# Understanding the ethics of ranking up



## Azulx (Jan 14, 2016)

I have tried discussing this with other martial artists and would like to hear more opinions. If a Black belt (ex. 3rd Dan) leaves an association,federation, alliance, etc. to begin his/her own private practice, what are their options in regards to testing to the next rank. Do they they wait appropriate time lengths and honorarily test themselves? Do they find a higher rank from a similar style or same style to give them some type of honorary test? 
For example: General Choi began creating modern Taekwon-do after he received his 2nd dan in Karate. Who administered his dan exams from 1st dan to 9th? If he created the system how can someone out rank him to test him? 
So to wrap everything up, my main point is, if you begin your own system, what is the most ethical way to continue ranking up?


----------



## Paul_D (Jan 14, 2016)

Azulx said:


> So to wrap everything up, my main point is, if you begin your own system, what is the most ethical way to continue ranking up?


Why do you need to keep ranking up?

As there is no one who can grade you, the most ethical way would be not to grade yourself at all.  I don't see that there even a need for you to be graded, I'm not sure Kano or Ueshiba had grades in the arts they created, but I could be wrong.

Just grade your students.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 14, 2016)

Yeah. Don't know. Would be tricky. You would want to be higher that your students. So it depends how good you get them I suppose.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 14, 2016)

Azulx said:


> I have tried discussing this with other martial artists and would like to hear more opinions. If a Black belt (ex. 3rd Dan) leaves an association,federation, alliance, etc. to begin his/her own private practice, what are their options in regards to testing to the next rank. Do they they wait appropriate time lengths and honorarily test themselves? Do they find a higher rank from a similar style or same style to give them some type of honorary test?
> For example: General Choi began creating modern Taekwon-do after he received his 2nd dan in Karate. Who administered his dan exams from 1st dan to 9th? If he created the system how can someone out rank him to test him?
> So to wrap everything up, my main point is, if you begin your own system, what is the most ethical way to continue ranking up?



It's a valid question.  If you take it all the way back to the beginning of martial arts with belt systems, who gave the first 10th dan belt?

Look at it another way.  Around the world, some countries have monarchs and 'Royal Families' and people are judged to be of royal or common blood.  How the heck did that start?  Some guy clubbed another guy over the head, called himself 'King', others agreed to call him King, and Bob's your uncle, he's King and his brats are 'Royal Family'.  Until the next guy clubs the King over the head....

So here's the story...

Typically, if a person starts their own style, with or without having achieved a given rank in any other system, they are whatever rank they say they are.  They are, to use the Japanese term, 'soke' or originator of the style, and hence the highest possible rank in that style.

A person off the street could do it, someone with no martial arts training of any kind.

That's bad, though, right?  Well, yeah.  It's definitely not a good thing for martial arts in general.  And a lot of people are doing it.  They get some training or they watch some videos or read a book, decide they are qualified to start their own style and off they go.  They teach crap because they know crap.  The crank out black belts who can't defend themselves and nobody cares, because all the black belts want is that belt, they don't really care that they can't do anything.

Now, more in line with what you were asking, what sometimes happens is that a person who is trained in a given style decides to found their own, different, style.  They have 'legitimate' rank in the style they came from, but they lack a higher rank necessary to perpetuate their style.

In these cases, they often either self-promote (as you suggested) or they seek promotion from others.  Often the others are an association or a group of martial artists, often a group that is more-or-less in the business of promoting people.

Some associations are more 'legitimate' than others.  They have perhaps achieved a degree of