pointers to individuals. And I'll give pointers to the student to improve their teaching.


skribs said:


> I'm very glad to hear schools taking this approach.  I do believe some schools promote too fast.  I also believe that other schools, in effort to "legitimize" their black belts, promote too slow.  What ends up happening is you hurt your career.  Imagine a KKW school where it takes 12 years to get your black belt, and then they require an extra year over KKW requirements to get each degree.  (I've heard of schools like this).  A student at this school would take over 20 years to get their Master rank.  Meanwhile, someone else can get it in 7 (like you said), or even 10-12 if they take a comfortable pace.
> 
> So this school makes sure their black belts are "legit" black belts...at the cost of severely crippling their career if they ever want to open their own school.


Which goes back to my point that it's not the rank that matters. It's what that rank means that matters.


skribs said:


> There's also the ethical question of your average student in the 1st Dan bracket at a tournament having the same experience you'd expect a 4th or 5th Dan to have...


We don't really care about tournaments, but we do go to one every year or so. And it's always the case that our students have a lot more experience than students of the same nominal rank. And yes, that's probably part of the reason why they walk away with most of the medals. 

But it's open tournaments. When you're allowing all styles, belt rank is not an unreasonable way to divide the classes.


----------



## skribs (May 2, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> I'm defining it as "being able to train and promote your own students". Doing stuff under the supervision of someone who holds teaching rank isn't teaching, per se, it's learning to teach. I do that all the time. I'll call a geup rank up and tell them "run the class though [group drill]" and step back. I'll often wander the class during this time and give pointers to individuals. And I'll give pointers to the student to improve their teaching.



There's an in-between.  For example, I don't have the authority to promote students in my school.  However, I often lead classes by myself, without oversight of my Master.  This may be when he's busy with administrative stuff, on break, or even once when he was on vacation.  



Dirty Dog said:


> We don't really care about tournaments, but we do go to one every year or so. And it's always the case that our students have a lot more experience than students of the same nominal rank. And yes, that's probably part of the reason why they walk away with most of the medals.



I know you aren't doing this intentionally, but it does seem a little bit unfair to me.  Imagine if a school district held their students back for 3 years, so the middle school football game has 13-year-olds from one school competing against 16-year-olds from another.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 2, 2021)

skribs said:


> I know you aren't doing this intentionally, but it does seem a little bit unfair to me.  Imagine if a school district held their students back for 3 years, so the middle school football game has 13-year-olds from one school competing against 16-year-olds from another.


I don’t know if this is automatically a reasonable assumption.  The flip side is, what if the one school was trying to insist that their grade-school kids should compete against the middle schoolers?  Then you have 10- year olds competing against 14-year olds because someone is promoting too soon.  Maybe the standard should be higher, rather than lower.  

I think this makes DD’s point that it depends on what the rank is meant to mean and imply within your particular school, nevermind what someone else is doing in a different school.  I think that it is simply a fact that standards are higher in some schools than in others.  I would wish to train in a school with higher standards, even if it takes longer for me to get a belt.  Because I really really don’t cere about the belt.  I care about the knowledge and the understanding and the skills.


----------



## skribs (May 2, 2021)

Flying Crane said:


> I don’t know if this is automatically a reasonable assumption. The flip side is, what if the one school was trying to insist that their grade-school kids should compete against the middle schoolers? Then you have 10- year olds competing against 14-year olds because someone is promoting too soon. Maybe the standard should be higher, rather than lower.



If most of the schools took the long route and one school takes the short route, *and then *complains that all the other schools were being unfair, that's one thing.  But if the norm is 13-14, and one school has 10 year olds and the other has 16 year olds, then it's very clear that one is unfair.  I'm always okay with people opting into a more difficult bracket.  Higher age group, higher weight class, etc.  But not the other way around.  If someone wanted to fight in a higher age group, I don't see an issue with that.

There have been situations at tournaments I've been in where someone is a black belt at their school, and shows up to the tournament in a purple belt so they can win medals, and they ended up injuring several people in their division.  So this is something that's a little more than "devil's advocate" for me.  In this case, it was intentional.  

I don't think what Dirty Dog is doing is intentionally gaming the system.  However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the school probably has medals or trophies on display.  It might not be in a trophy case, it might be just pictures or social media.  It might not even be the school, but students in the school.  And when someone sees that trophy or that medal, and they know they got it by training at Dirty Dog's school, then it's going to make their school look good.  Those trophies that they got by being way more experienced than their bracket is expected to be.


----------



## Steve (May 2, 2021)

Flying Crane said:


> I don’t know if this is automatically a reasonable assumption.  The flip side is, what if the one school was trying to insist that their grade-school kids should compete against the middle schoolers?  Then you have 10- year olds competing against 14-year olds because someone is promoting too soon.  Maybe the standard should be higher, rather than lower.
> 
> I think this makes DD’s point that it depends on what the rank is meant to mean and imply within your particular school, nevermind what someone else is doing in a different school.  I think that it is simply a fact that standards are higher in some schools than in others.  I would wish to train in a school with higher standards, even if it takes longer for me to get a belt.  Because I really really don’t cere about the belt.  I care about the knowledge and the understanding and the skills.


This is called sandbagging and is not well thought of in BJJ.  Schools that promote too fast have students that just can't compete well.  Schools that promote too slow have students that are clearly being held back. 

Winning and losing isn't the point.  Calibration is.  If you truly didn't care about belts, it wouldn't matter if a school promotes fast or slow.  The rate of promotion has nothing to do with the quality of the instruction.


----------



## MadMartigan (May 2, 2021)

skribs said:


> If most of the schools took the long route and one school takes the short route, *and then *complains that all the other schools were being unfair, that's one thing.  But if the norm is 13-14, and one school has 10 year olds and the other has 16 year olds, then it's very clear that one is unfair.  I'm always okay with people opting into a more difficult bracket.  Higher age group, higher weight class, etc.  But not the other way around.  If someone wanted to fight in a higher age group, I don't see an issue with that.
> 
> There have been situations at tournaments I've been in where someone is a black belt at their school, and shows up to the tournament in a purple belt so they can win medals, and they ended up injuring several people in their division.  So this is something that's a little more than "devil's advocate" for me.  In this case, it was intentional.
> 
> I don't think what Dirty Dog is doing is intentionally gaming the system.  However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the school probably has medals or trophies on display.  It might not be in a trophy case, it might be just pictures or social media.  It might not even be the school, but students in the school.  And when someone sees that trophy or that medal, and they know they got it by training at Dirty Dog's school, then it's going to make their school look good.  Those trophies that they got by being way more experienced than their bracket is expected to be.


While we've veered off course a bit here, I'll join in. 
I've seen it happen. A sport focused school will keep their students at say green belt for 2-3 years so that they crush their division before moving up to blue (now with over 4 years experience) and repeat. 
I agree with all of you. Intentionally sand bagging to win trophies is dishonest and pathetic.
Where I have no sympathy is post black belt. If a black belt from somewhere else whipes the floor with me; well done. Time for me to up my game.


----------



## skribs (May 2, 2021)

Steve said:


> If you truly didn't care about belts, it wouldn't matter if a school promotes fast or slow. The rate of promotion has nothing to do with the quality of the instruction.


Thing is, belts matter even if they don't matter to you.  They matter for tournament brackets, and they may matter for your future career (for example, no matter how good of a teacher you are, you can't promote students in KKW until you're a 4th Dan in the system).


----------



## Steve (May 2, 2021)

skribs said:


> Thing is, belts matter even if they don't matter to you.  They matter for tournament brackets, and they may matter for your future career (for example, no matter how good of a teacher you are, you can't promote students in KKW until you're a 4th Dan in the system).


Sandbagging is no better than a belt factory.  Other side of the same coin.  Both are less about standards and quality and more about trying to get more students.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 3, 2021)

skribs said:


> If most of the schools took the long route and one school takes the short route, *and then *complains that all the other schools were being unfair, that's one thing.  But if the norm is 13-14, and one school has 10 year olds and the other has 16 year olds, then it's very clear that one is unfair.  I'm always okay with people opting into a more difficult bracket.  Higher age group, higher weight class, etc.  But not the other way around.  If someone wanted to fight in a higher age group, I don't see an issue with that.


[/QUOTE]
We don’t know that is what is happening though.  I feel pretty confident in saying that a modern trend in a lot of schools has been a lowering of standards as martial arts have been marketed more to children, and as a fun family activity.   This is a business decision presumably to bring in the largest student body possible, for income purposes.  Perhaps a school like DD’s is just a holdout from an older era when everyone held higher standards.  He isn’t wrong nor a cheat for refusing to go along with a modern trend.  It isn’t unfair to other competitors that a school like his holds student to a higher level from day one.  It just is what it is.  Rank means something different in his school than in others.


skribs said:


> There have been situations at tournaments I've been in where someone is a black belt at their school, and shows up to the tournament in a purple belt so they can win medals, and they ended up injuring several people in their division.  So this is something that's a little more than "devil's advocate" for me.  In this case, it was intentional.


[/QUOTE]
Well sure, a deliberate deception like that is deplorable but that is not what we are really talking about here.  I believe it was holding a higher standard for any rank, not pretending to be a lower rank for the goal of bringing home a trophy.  Advocating for everyone lowering their standards out of a desire for some kind of subjective “fairness” on a tournament circuit is really arguing for the lowest common denominator.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (May 3, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> If BJJ promotions above 1st Dan are strictly time and service awards, then that means that by 1st Dan you are assumed to understand and be able to apply the entire system. Which seems reasonable for the 10-15 year time frame you mention.





isshinryuronin said:


> While in my Okinawan system all the formal curriculum is traditionally completed by 4th dan (11-14 years, continuous training) that does not mean learning and development stops. There is a visible difference between the way a good 4th dan moves and how a good 7th dan moves (another 12-15 years.)


Just to clarify the situation for BJJ, having a black belt certainly doesn't mean that a practitioner is expected to stop progressing technically. Nor does it mean that they can apply "the entire system" exactly, because there is no fully bounded "entire system". The art is continually growing and evolving to the extent that I don't know if there is anyone who is fully familiar with every single technique and position out there. If I had to put some sort of definition on the rank, I guess I'd say that it represents the point where a practitioner has internalized the core principles of the art to the extent that they can be trusted to guide their own future development in the art. 

That doesn't mean that we don't continue learning from other instructors. We just find resources in other instructors as needed. Suppose that Keenan Cornelius invented a new position called the "Inverted Purple Platypus Guard"* and started winning tournaments with it. It would be up to me to examine the IPPG and decide whether this was a system which would work for me, if so, then find instructors or videos to help me understand it, practice and pressure test my understanding of the position, and decide whether, when, and how it would be appropriate to pass that material on to my students.

Really though, there isn't any such generally agreed upon definition to the rank. It's typically** more of a subjective "I know it when I see it" evaluation that the practitioner can apply the system under pressure with a certain level of skill in all the positions and situations where they might find themselves in a fight or a match.

*(Don't laugh - we have crazier names out there.)

**(I say typically, because there is no universal rule. Some instructors do test for the knowledge of a set curriculum. Some instructors require a certain number of competition wins. Some instructors have a higher expectation of the skill or physical attributes or mental toughness required for a rank than do others. Some instructors do have tests for higher levels of black belt.)


----------



## Steve (May 3, 2021)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just to clarify the situation for BJJ, having a black belt certainly doesn't mean that a practitioner is expected to stop progressing technically. Nor does it mean that they can apply "the entire system" exactly, because there is no fully bounded "entire system". The art is continually growing and evolving to the extent that I don't know if there is anyone who is fully familiar with every single technique and position out there. If I had to put some sort of definition on the rank, I guess I'd say that it represents the point where a practitioner has internalized the core principles of the art to the extent that they can be trusted to guide their own future development in the art.
> 
> That doesn't mean that we don't continue learning from other instructors. We just find resources in other instructors as needed. Suppose that Keenan Cornelius invented a new position called the "Inverted Purple Platypus Guard"* and started winning tournaments with it. It would be up to me to examine the IPPG and decide whether this was a system which would work for me, if so, then find instructors or videos to help me understand it, practice and pressure test my understanding of the position, and decide whether, when, and how it would be appropriate to pass that material on to my students.
> 
> ...



Like = informative in this case.


----------



## Buka (May 3, 2021)

Steve said:


> This is called sandbagging and is not well thought of in BJJ.  Schools that promote too fast have students that just can't compete well.  Schools that promote too slow have students that are clearly being held back.
> 
> Winning and losing isn't the point.  Calibration is.  If you truly didn't care about belts, it wouldn't matter if a school promotes fast or slow.  The rate of promotion has nothing to do with the quality of the instruction.


What I use to do, which I’ll probably get flack for (but me no care)…we didn’t spar any no contact to the face, not even with the kids.

So….all my guys that wanted to fight in a tourney fought in the Back Belt division. Yeah, most of them got smoked, but never embarrassed. One of the reason was all my students fought everyone, including the black belts, they were used to doing so on a regular basis. One of them, as an actual white belt, won at least his first fight in every single tourney he fought in (about twenty of them) and placed many times. He was a good athlete who didn’t look like he was. He looked fat and slow and was anything but. When he finally made Black belt in real life, he retired, saying “the thrill is gone”. (By then he didn’t look fat anymore and had won the division a few times)

For my kids, I had any of them interested come to several tournaments and watch all day. Then had them “teach themselves no contact sparring” How? Easy. They all did bag work as part of their karate education and training. We had them split time from actual bag work with “flick contact” to the bag. Then no contact on the bag. (on their own time) Then they did it on the cement poles holding up the I-beams of the ceiling. And, no, nobody ever got hurt. Ever. You heard a few “ows” now and then but no big deal. (that's the best way to teach control in my opinion)

Then we let them practice with each other. They all competed well, were very successful. And there were dozens of them. Best part was…when you had one of those divisions that was 11-13 years old (or whatever) you know how big the size difference with kids can be. If they competed against a monster who was trying to hurt them, they would just blast the kid off his feet with a face punch.

As for actual sandbagging that’s not fair to the student. How are you supposed to improve your skills when competing against people you’re so much better than? That’s just plain dumb.


----------



## WaterGal (May 3, 2021)

I think it's worth keeping in mind that, as OP alludes to in their post, TKD and BJJ have extremely different  ideas about what level of experience/expertise each belt color represents. A TKD black belt is, IMO, roughly analogous to a BJJ blue belt, while a BJJ black belt is more like a TKD 5th dan.

That being said.... while physical testing is still done at higher TKD dan levels, I get the impression that that's more to make sure that high dan instructors are still practicing. Honestly, I wouldn't care if the highest dan levels were awarded based on contribution to the art.


----------



## WaterGal (May 3, 2021)

skribs said:


> I think this depends on what you define as "teaching".  You can be a KKW certified Instructor Level 1 at 2nd or 3rd Dan (if I remember correctly).  Level 2 (Master) is at 4th Dan, and I believe 7th Dan is required for Level 3 (Grand Master).



You can take the Level 1 Kukkiwon Master Instructor course before 4th dan, but you get some kind of probationary certificate until you get your 4th dan.


----------



## dvcochran (May 3, 2021)

Buka said:


> What I use to do, which I’ll probably get flack for (but me no care)…we didn’t spar any no contact to the face, not even with the kids.
> 
> So….all my guys that wanted to fight in a tourney fought in the Back Belt division. Yeah, most of them got smoked, but never embarrassed. One of the reason was all my students fought everyone, including the black belts, they were used to doing so on a regular basis. One of them, as an actual white belt, won at least his first fight in every single tourney he fought in (about twenty of them) and placed many times. He was a good athlete who didn’t look like he was. He looked fat and slow and was anything but. When he finally made Black belt in real life, he retired, saying “the thrill is gone”. (By then he didn’t look fat anymore and had won the division a few times)
> 
> ...


We segregate more by size than rank so you will line up in front of all ranks. 
For tournaments we have 4-6 special sessions a year where we set up regulation size rings (this varies some with non-sanctioned tourneys) have corner judges and a center and go through everything. 
It is good for the competitors and for the BB’s working to get referee certification.


----------



## skribs (May 3, 2021)

WaterGal said:


> I think it's worth keeping in mind that, as OP alludes to in their post, TKD and BJJ have extremely different ideas about what level of experience/expertise each belt color represents. A TKD black belt is, IMO, roughly analogous to a BJJ blue belt, while a BJJ black belt is more like a TKD 5th dan.


BJJ also has their colors in the wrong order.  Purple before blue?  Black before red?  Blasphemy!


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 3, 2021)

skribs said:


> There's an in-between.  For example, I don't have the authority to promote students in my school.  However, I often lead classes by myself, without oversight of my Master.  This may be when he's busy with administrative stuff, on break, or even once when he was on vacation.


You are still under his oversight, however loosely.


skribs said:


> I know you aren't doing this intentionally, but it does seem a little bit unfair to me.  Imagine if a school district held their students back for 3 years, so the middle school football game has 13-year-olds from one school competing against 16-year-olds from another.


Tournaments are already broken down by age, gender and rank, so your analogy doesn't really work.
How would YOU break them down into groups?
[EDIT] Within our own school, we don't break them down. Everybody spars everybody, regardless of age, gender, size, or rank.


----------



## skribs (May 3, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> You are still under his oversight, however loosely.


Fair enough.  Actually he did install a security camera when he left, and a few times talked to me through it.


Dirty Dog said:


> Tournaments are already broken down by age, gender and rank, so your analogy doesn't really work.
> How would YOU break them down into groups?


Also size. 

My analogy still holds.  Rank is to signify a certain level of experience.  What you have is someone who would be a higher belt in other schools.  It would be like someone fighting down an age bracket or down a weight class.  To make it more accurate, maybe it would be "we only celebrate his birthday every other year, so we consider him 8 years old even though he was born 16 years ago."


Dirty Dog said:


> [EDIT] Within our own school, we don't break them down. Everybody spars everybody, regardless of age, gender, size, or rank.



There's a *huge *difference between training and competition.  Should I compete against a 6 year old purple belt?


----------



## andyjeffries (May 5, 2021)

skribs said:


> I think this depends on what you define as "teaching".  You can be a KKW certified Instructor Level 1 at 2nd or 3rd Dan (if I remember correctly).  Level 2 (Master) is at 4th Dan, and I believe 7th Dan is required for Level 3 (Grand Master).


Sorry, you aren't remembering correctly.

You can attend the 3rd Class Kukkiwon International Master Instructor Course as a 2nd/3rd Dan and you get a "Completion certificate" on the final day after the written exam and physical test. However, that doesn't make you a certified instructor. You get that certificate after you completed the requirements, but they haven't been marked/graded yet and people DO fail the master course. If you do exceptionally well on the course (often by attitude rather than actual skill) you may get a "Citation", but this is not necessarily guaranteeing you a pass on the course.

If you are 4th Dan (or later attain 4th Dan and pay $50 because the 2nd/3rd Dan course was $50 cheaper) and you passed the course, you get a "Qualification certificate". This qualifies (the Kukkiwon refers to it as being "licensed") you as a "Sabeom" or master. There are some that believe this certificate is required for the Kukkiwon to consider you a master, but Kukkiwon staff called me Master Jeffries before I attended the course.

When you get to 6th Dan and have a 3rd Class certificate, you can attend the course again (yes, the same course, no different content) and get the same certificate process of Completion -> Qualification (but this time with 2nd Class on it) if you pass.

When you get to 8th Dan and have a 2nd Class, you can go for 1st Class, exactly the same way.

Definitely 3rd Class qualification is Master rank though, not just "Instructor". There are some people that consider you need a 1st Class certificate before you are considered a Grandmaster, but again, Kukkiwon staff and seniors were calling my instructor by that title before he received his 1st Class qualification certificate.

I haven't _specifically_ asked but I think it's fair to say Kukkiwon sees 1-3rd Dan as student, 4-6th Dan as master/instructor and 7-9th Dan as grandmaster. Remember though, Kukkiwon is a Korea-based organisation and in Korean they only use the title Sabeomnim for 4th Dan + 3rd Class and above. It doesn't matter if you're a 9th Dan + 1st Class, they would still use the title Sabeomnim when referring to you. If you own a dojang, you are Kwanjangnim, but that is *not* related to rank but dojang ownership.

Hope this helps (I've been through the process a couple of times, kept an online diary of both times, my certs are only if anyone wants to see what they look like, etc), if you have any questions, let me know.


----------



## dvcochran (May 5, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> Sorry, you aren't remembering correctly.
> 
> You can attend the 3rd Class Kukkiwon International Master Instructor Course as a 2nd/3rd Dan and you get a "Completion certificate" on the final day after the written exam and physical test. However, that doesn't make you a certified instructor. You get that certificate after you completed the requirements, but they haven't been marked/graded yet and people DO fail the master course. If you do exceptionally well on the course (often by attitude rather than actual skill) you may get a "Citation", but this is not necessarily guaranteeing you a pass on the course.
> 
> ...


This is one of the bureaucratic quirks In Kukkiwon. I commend them for the detail and definition but it easy to see that much of what you mention is about money. I get the master course and referee certification blurs the line between WT & Kukkiwon but to say a 6th or higher is missing qualities and/or skills just does not seem right. To me this should be addressed in the curriculum or make the competition related qualifications fully WT. 
To my knowledge how you define Sabeonim and Kwanjnim is the same in the states. That has been my experience for the most part. 

Sir, may I ask what rank you are now. Better than asking for your DOB to look it up.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 5, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> This is one of the bureaucratic quirks In Kukkiwon. I commend them for the detail and definition but it easy to see that much of what you mention is about money. I get the master course and referee certification blurs the line between WT & Kukkiwon but to say a 6th or higher is missing qualities and/or skills just does not seem right. To me this should be addressed in the curriculum or make the competition related qualifications fully WT.
> To my knowledge how you define Sabeonim and Kwanjnim is the same in the states. That has been my experience for the most part.
> 
> Sir, may I ask what rank you are now. Better than asking for your DOB to look it up.


The funny thing I see it as the opposite. When I did the course twice, it was $200 for 4-5 days of 8+ hours per day training and lessons with some of the best grandmasters in the world. It's cheap as chips for that price! The course is worth it's weight in gold - the training and the networking (and relationship building with Kukkiwon) are all worth having, but put together for a couple of hundred dollars...

That said, I know if you take the course outside of Korea it can be considerably more expensive - that's the cost of flying some instructors over from Korea, paying them to be away from their families, expenses in that country (rather that using the Kukkiwon/Taekwondowon to train in and their own houses' beds), and some profit for the local organisers, etc.

I also would definitely not say that 6th Dans are expected to have all qualities and skills. In Taekwondo there is definite progression all the way up to 9th Dan. My instructor took his 1st Class course when I did my 3rd Class and we definitely discussed new details that we both learnt on the course (of course his were much more subtle than mine, but the level of detail I picked up on the 2nd Class course was more than I picked up on the 3rd Class).

I've seen a lot of people use "Kwanjangnim" to mean "Grandmaster", particularly from the states actually. Glad you're on the same page though.

Sure, I'm currently a Kukkiwon 6th Dan and Changmookwan 7th Dan, due to test for my 7th/8th (pair) in January next year, although likely to be late spring/early summer 2022. Strangely my 5th Dan Kukkiwon certificate is on our club's website (and my CMK 7th Dan), but my 6th Dan isn't! Should fix that sometime...


----------



## dvcochran (May 5, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> The funny thing I see it as the opposite. When I did the course twice, it was $200 for 4-5 days of 8+ hours per day training and lessons with some of the best grandmasters in the world. It's cheap as chips for that price! The course is worth it's weight in gold - the training and the networking (and relationship building with Kukkiwon) are all worth having, but put together for a couple of hundred dollars...
> 
> That said, I know if you take the course outside of Korea it can be considerably more expensive - that's the cost of flying some instructors over from Korea, paying them to be away from their families, expenses in that country (rather that using the Kukkiwon/Taekwondowon to train in and their own houses' beds), and some profit for the local organisers, etc.
> 
> ...


From that perspective I fully agree. When I went through the Master course here I thought it was lcking. But it was still cool to workout and be around other TKD folks. 
A person should be learning at any rank yes but most have thoroughly gone over the whole curriculum to proficiency well before 6th-7th Dan. But it involves much more than curriculum at those levels 
Will physical movement and mental acuity continue? I think so.


----------



## Buka (May 5, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> We segregate more by size than rank so you will line up in front of all ranks.
> For tournaments we have 4-6 special sessions a year where we set up regulation size rings (this varies some with non-sanctioned tourneys) have corner judges and a center and go through everything.
> It is good for the competitors and for the BB’s working to get referee certification.


Do they have clinics teaching people how to ref where you are? Used to be some nice ones where I came up. Even taught basic first aid, too.


----------



## dvcochran (May 5, 2021)

Buka said:


> Do they have clinics teaching people how to ref where you are? Used to be some nice ones where I came up. Even taught basic first aid, too.


Yes but they are not 'official'. There are different grades of WT/Kukkiwon referee's. It gets kind of convoluted since there is a 'pecking order' to it. 
We hold classes internally 4 times a year and it follows the WT ruleset to help anyone who wants to get officially certified. It follows a standard but there is variability in who is running the classes. 
That said, we have not had one since 2019. 
The closest WT/Kukkiwon referee certification or Master courses I am aware of are in Chicago. And they are not held every year. I keep hoping they will start something in Atlanta.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 6, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> From that perspective I fully agree. When I went through the Master course here I thought it was lcking. But it was still cool to workout and be around other TKD folks.


Yeah, I've heard a lot of people say that the courses outside of Korea are less than great value for money. If you can go to Korea though, it's super cheap for the course (and you get the cultural experience of being in Korea, training in Korea, having more instructors on the course, etc).


----------



## dvcochran (May 6, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> Yeah, I've heard a lot of people say that the courses outside of Korea are less than great value for money. If you can go to Korea though, it's super cheap for the course (and you get the cultural experience of being in Korea, training in Korea, having more instructors on the course, etc).


If memory serves, it cost me $600 for the Masters course but that was for the 2nd class (yes, I am 5th Dan). Thank you GM Shin. He drove most of me going to the course but the WTMU was heavily involved in the organizing side of the program. 
Having not been to a program in Korea I cannot comment on how different the programs are but I am sure you have experience being around a bunch of Korean Masters; very formal and traditional. I found that somewhat missing at the course, even though it was almost all ran by Koreans. The content and curriculum was solid and thorough and I learned quite a lot, albeit some things slightly different ways of doing what we were already doing so somewhat moot. We have had a few go since me so we actively use and promote the program. 

Honestly, how different do you think it can be?


----------



## Steve (May 6, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> Yeah, I've heard a lot of people say that the courses outside of Korea are less than great value for money. If you can go to Korea though, it's super cheap for the course (and you get the cultural experience of being in Korea, training in Korea, having more instructors on the course, etc).


You give the impression that only koreans are able to teach the course.  Is this accurate?


----------



## dvcochran (May 6, 2021)

Steve said:


> You give the impression that only koreans are able to teach the course.  Is this accurate?


FWIW, I do not think that is wholly true but it is wholly about the Major Korean art/sport and the countries heritage. So yea, there is a lot leaning on Korean instructors.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 7, 2021)

Steve said:


> You give the impression that only koreans are able to teach the course.  Is this accurate?


Errr, not at all. However, what I would say is that Kukkiwon sets the standard for Kukkiwon Taekwondo, so the instructors that Kukkiwon appoints as their official instructors are the ones I would want to learn from. I believe all the current batch are Korean (or at least Korean origin), but if they appointed a non-Korean as an official Kukkiwon instructor, then that's completely fine.

I would say though that most Kukkiwon Taekwondo instructors internationally do not understand Taekwondo or Korean culture (which is infused in Taekwondo culture) to the same level as the official Kukkiwon instructors. Not all, but most.

The reason I wrote about the courses in Korea being better than those taught abroad is that I have taken the master instructor course twice in Korea and the poom/dan examiner course in Austria. On the examiner course they sent 2-3 instructors over from Korea, so every lesson was with the same people. On the examiners' courses every lesson was taught by someone different. Every one of them was top of the chain in terms of reputation and ability.

That's why I feel it was better to do it in Korea.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 7, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> If memory serves, it cost me $600 for the Masters course but that was for the 2nd class (yes, I am 5th Dan). Thank you GM Shin. He drove most of me going to the course but the WTMU was heavily involved in the organizing side of the program.
> Having not been to a program in Korea I cannot comment on how different the programs are but I am sure you have experience being around a bunch of Korean Masters; very formal and traditional. I found that somewhat missing at the course, even though it was almost all ran by Koreans. The content and curriculum was solid and thorough and I learned quite a lot, albeit some things slightly different ways of doing what we were already doing so somewhat moot. We have had a few go since me so we actively use and promote the program.
> 
> Honestly, how different do you think it can be?


My only experience of an official Kukkiwon course outside of Korea was the poom/dan examiner course in Austria. And while I'm glad to have done it, my experience of it was less than 100% positive. (and I've heard similar things about the master courses held outside Korea from other people).

So from my perspective, I think it can be very different. There were certainly some learning processes for international masters on the course in Korea, on the expectations of masters and Taekwondoin.

For example, on the poom/dan examiner course - the final exam questions were read out before we even went to the exam hall (maybe even before the lunch break). There was definite asking/sharing of answers between candidates. On the master courses, it was done in exam conditions and there was an invigilator walking the room. The only questions were from candidate to invigilator to say "I can't understand the English in this question, what does it mean" when the translation wasn't great.

I kept diaries (they're all online) of the courses I attended but I summarised the poom/dan examiner course as:

_I think any Continued Professional Development is good for Taekwondo instructors and masters, but if the rules weren’t changing next year to require this certificate, I wouldn’t recommend attending it in and of itself._


----------



## andyjeffries (May 7, 2021)

Just to add as well, I didn't feel 100% glowing about the Kukkiwon master courses. The main problem I saw when I did the course in 2013 was that one of the students acted as translator for the instructors that didn't speak English. While I commend them for doing it, there were lots of times when the instructor spoke for 30 seconds and the translator summed it up in 5-8 seconds. I felt like I was missing out on a whole bunch of knowledge with that.

So I decided after that course to learn Korean. By the time I did my next course in 2016 I spoke some Korean, but not enough to really understand all of what was said. Now my Korean is better and while I'm sure I still won't get 100% next time I do it, I feel that I'd get enough to not need the translator.

That said, the Kukkiwon has translators and staff members that speak both (in the International Business Team for example) so I think that having one of them always present in the lectures and lessons would help.

That said on the first course in the black belt poomsae lesson we had GM Seol, Seong-ran teaching us (former world poomsae champion and now one of the coaches of the JCalicu Demo Team). At the time she didn't speak much English (she does a bit more now), but her lesson taught through mimickry and humour was my favourite lesson. She had the whole room in tears at points.


----------



## dvcochran (May 7, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> My only experience of an official Kukkiwon course outside of Korea was the poom/dan examiner course in Austria. And while I'm glad to have done it, my experience of it was less than 100% positive. (and I've heard similar things about the master courses held outside Korea from other people).
> 
> So from my perspective, I think it can be very different. There were certainly some learning processes for international masters on the course in Korea, on the expectations of masters and Taekwondoin.
> 
> ...


I get the logic; to hold and verify the established  standards are being held. Unfortunately, the reality is the standards are vague at best in some areas and a moving target in others. The larger picture is easy to see and follow but can get lost in the details. 
This has been a consistent theme in all of my 37 years of WT/Kukkiwon TKD. 
MDK has been a much more established and consistent experience.


----------



## Steve (May 7, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> Errr, not at all. However, what I would say is that Kukkiwon sets the standard for Kukkiwon Taekwondo, so the instructors that Kukkiwon appoints as their official instructors are the ones I would want to learn from. I believe all the current batch are Korean (or at least Korean origin), but if they appointed a non-Korean as an official Kukkiwon instructor, then that's completely fine.
> 
> I would say though that most Kukkiwon Taekwondo instructors internationally do not understand Taekwondo or Korean culture (which is infused in Taekwondo culture) to the same level as the official Kukkiwon instructors. Not all, but most.
> 
> ...


How many instructors are approved at a time for these courses?  Are they listed somewhere?


----------



## andyjeffries (May 10, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> I get the logic; to hold and verify the established  standards are being held. Unfortunately, the reality is the standards are vague at best in some areas and a moving target in others. The larger picture is easy to see and follow but can get lost in the details.
> This has been a consistent theme in all of my 37 years of WT/Kukkiwon TKD.
> MDK has been a much more established and consistent experience.


Errr, I disagree mostly with what you wrote, but it's just my 2p worth opinion.

I think there have been some small changes over the years with standards, but Korea has been pretty unified for the past 30 years, so I think most of the problems with international instructors feeling the standards aren't well defined comes from not learning from official Kukkiwon instructors. There are a lot of people who learn from their instructor, who learn from theirs, etc up the chain and in reality the top people either didn't keep attending courses with official instructors over the decades or decided their own way was best. So their version of Taekwondo has now digressed (or remains stuck in time) through their lineage and people see that they have Kukkiwon (WHATEVER) Dan and therefore their way is current and correct. It's often not the case, but then the student learns from someone else and suddenly there are changes or vagueness.

I first learnt from Kukkiwon instructors in 2012 and can say that through to my last time training with one in 2018 (was due back in 2020, but y'know, Covid) all of the instructors were consistent, all of them did things the same way, there was no vagueness. However...

Self-defence is one area though that it's a moving target, Kukkiwon is working hard to develop a decent self-defence curriculum and hasn't done the best of jobs at disseminating that information yet. However, when I first saw the whole syllabus on a video on the 2016 course, it's been consistently talked about since then.

The Kwans are definitely most established and consistent internationally, because as I wrote above, lots of instructors that consider themselves (WHATEVER) Kwan, still do things that have been passed down through generations and never been kept up to date. If you visit the Kwan HQ in Korea and train with the senior instructors there, you'll often find that it's 100% consistent with Kukkiwon Taekwondo. I know my Kwan President is vice-chairman of the Kukkiwon High Dan Testing Panel, so he's definitely Kukkiwon standard  

Anyway, I understand your point, but it feels very different from my viewpoint.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 10, 2021)

Steve said:


> How many instructors are approved at a time for these courses?  Are they listed somewhere?


Gooood question!

So I don't know specifically what you mean by "approved", I can see two potential meanings:

1. Approved to take the course - there's an application process, although as I understand it almost everyone that's qualified enough is allowed. So when I took the course in 2013, there were approximately 150 international masters. The hall was SLAMMED busy! This was about the limit for Kukkiwon in my opinion. Taekwondowon has bigger halls so could potentially take more, however, I worry that many more would make for lower quality education - even with assistants, there's only so much teaching you can do to such a big group. When I went back in 2016 I think there were about the same total number, but they then split it in to 3rd Class in one group and 2nd/1st Class in a second group. This helped a lot.

2. Approved/qualified as masters afterwards - I don't know the official stats, but anecdotally I've heard that the pass rate is about 50-60% of candidates. I certainly personally know people that have failed Kukkiwon courses, so it's definitely not a rubber stamp.

Given that as of last year (or the year before?) it's a requirement for Kukkiwon Membership System (Dan promotion system) application, I'd imagine more people will be doing it.

Regarding listing somewhere, not that I know of. For some reason Kukkiwon seems to not like doing this (I've never asked why). There is an online page at wta.kukkiwon.or.kr that lists the record of the person logging in (so you can check your results, etc) but you can't search for other people. In case people haven't seen this page/site and it's of interest, here's a screenshot (not trying to brag/boast and my certs are already online - but thought as not everyone has access it may be nice for some to see it):






(WTA is "World Taekwondo Academy", not the best naming as to me it implies affiliation with "World Taekwondo" rather than Kukkiwon, but it's basically the instructor/judge educational department within Kukkiwon)


----------



## dvcochran (May 10, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> Errr, I disagree mostly with what you wrote, but it's just my 2p worth opinion.
> 
> I think there have been some small changes over the years with standards, but Korea has been pretty unified for the past 30 years, so I think most of the problems with international instructors feeling the standards aren't well defined comes from not learning from official Kukkiwon instructors. There are a lot of people who learn from their instructor, who learn from theirs, etc up the chain and in reality the top people either didn't keep attending courses with official instructors over the decades or decided their own way was best. So their version of Taekwondo has now digressed (or remains stuck in time) through their lineage and people see that they have Kukkiwon (WHATEVER) Dan and therefore their way is current and correct. It's often not the case, but then the student learns from someone else and suddenly there are changes or vagueness.
> 
> ...






andyjeffries said:


> I have to say I fully disagree with your post. It is completely written from the viewpoint of someone with only a snapshot of experience with Kukkiwon/WT.





andyjeffries said:


> My first experience with Kukkiwon and full Korean instructors was in 1984. Believe me when I tell you I have seen and experienced multiple moving targets in organizational philosophy, competition sparring and forms dissemination, not to mention the gross lacking in presenting a unified, complete martial art. This is in particular to your SD reference. It has been almost 50 years and the political bickering and jockeying is still prohibiting Kukkiwon from presenting a full package. This has affected me both in business and in my competition phase. It is very real and still present. So your comment came off more as uninformed covering for KKW than anything else.


Respectfully, your opinion is narrow and somewhat blind to the realities. It is great that you have had some training in Korea, it truly is. But to think all others countries are somehow lacking and incorrect simply speaks to the systemic problems within KKW.
I have been trained only by full Korean instructors; not 2nd, 3rd lineage. The exception is in MDK where my GM was a student of Hwang Kee. I will take that all day.
I am writing this from my phone and the new site is doing some weird stuff. I hope you get the whole message. Some of it displays as if it was written by you so read the whole thread carefully.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 10, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> My first experience with Kukkiwon and full Korean instructors was in 1984. Believe me when I tell you I have seen and experienced multiple moving targets in organizational philosophy, competition sparring and forms dissemination, not to mention the gross lacking in presenting a unified, complete martial art. This is in particular to your SD reference. It has been almost 50 years and the political bickering and jockeying is still prohibiting Kukkiwon from presenting a full package. This has affected me both in business and in my competition phase. It is very real and still present. So your comment came off more as uninformed covering for KKW than anything else.
> 
> Respectfully, your opinion is narrow and somewhat blind to the realities. It is great that you have had some training in Korea, it truly is. But to think all others countries are somehow lacking and incorrect simply speaks to the systemic problems within KKW.
> 
> ...


Just to be clear, I don't think "all other countries are somehow lacking and incorrect" is not something I think or said. My own instructor wasn't Korean. I'm an active Kwan member, although my Kwan 100% supports Kukkiwon standards.

I have trained alongside masters from pretty much every country in the world and I would say a good 70-80% of things don't do things Kukkiwon standard way. Now, if they want to label what they do as "Traditional Taekwondo", or "X Kwan Taekwondo" that's fine. I genuinely don't care and it's not my place to judge. If they say they do Kukkiwon Taekwondo (and aren't doing it according to current standards), then I care. If they say "I'm doing one of the original 9 kwans style of Taekwondo, as still exists in Korea, and am current with it", then they're incorrect as all the Kwans in Korea follow Kukkiwon Taekwondo standards.

To be clear though, when I was talking about 2nd/3rd lineage it wasn't about distance from Korea or Korean people, but in terms of how up to date each link has remained. Again, my instructor wasn't Korean and the example I spell out below doesn't matter what nationality people are BUT how they are exposed to Taekwondo and changes in standards...

For example (and I hope you agree), Taekwondo was very different from the 1950's/1960's to now, right? Now imagine an instructor from that era left Korea, set up in another country and started teaching. Every so often he would go back to Korea, get higher rank (and most of the people there would respect him as a senior and not tell him "hey, we don't do it that way any more, it's changed to this"). So now he's a high dan, LOTS of years in it, but is quite removed from current standards. By now he also has his own master students that also do things "the correct way, from Korea, I'm one of the seniors of this style". They have their own students and pass on the same methods to.

And hopefully now you can imagine now how people think they are doing things correctly, there are constantly changes in Kukkiwon style, whereas in fact it is more that whereas there are some changes over time, too many links in the chain didn't keep up with them, so now it seems like a lot.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that you trained with a student of one of the Kwan founders, I love that you're potentially keeping that distinct style alive. I'm not in a position to be qualified if you're doing it right or wrong. What I can say as a certified Kukkiwon master (and accuracy nut, although my wife labels it other things), what Kukkiwon standards are.


----------



## WaterGal (May 10, 2021)

I'm going to agree with Andy here. When Mr WaterGal did the Master Course, he discovered that our old Korean immigrant teacher had been teaching some things in the Taegeuk forms the way that he learned growing up in Korea in the 80s, and hadn't really kept up with what KKW was doing since. So we had to make some tweaks to what we were teaching. And apparently there were a number of instructors taking the class that were barely familiar with the Taegeuk forms at all.

I think that the requirement that you do the course before joining KMS will, at very least, help a lot with getting everybody on the same page with the basics (or weeding out people who are giving out KKW certs who aren't actually teaching KKW TKD).


----------



## dvcochran (May 10, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> Just to be clear, I don't think "all other countries are somehow lacking and incorrect" is not something I think or said. My own instructor wasn't Korean. I'm an active Kwan member, although my Kwan 100% supports Kukkiwon standards.
> 
> I have trained alongside masters from pretty much every country in the world and I would say a good 70-80% of things don't do things Kukkiwon standard way. Now, if they want to label what they do as "Traditional Taekwondo", or "X Kwan Taekwondo" that's fine. I genuinely don't care and it's not my place to judge. If they say they do Kukkiwon Taekwondo (and aren't doing it according to current standards), then I care. If they say "I'm doing one of the original 9 kwans style of Taekwondo, as still exists in Korea, and am current with it", then they're incorrect as all the Kwans in Korea follow Kukkiwon Taekwondo standards.
> 
> ...


Contradictions aside, most of the Kwan's are fully intact, even in Korea albeit in more of a historical form there. You are actively part of an original Kwan as I understand it so I do not get the 'outdated information' references. What do you think the Kukkiwon was established from if not from the Kwan's? Ignoring them is truly like trying to erase someone's personal history. 
I have also worked with Korean Masters from all over the world from my competition days but more importantly and impressively because Masters come from all over the world to work with Grand Master Shin on a regular basis. 
I think you are overselling the KKW standard as a standard. Especially in today's ease of information. It is truly an open format database; anyone can access the 'correct way' to do patterns, tournament rules and such. So saying 70%-80% of TKD schools don't follow the curriculum after all these years should really, really be saying something to you; loudly. Where it is and always has been lacking is in a true school curriculum. This is where being affiliated with a Kwan like you and I carries fantastic weight and merit. 
Of course TKD is very different today from the 50's & 60's, it was an infant at that time. It was and still is growing up. 
I guessing you have never been in a steering committee or rules meeting with a room full of full blooded Koreans; it is anything but polite the whole time. There Will be a good amount of ego flexing before the meeting is over. Yes, in public they are most often cordial; that is in their culture. But don't think they will not flex their high rank muscles. I have left meetings where blood was shed on more than one occasion. And one of these was an IOC meeting.

I have said many times that KKW/WT has been very, very good to me personally and professionally. Being heavily involved in the early years of Olympic competition are some of the most cherished memories of my life. Where I differ is that after my Olympic run I got very involved in and am belted in other style MA's and TKD. Something I cannot recommend strongly enough to anyone working out. It takes a great deal of time and commitment and a great deal of things have to fall or be forced your way but I would not change any part of my MA's life.
It gives a person a much fuller, more robust, and more knowledgeable perspective on TKD and MA's. How it has influenced me and how I have been able to become an influencer is simply an unspeakable privilege.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 11, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> most of the Kwan's are fully intact, even in Korea albeit in more of a historical form there. You are actively part of an original Kwan as I understand it so I do not get the 'outdated information' references. What do you think the Kukkiwon was established from if not from the Kwan's? Ignoring them is truly like trying to erase someone's personal history.


I apparently am not writing very clearly (or at least the meaning behind my words isn't coming through). I'll try again...

I am actively part of a Kwan (Changmookwan). When I refer to outdated practices, there are a lot of people who label what they do as "X Kwan Taekwondo" and still practice what "X Kwan" did in the 50's/60's/70's/etc, rather than keeping up to date with what the "X Kwan HQ in Korea" does, which is 100% Kukkiwon. They claim to be doing "X Kwan", but really it's "outdated X Kwan" not current.

It's not ignoring the Kwans, I fully appreciate and love them, and they full appreciate, love and support Kukkiwon as the central authority for defining Taekwondo standards.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 11, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> I think you are overselling the KKW standard as a standard. Especially in today's ease of information. It is truly an open format database; anyone can access the 'correct way' to do patterns, tournament rules and such. So saying 70%-80% of TKD schools don't follow the curriculum after all these years should really, really be saying something to you; loudly. Where it is and always has been lacking is in a true school curriculum. This is where being affiliated with a Kwan like you and I carries fantastic weight and merit.


It says something to me loudly, but maybe it says something different to you.

What it says to me is that lots of masters keep doing things the way they've always been done, rather than engage in Continued Professional Development (to borrow a work-based term) and go to the people that the seniors at the top of their tree/lineage agree are the people responsible for defining the standards.

I think Kukkiwon Taekwondo does have a full curriculum for use in dojangs, what people choose to do with that information (use it or ignore it) or add to it, is up to them.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 11, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Contradictions aside


By the way, if you feel there are any contradictions you feel I wrote that I haven't already explained to clarify, feel free to specifically call them out and I'll try to explain in a different way. These conversations are often better in a pub over a beer, or a Korean restaurant over some bulgogi and sometimes meanings get lost when translating thoughts to writing. Happy to keep trying though, in my head they are clear, so it's likely my writing skills that are at fault ;-)


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 11, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> I apparently am not writing very clearly (or at least the meaning behind my words isn't coming through). I'll try again...
> 
> I am actively part of a Kwan (Changmookwan). When I refer to outdated practices, there are a lot of people who label what they do as "X Kwan Taekwondo" and still practice what "X Kwan" did in the 50's/60's/70's/etc, rather than keeping up to date with what the "X Kwan HQ in Korea" does, which is 100% Kukkiwon. They claim to be doing "X Kwan", but really it's "outdated X Kwan" not current.
> 
> It's not ignoring the Kwans, I fully appreciate and love them, and they full appreciate, love and support Kukkiwon as the central authority for defining Taekwondo standards.


If your X Kwan is still a part of the Kwan in Korea, then I can understand this view. However, if you're part of a group that has split off then it's not outdated. It's just X Kwan. Our org is the American MooDukKwan Taekwondo Association. Our curriculum is not outdated. It's just our curriculum. We do teach the KKW curriculum as well, and most of the Master and Grandmaster level people hold rank in both. To be graded for MDK rank, you're tested on the MDK curriculum. For KKW, you're tested on the KKW material.


----------



## dvcochran (May 11, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> It says something to me loudly, but maybe it says something different to you.
> 
> What it says to me is that lots of masters keep doing things the way they've always been done, rather than engage in Continued Professional Development (to borrow a work-based term) and go to the people that the seniors at the top of their tree/lineage agree are the people responsible for defining the standards.
> 
> I think Kukkiwon Taekwondo does have a full curriculum for use in dojangs, what people choose to do with that information (use it or ignore it) or add to it, is up to them.


CPD is a common term that should be applied in personal life as well as professional business. Never have I seen it applied in the progression of KKW in it's intended model. More it has always been a 'kicking and screaming' contest between the powers in charge at the time (also a revolving door). That group has always had a hard time finding consensus. Again, this is a big reason that after 50 years they still have not finalized the patterns agreed upon in the beginning. Like you say, they are ever changing. I feel your history in this matter is lacking.  

This idea that KKW has a complete curriculum is patently wrong and very dangerous water to tread on as a school owner or business person. SO much is missing to be able to offer a full and robust school curriculum. If you feel learning the KKW poomsae in order and learning how to WT spar is a curriculum that is your prerogative. But I will stand firm on the belief that promoting this idea is the leading edge of the deterioration of TKD. Get your head out of the KKW sand and you will see the considerable slip that is happening all over the world. 
People today are more educated to MA's and so much information is instantly available. So they come in knowing more than they did 10-20 years ago. It has created a positive bias. Many people are seeing that the KKW/WT product is not complete even before they sign up. Most good instructors have figured out that it is can be a Great compliment to an existing quality program to offer a broader competition component. This is why so many schools jump on board. But fewer and fewer people are attracted to this KKW/WT level of competition and end up scratching their head asking "now what am I supposed to do"?


----------



## dvcochran (May 11, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> By the way, if you feel there are any contradictions you feel I wrote that I haven't already explained to clarify, feel free to specifically call them out and I'll try to explain in a different way. These conversations are often better in a pub over a beer, or a Korean restaurant over some bulgogi and sometimes meanings get lost when translating thoughts to writing. Happy to keep trying though, in my head they are clear, so it's likely my writing skills that are at fault ;-)



Thank you, I would enjoy have a beer with you but we are pretty far apart so it will have to wait. 
Believe me when I say I Love to debate. My wife has said many times I would argue with a rock. I always tell her I disagree because the rock cannot argue back. 
In this conversation I have the advantage of age and direct experience. And my experience is very broad, not tainted by being purely immersed in one vein of thinking. 
I am not trying to kill KKW/WT. I love it and like I said earlier it has been very good to me. But the reality is that the 70%-80% of the schools you mentioned earlier have already figured out what I have been arguing during this thread and choose to use KKW/WT as a complimentary addition to their school and not as a standard. 

To be sure, it is a very big, very powerful body. An international sport that deserves acknowledgement and respect. Outside of the competition arena it has not earned deference and I do not think it has ever intended to. 
It is not, never has been and I believe never intends to be a Martial Art. Strategically, it leaves that to the co-joined schools.


----------



## dvcochran (May 11, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> It says something to me loudly, but maybe it says something different to you.
> 
> What it says to me is that lots of masters keep doing things the way they've always been done, rather than engage in Continued Professional Development (to borrow a work-based term) and go to the people that the seniors at the top of their tree/lineage agree are the people responsible for defining the standards.
> 
> I think Kukkiwon Taekwondo does have a full curriculum for use in dojangs, what people choose to do with that information (use it or ignore it) or add to it, is up to them.


Oh, you mean the program where you pay money for a few days of training? And this magically makes someone a qualified instructor? Hmm?

I am quite curious what is says to you.


----------



## dvcochran (May 11, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> I apparently am not writing very clearly (or at least the meaning behind my words isn't coming through). I'll try again...
> 
> I am actively part of a Kwan (Changmookwan). When I refer to outdated practices, there are a lot of people who label what they do as "X Kwan Taekwondo" and still practice what "X Kwan" did in the 50's/60's/70's/etc, rather than keeping up to date with what the "X Kwan HQ in Korea" does, which is 100% Kukkiwon. They claim to be doing "X Kwan", but really it's "outdated X Kwan" not current.
> 
> It's not ignoring the Kwans, I fully appreciate and love them, and they full appreciate, love and support Kukkiwon as the central authority for defining Taekwondo standards.


Using my Kwan (MDK) as the example, we practice an established set of Hyungs (poomsae) that are older than the KKW form set. This in no way makes them outdated. Just different. To infer otherwise is propaganda thinking fed to you by KKW. 
That said, do you feel your CMK forms are outdated?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (May 11, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> What it says to me is that lots of masters keep doing things the way they've always been done, rather than engage in Continued Professional Development (to borrow a work-based term) and go to the people that the seniors at the top of their tree/lineage agree are the people responsible for defining the standards.


I've got a question regarding the material you learn at these KKW courses.

Are you primarily learning _functional _improvements to your skills? I.e., do you come back from the seminar having discovered details that seem to significantly improve the percentage with which you land your side kick, the reliability of your blocks, the power of your punches, etc?

Or are you learning updates to the "official standard", i.e. when performing form X, you must point your toe at this precise angle and turn your hips exactly this much, because the people in charge have decreed that this is the official correct method?

If it's primarily the former, then how does the functional information compare to what you've learned from other, non-KKW courses? IF it's primarily the latter, then how important do you consider it to use your CPD time keeping up with whatever the folks at the top of the hierarchy have currently defined as correct?


----------



## angelariz (May 11, 2021)

D Hall said:


> So let me start by saying, this is in no way intended to be inflammatory. I am very interested in the discussion and hearing various views on the subject... and why you feel that way.
> 
> In TKD (and most traditional 'kick/punch' MA) the road to the higher Dan ranks is paved in grueling sweat and blood. I've seen YouTube clips of people testing for 9th Dan. While other times, the higher BB ranks are often awarded for service to the MA and experience.
> 
> ...


I dont give out rank. 
We are a PFS school.
If people want rank, I send them to other teachers. We only care about training and making the ranges flow together.


----------



## WaterGal (May 12, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> I think Kukkiwon Taekwondo does have a full curriculum for use in dojangs, what people choose to do with that information (use it or ignore it) or add to it, is up to them.



Mmm.... this may depend on what one means by a "full curriculum". I would argue that a "full curriculum" includes things like lesson plans and instructional methods, and as far as I've seen, KKW doesn't provide that in any of their official textbooks or other material. They provide a basic framework for _what _students should learn, but the _how_ is left up to the instructor.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 13, 2021)

WaterGal said:


> Mmm.... this may depend on what one means by a "full curriculum". I would argue that a "full curriculum" includes things like lesson plans and instructional methods, and as far as I've seen, KKW doesn't provide that in any of their official textbooks or other material. They provide a basic framework for _what _students should learn, but the _how_ is left up to the instructor.


As it should be. Different people learn best in different ways. Different people teach best in different ways. Trying to dictate the HOW strikes me as more than a bit unreasonable.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 13, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> If your X Kwan is still a part of the Kwan in Korea, then I can understand this view. However, if you're part of a group that has split off then it's not outdated. It's just X Kwan. Our org is the American MooDukKwan Taekwondo Association. Our curriculum is not outdated. It's just our curriculum. We do teach the KKW curriculum as well, and most of the Master and Grandmaster level people hold rank in both. To be graded for MDK rank, you're tested on the MDK curriculum. For KKW, you're tested on the KKW material.


I agree as long as either the Kwan is dissolved/inactive or one specifies the split off group.

For example, I have absolutely no problem with "I'm an AMDKTA member and our curriculum is X", only with "I'm a (e.g.) Chungdokwan member and our curriculum is X, it's not the same as Kukkiwon's".


----------



## andyjeffries (May 13, 2021)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I've got a question regarding the material you learn at these KKW courses.



Go for it, always happy to answer questions if I can.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Are you primarily learning _functional _improvements to your skills? I.e., do you come back from the seminar having discovered details that seem to significantly improve the percentage with which you land your side kick, the reliability of your blocks, the power of your punches, etc?



The first time, definitely yes. I was developing power incorrectly, using a lot of brute force and tension rather than acceleration. This was corrected on the course and has definitely improved blocking and punching.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Or are you learning updates to the "official standard", i.e. when performing form X, you must point your toe at this precise angle and turn your hips exactly this much, because the people in charge have decreed that this is the official correct method?



Definitely a lot of that too. Which to me is valuable.



Tony Dismukes said:


> If it's primarily the former, then how does the functional information compare to what you've learned from other, non-KKW courses? IF it's primarily the latter, then how important do you consider it to use your CPD time keeping up with whatever the folks at the top of the hierarchy have currently defined as correct?


I would say it's mostly the latter, but some of the former. So I'll answer both questions.

The functional side has been shown on other courses too (including by a Korean master I brought to the UK), but I think it's great that I learnt it on the "official KKW course" too.

I consider it very important keeping up with the top of the hierarchy's definition of correct. I personally believe that for Kukkiwon Taekwondo, the Kukkiwon defines the standard. I identify (for want of a better phrasing) as a Kukkiwon Taekwondoin and a Changmookwan Taekwondoin (which 100% supports Kukkiwon). My role in Taekwondo has been to learn as accurately as I can and pass it on as accurately as I can, without watering it down. If people don't want to learn Kukkiwon Taekwondo, they feel there are better styles out there, all power to them - but I personally want to just be an accurate reflection of upstream and pass it on to my students that way.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 13, 2021)

WaterGal said:


> Mmm.... this may depend on what one means by a "full curriculum". I would argue that a "full curriculum" includes things like lesson plans and instructional methods, and as far as I've seen, KKW doesn't provide that in any of their official textbooks or other material. They provide a basic framework for _what _students should learn, but the _how_ is left up to the instructor.


It's a fair point. The course in 2016 covered this to some extent. For example, from my diary of the course:

_This morning our first lecture was on Taekwondo Education by Dr Son, Cheontaik of the Kukkiwon Research Institute. He went through some information on psychology including Mavlov’s Hierarchy of Needs and Freud’s Basic Instincts. Then went in to planning a Taekwondo programme, composed of units in quite some detail. He explained about using “Block Time” to consider each lesson as 15 minute blocks to be filled of one area of Taekwondo learning. Then each grade has a certain number of each blocks to be completed before they move to the next grade. E.g. White belts may need more etiquette and basic motions, but black belts may need more advanced kicking, sparring and poomsae. I asked about how this works in dojangs with mixed grade lessons (ours has white belts to 5th Dan training in the same class), he replied that the way to handle this is to use Stations so that different groups of grades can work on different things in different areas of the dojang._

Dr Son taught the history portion on the previous course, happens to be from the same Kwan as me, so obviously I have a lot of respect for him.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 13, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> As it should be. Different people learn best in different ways. Different people teach best in different ways. Trying to dictate the HOW strikes me as more than a bit unreasonable.


Also a fair point, but I'd certainly agree with giving masters the tools to choose from. So education on differing instructional methods, when they work best, for what type/age/stage student, etc, would be useful I'm sure.


----------



## dvcochran (May 13, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> Also a fair point, but I'd certainly agree with giving masters the tools to choose from. So education on differing instructional methods, when they work best, for what type/age/stage student, etc, would be useful I'm sure.


I will just say if a school owner cannot figure out that stuff they do not need to be a school owner. That is a completely different dynamic from being an instructor but I am not certain you see this. 
FWIW, many times I have encouraged people on this forum to take a business class or two if they are struggling with the operational stuff. If they have a mentor (close instructor or GM) all the better.
I do not expect to learn the type of stuff mentioned from a MA's seminar instructor. That would just be filler to me. I never remember anything like that in my KKW Master Class.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 14, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> I will just say if a school owner cannot figure out that stuff they do not need to be a school owner. That is a completely different dynamic from being an instructor but I am not certain you see this.


As you put it "Respectfully, your opinion is narrow" 😉 . You come from a place where full time dojangs are the normal situation and it's hard for you to put your head in the mindset of someone who doesn't EVER want to do that. And it seems from your writing that you feel they should never head a dojang if they don't.

I earn very well from my day job and I love it; Taekwondo is my hobby and my passion. Pre-covid (in the UK we're only really just opening back up) I had 90-100 students, and we'd train 2-3 times per week (two evening and one Saturday morning).

I teach Taekwondo for the love of it, not for money. I don't ever want to earn money from Taekwondo. Our students pay fees, and they go to the hall hire, equipment purchase (such as mats), instructor education, etc. But myself and my master assistants don't take a penny from it.

Personally I feel that if you're doing it for the money there's always going to come a time where you have to chose between the financial side (whether it's "I want $X,000 per month" or "I need $X,000 per month to keep the dojang doors open") or your morals. Do you test/pass that student that really shouldn't. Do you accept more students than you realistically can teach in a class because you need their fees. That sort of thing.

Now I don't look down on those people and say "they shouldn't be a dojang owner, because Taekwondo is not about money, it's purer than that", horses for courses. I just don't ever want to be in that position, but I'm maybe a bit crazy about it. For example, I judged at our national poomsae championship in the UK, and the organisers didn't know what to do when they tried to give me the daily stipend and I told them I didn't want it, and to give it to some national squad member or student that could do with it.

So I feel that not everyone is a full-time instructor, but hopefully all instructors want to upskill and I don't think "figuring it out" is always the way to go. For example, I don't want to experiment with ADHD or autistic students in the hope I figure it out, I want to talk to experts and take advice so I can best help them. And because this isn't a full time thing for me, attending LOTS of training events on different things could be cost or time prohibitive, so getting a little bit of everything on a single course is great.



dvcochran said:


> FWIW, many times I have encouraged people on this forum to take a business class or two if they are struggling with the operational stuff. If they have a mentor (close instructor or GM) all the better.



Absolutely, if someone's running a business and needs help, then take a business class. I'm already a businessman outside of Taekwondo, so that isn't a problem for me 😉



dvcochran said:


> I do not expect to learn the type of stuff mentioned from a MA's seminar instructor. That would just be filler to me. I never remember anything like that in my KKW Master Class.



Again though, everyone's needs are different. For you business stuff or how to build a syllabus or how to teach in different styles may be filler, but to me basic techniques and Korean terminology would be filler because I'm really confident on both things (having done the master course twice, the examiner course once and being an intermediate/advanced Korean speaker.

However, I understand that it wasn't always the case for me, it certainly won't be the case for everyone on these courses, so I appreciate that it's on the course for everyone to learn. And hey, if I pick up some little nugget/tip in that lesson too, that's great - I'm all for learning.


----------



## dvcochran (May 14, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> As you put it "Respectfully, your opinion is narrow" 😉 . You come from a place where full time dojangs are the normal situation and it's hard for you to put your head in the mindset of someone who doesn't EVER want to do that. And it seems from your writing that you feel they should never head a dojang if they don't.
> 
> I earn very well from my day job and I love it; Taekwondo is my hobby and my passion. Pre-covid (in the UK we're only really just opening back up) I had 90-100 students, and we'd train 2-3 times per week (two evening and one Saturday morning).
> 
> ...


Read my profile; you will see you are again speaking from a position of ignorance. Having a 'day' job for me is SO much of an understatement that gave me a good chuckle. How many people do you employ and are responsible for?

It took me several years to establish my buildings ownership and to be able and (always) willing to ride out some of the financial hard times each school has seen over the years. That was always My choice and My hard work that allowed it. I have never compromised the level of teaching and offerings for 'the money'. Fortunately, our schools, and instructors, and especially our GM make this very easy.  
You are painting commercial schools with a vain and narrow minded brush it seems like. I will be the first to say to each their own but I ask that you do the same without predisposed notions of sacrificing quality because a person it teaching/training in a commercial building. Just total BS. Where were you when you took your all mighty KKW courses? 
Having 90 students that 'do not pay' with no reliable place to workout is questionable at best. If I understand what you have written you use this money for your own benefit, to take the KKW courses and to acquire Your gear. Talk about narrow perspective. More like self ingratiating. 

I have no problem with you if you want to be purely WT/KKW or otherwise. But to promote it as the only TKD 'way' and to encourage people to shut down active Kwan's is going WAY too far. Pure KKW propaganda. 
Which is really a head scratcher when you yourself are a member of a Kwan. Quite confusing. 
What are your plans for shutting down your Kwan?


----------



## andyjeffries (May 14, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Read my profile; you will see you are again speaking from a position of ignorance. Having a 'day' job for me is SO much of an understatement that gave me a good chuckle. How many people do you employ and are responsible for?


You replied to the whole post, I'm not clear on what you are referring to?

At my dojang/club (bear in mind we aren't full time) I have 4x master rank students that teach and 2x 2nd/3rd dans that assist. But they aren't employed in a traditional sense.

Or are you asking about my day job?



dvcochran said:


> It took me several years to establish my buildings ownership and to be able and (always) willing to ride out some of the financial hard times each school has seen over the years. That was always My choice and My hard work that allowed it. I have never compromised the level of teaching and offerings for 'the money'. Fortunately, our schools, and instructors, and especially our GM make this very easy.



That's good. I'm not saying everyone is corrupt, just that it's a risk and I'm glad I don't have to ever risk it.



dvcochran said:


> You are painting commercial schools with a vain and narrow minded brush it seems like.



I'm not saying all do, just that the chance is much higher if you don't take the purist view of "not for profit".



dvcochran said:


> I will be the first to say to each their own but I ask that you do the same without predisposed notions of sacrificing quality because a person it teaching/training in a commercial building. Just total BS. Where were you when you took your all mighty KKW courses?



Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this seems to have turned from a friendly discussion to a debate and now seems to be becoming very heated?

What are you asking when you say "where were you"? Do you mean on the course? At Kukkiwon... Do you mean where in the world did I come from to get there? I'm not clear on what you want to know.



dvcochran said:


> Having 90 students that 'do not pay' with no reliable place to workout is questionable at best. If I understand what you have written you use this money for your own benefit, to take the KKW courses and to acquire Your gear. Talk about narrow perspective. More like self ingratiating.



Woah! You made a jump there...

"Having 90 students that 'do not pay'" <<< As above, they pay training fees - the instructors (including myself) just don't receive any wages or regular expenses from it.

"no reliable place to workout" <<< We've been at the same venue for about a decade. We have a great relationship with the school and they move things around for us to allow for extra sessions/seminars as we require. I don't know what your definition of "reliable" is here, but it's been solid for ~10 years...

"you use this money for your own benefit" <<< Errr, not really. More for the benefit the club, and I'm certainly not special in the usage of money compared to the other masters and instructors. There's no opportunity that I use that the other masters and assistant instructors can't also use. We've also subsidised drinks at our adult Christmas party most years since I took over the club, and thrown free/subsidised parties for the children.

"to take the KKW courses" <<< We have used the money for the KKW course, sure. The first time I took it, I personally paid for everything (even though the club could afford it). The second time I took it, the club paid for flights for four of us masters (the ones that wanted to go), we personally paid the course fee and all living expenses. We have also hosted guest instructors at the club, we've had an ex-National team member come and deliver a series of seminars for the club coaches, so we could develop our sparring practices and syllabuses. We've had other National team members, National team coaches and International masters come to teach seminars at our club - all either free for our entire student base or dramatically subsidised by the club.

"acquire Your gear" <<< All my own personal equipment is paid for by me, from my own pocket. Equipment for the students use is bought by the club. This includes enough mats to cover the entire floor, paddles, power shields, first aid equipment (including a freezer for ice packs), electronic protectors, etc.

I don't get how you consider that "self ingratiating"?



dvcochran said:


> I have no problem with you if you want to be purely WT/KKW or otherwise. But to promote it as the only TKD 'way' and to encourage people to shut down active Kwan's is going WAY too far. Pure KKW propaganda.



Again, I don't know where we've lost track here. I don't want to shut down the Kwans at all. I am an active member of my Kwan, an official representative in the UK (although I have recommended people globally for Kwan rank and membership).

I also don't want say Kukkiwon Taekwondo is the only "way", I'm perfectly fine with ITF Taekwon-do, John Smith Taekwondo, ATA, Some X Kwan (i.e. not claiming to be doing official X Kwan, but some offshoot/local/national version of it), etc.

My point about the Kwans is that the Kwans are still active (thankfully) but lots of people use that as a label to explain why they don't do things Kukkiwon standard, maybe using outdated standards or forms, when their Kwan HQ in Korea (mostly in Korea) DOES follow Kukkiwon standards.



dvcochran said:


> Which is really a head scratcher when you yourself are a member of a Kwan. Quite confusing.
> What are your plans for shutting down your Kwan?



As above, hopefully I've clarified your confusion. I have no wish or desire to shut down any Kwan, just for people to stop saying they're "X Kwan" as if that explains why they don't follow Kukkiwon standards when the President of X Kwan follows Kukkiwon standards (where X is unspecific, as this is a general point and applies to most Kwans).


----------



## dvcochran (May 14, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> You replied to the whole post, I'm not clear on what you are referring to?
> 
> At my dojang/club (bear in mind we aren't full time) I have 4x master rank students that teach and 2x 2nd/3rd dans that assist. But they aren't employed in a traditional sense.
> 
> ...


I responded to Your post so the comments had to come from you. 

As far as ‘where were you’ I meant where were you during your KKW courses? Inside, outside? In a physical location I assume. I assume the latter. 

Multiple people have read your posts to say you advocate shutting down or at least not promoting the active Kwan’s. I suggest you choose your wording more carefully as this was offensive. 
If your ‘club’ is paying the fees for you and your BB’s to fly to/from wherever and take classes and such you are being paid. How you are wording it is just semantics and frankly smells a bit shady. What do you do with your overages?

I work with many stateside Dojang’s as the presenter (back some time now) and promoting seminars and programs lead by the highest ranking GM’s and national and Olympic level competitors from north/middle/south America, many of whom I am still friends with. We do not flaunt that.  We just do it. 

I purchased the first strip building  where my first Dojang began and still is when I was a 1st Dan in 1986. The second building about 5 year later. 

You said you had a day job in your previous post. I merely pointed you to my profile so you can see that I have as well, and then some. Between my wife and I we own five businesses. 
To infer that somehow waters down our TKD is what I was calling BS on. That is quite offensive to me. 

I have no qualms with you and yes, this is purely a conversation, but don’t think myself and others here will not get defensive about some of the things you have said in this thread. 

Having students pay but not paying instructors is simply wrong. As I said before having classes, seminars, and gear paid for by the ‘club’ is to some degree equal to payment, however I am not in a position to do the math to know if that is equitable in your situation. 

Being passionate about your MA is great; I wish everyone was. But you basically bashed all other TKD styles/systems that are not KKW. That is not cool and patently wrong in so many ways that clearly you are not even aware of. Most of us do not have nor do we want that luxury. Clearly an “ignorance is bliss” situation for you.  
I wish you the best.


----------



## MadMartigan (May 14, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> If your ‘club’ is paying the fees for you and your BB’s to fly to/from wherever and take classes and such you are being paid. How you are wording it is just semantics and frankly smells a bit shady. What do you do with your overages?


As a neutral party here, I think we're becoming a bit guilty of assuming the worst intentions instead of the best in each other.
I think there is plenty of room for this to be perfectly acceptable. For instance, and instructors may not take a wage for teaching classes... but does that mean it should cost that instuctor money in order to do so?
I think a portion of membership dues being used for the professional development of staff (instructor courses, hotels to go with students for tournaments etc.) is a very appropriate use (especially considering the instructor by all rights could be asking for a wage).
I'd look at it less as payment, and more offsetting the costs so the instructors are not losing money as a result of teaching.


----------



## Buka (May 14, 2021)

Personally, I have no qualms about Instructors not getting paid. But if they're doing a lot of teaching and still paying tuition - they're being used.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 14, 2021)

Buka said:


> Personally, I have no qualms about Instructors not getting paid. But if they're doing a lot of teaching and still paying tuition - they're being used.


They aren’t paying tuition as well.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 14, 2021)

Buka said:


> Personally, I have no qualms about Instructors not getting paid. But if they're doing a lot of teaching and still paying tuition - they're being used.


Agreed. If it's a commercial school, instructors should be paid. Because that's what businesses do. If not, then they're volunteers. In no case should anyone ever be required to volunteer.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 14, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> I responded to Your post so the comments had to come from you.



I meant specifically which part of my post. You reply at the bottom of each post entirely, it makes it hard to follow specifically which part you’re commenting on.



dvcochran said:


> As far as ‘where were you’ I meant where were you during your KKW courses? Inside, outside? In a physical location I assume. I assume the latter.



I was on the course, so that was indoors - either in the lecture rooms at Kukkiwon or on the Kukkiwon main dojang floor. Feels like a trick question?



dvcochran said:


> Multiple people have read your posts to say you advocate shutting down or at least not promoting the active Kwan’s.



Could you please quote precisely where I said that I advocated that? I don’t recall saying any such thing, so maybe it’s a misunderstanding over word choice. But without you quoting specifically what I said (rather than what you interpreted it to say) it's hard to be sure.



dvcochran said:


> I suggest you choose your wording more carefully as this was offensive.
> If your ‘club’ is paying the fees for you and your BB’s to fly to/from wherever and take classes and such you are being paid. How you are wording it is just semantics and frankly smells a bit shady. What do you do with your overages?



They’re still in the club’s bank account. The club pays towards education for the instructors, not everything required. That has enabled us to upskill our instructors, which has improved standards at our school.



dvcochran said:


> I work with many stateside Dojang’s as the presenter (back some time now) and promoting seminars and programs lead by the highest ranking GM’s and national and Olympic level competitors from north/middle/south America, many of whom I am still friends with. We do not flaunt that.  We just do it.



I wasn’t flaunting it either, just explaining where the money goes and I quoted the part of your message where you talked about it, so you should know exactly why I gave that information. It wasn't to flaunt anything.



dvcochran said:


> I purchased the first strip building  where my first Dojang began and still is when I was a 1st Dan in 1986. The second building about 5 year later.
> 
> You said you had a day job in your previous post. I merely pointed you to my profile so you can see that I have as well, and then some. Between my wife and I we own five businesses.



Ok… cool.



dvcochran said:


> To infer that somehow waters down our TKD is what I was calling BS on. That is quite offensive to me.



I’m now wondering if this is because I admittedly used an imprecise word. When I said “you” in some of my writing about fee earning instructors and full time dojangs, I should have used “one”. For example, when one has a full time dojang one will always have situations where one must risk compromising their morals in order to achieve one’s desired/required financial goals. I thought using “one” sounded ridiculously British though and that everyone would understand the usage of “you” during those explanations to be generic “people”, not you specifically dvcochran.



dvcochran said:


> I have no qualms with you and yes, this is purely a conversation, but don’t think myself and others here will not get defensive about some of the things you have said in this thread.



Everyone is allowed to take offence to whatever they want. I’m not saying all full time instructors are corrupt, just that there’s a higher chance of risk of it when you need to get paid, compared to my position of not wanting to be paid.



dvcochran said:


> Having students pay but not paying instructors is simply wrong.



I entirely disagree. This isn’t slave labour, there’s no contract. They can walk at any time, start up a rival club with my blessing. They are also all on the management committee for the club, we vote on things equally between the masters and all finances are open for them to see. We are all volunteers. I understand when one thinks of instructing only as a paid job this would feel like we’re ripping them off, however from our viewpoint it’s a hobby, and a work of love. None of us want to be paid for it.



dvcochran said:


> As I said before having classes, seminars, and gear paid for by the ‘club’ is to some degree equal to payment, however I am not in a position to do the math to know if that is equitable in your situation.



OK, so then aside from instructor specific education (which has happened three times in a decade, twice to Korea and one series of seminars in the UK), then the "payment" is for all members of the club equally? From the lowest coloured belts to myself, we all use that same club equipment and we all attend seminars that are free or subsidised. Does that help explain things?



dvcochran said:


> Being passionate about your MA is great; I wish everyone was. But you basically bashed all other TKD styles/systems that are not KKW. That is not cool and patently wrong in so many ways that clearly you are not even aware of. Most of us do not have nor do we want that luxury. Clearly an “ignorance is bliss” situation for you.



I really didn't. I only intend to bash people that claim they are doing X Kwan, when X Kwan supports Kukkiwon officially. I have no qualms with Kwan offshoots, I have no qualms with ITF, ATA or any individual club's training. It's when they use their Kwan label to explain why they don't do Kukkiwon Taekwondo to Kukkiwon syllabus and standards, even though their Kwan HQ does.



dvcochran said:


> I wish you the best.



You too, this thread is genuinely not said/intended with any malice.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 14, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Agreed. If it's a commercial school, instructors should be paid. Because that's what businesses do. If not, then they're volunteers. In no case should anyone ever be required to volunteer.



Absolutely. We aren't a commercial school. All of our instructors (including me) are volunteers. No one is required to volunteer (although there's no "paid instructor" option at our school - you're a student or a volunteer instructor). Any of them could walk away at any time. Any of them could set up their own competing club 200 metres away from mine, as a commercial school, with paying instructors - and they would do so with my blessing. I've told them that many times and as much as some people here may not believe me (because it hasn't happened yet), I stand by it.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 14, 2021)

D Hall said:


> As a neutral party here, I think we're becoming a bit guilty of assuming the worst intentions instead of the best in each other.



I definitely agree there's that scope. And I think maybe I exacerbated the situation by using "you" in sentences rather than "one", which @dvcochran may have taken to mean him specifically, whereas I mostly meant it as a generic "someone". For example:

_Personally I feel that if you're doing it for the money there's always going to come a time where you have to chose between the financial side (whether it's "I want $X,000 per month" or "I need $X,000 per month to keep the dojang doors open") or your morals. Do you test/pass that student that really shouldn't. Do you accept more students than you realistically can teach in a class because you need their fees. That sort of thing._

Would be better written as:

_Personally I feel that if one is doing it for the money there's always going to come a time where one has to chose between the financial side (whether it's "I want $X,000 per month" or "I need $X,000 per month to keep the dojang doors open") or their morals. Does one test/pass that student that really shouldn't. Does one accept more students than one realistically can teach in a class because one needs their fees. That sort of thing._

Even when I read it now though I sound so British! I thought it was clear I wasn't specifically calling @dvcochran out for doing those things, I thought it was obvious it was a hypothetical person. But maybe not and that's why he's taken so much offense/jumped to the defensive. If so, I genuinely apologise for that. 

I've hopefully been consistent in using "X Kwan" rather than naming a Kwan specifically to keep it generic.



D Hall said:


> I think there is plenty of room for this to be perfectly acceptable. For instance, and instructors may not take a wage for teaching classes... but does that mean it should cost that instuctor money in order to do so?



So the founder of our club and the instructor that took over after him, genuinely had to pay something every so often to keep the club running. When I took over, I put in places processes and practices so that it's not the case now and the club makes a profit enough to buy equipment and educational costs. Fortunately all of us volunteer instructors live within 10-15 minutes of the club, so it doesn't really cost us any money to teach.



D Hall said:


> I think a portion of membership dues being used for the professional development of staff (instructor courses, hotels to go with students for tournaments etc.) is a very appropriate use (especially considering the instructor by all rights could be asking for a wage).
> I'd look at it less as payment, and more offsetting the costs so the instructors are not losing money as a result of teaching.


Agreed, thank you.


----------



## Steve (May 14, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> I definitely agree there's that scope. And I think maybe I exacerbated the situation by using "you" in sentences rather than "one", which @dvcochran may have taken to mean him specifically, whereas I mostly meant it as a generic "someone". For example:
> 
> _Personally I feel that if you're doing it for the money there's always going to come a time where you have to chose between the financial side (whether it's "I want $X,000 per month" or "I need $X,000 per month to keep the dojang doors open") or your morals. Do you test/pass that student that really shouldn't. Do you accept more students than you realistically can teach in a class because you need their fees. That sort of thing._
> 
> ...


So British!


----------



## dvcochran (May 14, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> _Personally I feel that if you're doing it for the money there's always going to come a time where you have to chose between the financial side (whether it's "I want $X,000 per month" or "I need $X,000 per month to keep the dojang doors open") or your morals. Do you test/pass that student that really shouldn't. Do you accept more students than you realistically can teach in a class because you need their fees. That sort of thing._
> 
> Would be better written as:
> 
> _Personally I feel that if one is doing it for the money there's always going to come a time where one has to chose between the financial side (whether it's "I want $X,000 per month" or "I need $X,000 per month to keep the dojang doors open") or their morals. Does one test/pass that student that really shouldn't. Does one accept more students than one realistically can teach in a class because one needs their fees. That sort of thing._


It reads the same either way. It is the inference that for profit schools as some point have to sacrifice their morals. I would better say that is a school is/was going to do that there was at least a modicum of that line of thinking from the start. 
It is a Tough hill to sled trying to make a living as a MA instructor as your sole source of income. I have never done that. I know of 3 schools near me that folded last year. 


andyjeffries said:


> So the founder of our club and the instructor that took over after him, genuinely had to pay something every so often to keep the club running. When I took over, I put in places processes and practices so that it's not the case now and the club makes a profit enough to buy equipment and educational costs. Fortunately all of us volunteer instructors live within 10-15 minutes of the club, so it doesn't really cost us any money to teach.


Like everyone else in the service industries I tool Huge losses last year. Financially we are very solid and have the ability to ride through it. There were several lean times early on and throughout the years where I had to take losses to keep the schools going. Something I don't think a lot about nor talk a lot about. If I was in this only to make money I would have been out a Long time ago. Compared to my main business (integration/control/automation) the margins are paper thin. 

Again, it is your inference that was off putting . Add this to the fact that you are semantically getting paid, whether you think that or not, and that just compounds the reality of it. 

I do encourage you to step back and see things from a higher level. A person at your rank should see this on their own. Particularly one that is already affiliated with another style/system.
Like I said WT/KKW has been very good to me and I have given a lot of my self and my resources to it. But I am not blinded by it's shortcomings. Every organization has them. I have seen this ebb & tide so many times with the change of leadership is it dizzying sometimes.

I have never been mad or even offended really. But it is imperative for anyone to stand up when something is sideways.


----------



## dvcochran (May 14, 2021)

D Hall said:


> As a neutral party here, I think we're becoming a bit guilty of assuming the worst intentions instead of the best in each other.
> I think there is plenty of room for this to be perfectly acceptable. For instance, and instructors may not take a wage for teaching classes... but does that mean it should cost that instuctor money in order to do so?
> I think a portion of membership dues being used for the professional development of staff (instructor courses, hotels to go with students for tournaments etc.) is a very appropriate use (especially considering the instructor by all rights could be asking for a wage).
> I'd look at it less as payment, and more offsetting the costs so the instructors are not losing money as a result of teaching.


Thank you' I fully agree with your opening comment. 
In general, there has to be some sort of conduit for a teaching opportunity to be made available to an instructor. This takes money and resources. The exception being people who teach at a local park or out of their garage and such. I doubt these people are getting money for their own additional training. 
If dues are being received (as in Andy Jeffries case) that is For profit. Painting it differently because it feels/sounds better is misleading at best. 
At some point one would assume there is either a windfall or a shortage; it is the nature of business. This is a slippery slope for true NFP businesses sometimes and has gotten more than a few in trouble. 
I prefer to be forthright; if I make a profit, I make a profit; if I take a loss, I take a loss. Both have happened in all of our businesses throughout the years. Sometimes on paper, sometimes true bottom line losses. I took huge losses last year. No bail out money here. 

I don't have issue with anyone on here. But when someone presents something as something else I will call it out.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 14, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> It reads the same either way. It is the inference that for profit schools as some point have to sacrifice their morals.


Nonsense. He says quite clearly that you will, at some time, be faced with a choice. Do what's best for the profit margin, or do what's best for the integrity of your art. At no time does he even suggest what decision you will come to. Only that you will be faced with the choice.
And he is absolutely, positively, 100% correct.


----------



## WaterGal (May 15, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> I will just say if a school owner cannot figure out that stuff they do not need to be a school owner. That is a completely different dynamic from being an instructor but I am not certain you see this.
> FWIW, many times I have encouraged people on this forum to take a business class or two if they are struggling with the operational stuff. If they have a mentor (close instructor or GM) all the better.
> I do not expect to learn the type of stuff mentioned from a MA's seminar instructor. That would just be filler to me. I never remember anything like that in my KKW Master Class.



It's common for school owners to not know this, or even to know that this is a thing to know. Mr WaterGal and I had a school for probably 4 or 5 years before we put together a really tight curriculum and lesson plan system that instructors can be easily trained on. Our old GM from Korea never had anything like that, he'd just go "you have black belt, now you can teaching class". Like any warm body that knew the basic KKW material was good enough, and you'd figure out how to teach on your own or quit.


----------



## WaterGal (May 15, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Nonsense. He says quite clearly that you will, at some time, be faced with a choice. Do what's best for the profit margin, or do what's best for the integrity of your art. At no time does he even suggest what decision you will come to. Only that you will be faced with the choice.
> And he is absolutely, positively, 100% correct.



Yeah, there's definitely going to be times in running a school where you have to choose between some financial gain and actually providing a good service. 

However, I think that a lot of the time, when you make that bargain, the financial gain is actually only short-term. People paying for a service tend to notice sooner or later that you're cutting corners. I've seen plenty of schools where the owner tried to increase their profit margin by getting a bunch of teenage 1st dans to teach class for free and without providing any ongoing instructor training. And maybe the school owner could buy a Lexus or whatever that year, but in a few years the school closes down.


----------



## dvcochran (May 16, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Nonsense. He says quite clearly that you will, at some time, be faced with a choice. Do what's best for the profit margin, or do what's best for the integrity of your art. At no time does he even suggest what decision you will come to. Only that you will be faced with the choice.
> And he is absolutely, positively, 100% correct.


Sure hard decisions will be faced and Yes, he clearly talked about morals being sacrificed. There were no vagaries there.
But why can it not be both? A well planned out mission statement and the integrity to stick to it can and will net both success financially and high teaching standards/morals. We all agree they go hand and hand. Nobody ever said it was going to be gravy the entire time.
That 'choice' that you mention must be built into the model that must be established before the business ever opens it's doors. So no nonsense here; business morality is a hard, unmovable line, no matter what else has to be sacrificed. In some cases this could mean sacrificing the business itself. That is how the model must be setup.

I have worked with at least a couple dozen school startups. Two in particular I remember knowing they would never make it because they just could not wrap their head around having a mission/goal/target, whatever word you want to use. They were completely steeped in the 'i will make it up as I go' mentality and could not be sway. Each had a great start because of the passion of the instructor/owners but only lasted 2-3 years because neither had planned for the inevitable leveling that occurs. When things started getting difficult and the shine wore off of being an instructor/school owner they each folded.

Here is a good place to say it is worth noting that there is very little comparison between being an instructor, an instructor/school owner, and a school owner. Each are very, very, different.  

Business as a whole is a never ending sinusoidal wave. Owners who watch and anticipate the highs and lows equip their business to be prepared for the lows and take advantage of the highs.

The most consistent failure I have seen, particularly in commercial MA schools, is when they begin to have a modicum of success and profit. Too often this measure is set as the low for the bell curve and they begin to frivolously overspend without investment and do not bank money for the inevitable dips in income. In short they run out of money. This is what I assume @andyjeffries referred to.
It is a sad and tragic occurrence but I have seen it as a silver lining for MA's industry as a whole.
Most of these failed ventures originate from a young, new BB who really, really wants to have their own school but have zero clue about the business side. A few figure it out and are better for it. Some of those that are lost fit the 'sacrificing morals' model and, as a whole the MA community is better off that they did not make it.


----------



## J. Pickard (May 17, 2021)

I agree with a lot that is here but really think rank is arbitrary and ultimately meaningless if you aren't focused on improving and getting better and helping your students get better. I take a very "put up or shut up" approach to it all. I don't care how many stripes you have on a belt, or what title a piece of paper says you have. The mat doesn't lie. Get on the floor and show me, explain things to me, share with me and I will share with you. Not all black belts are equal and that's okay. Fun fact; Vovinam, a martial art heavily influence by Korean arts, has no black belt. The highest rank is white.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 18, 2021)

J. Pickard said:


> I agree with a lot that is here but really think rank is arbitrary and ultimately meaningless if you aren't focused on improving and getting better and helping your students get better. I take a very "put up or shut up" approach to it all. I don't care how many stripes you have on a belt, or what title a piece of paper says you have. The mat doesn't lie. Get on the floor and show me, explain things to me, share with me and I will share with you. Not all black belts are equal and that's okay. Fun fact; Vovinam, a martial art heavily influence by Korean arts, has no black belt. The highest rank is white.


I actually agree with most of this concept. Rank is just a milestone marker on your journey and people get too hung up in it. There are uses for rank (in a rank-based system such as Taekwondo) in order to be able to attend certain courses (Handmadang referee course is only open to 6th Dan+, starting as a provisional course), as well as promote people to higher dan so that they can promote others etc. 

There are often times when you can make an assumption on what people know/don't know based on their rank so you can plan/pitch a lesson. It's not necessarily set in stone, you can get some real impressive 1st Dans and some terrible high dans, but it gives you a starting point.

There are too many paperwork-only dan applications processed though without going on the floor, and that saddens me - but hopefully that will change in the future (and if Kukkiwon continues down the route they're going down I think it will help).


----------

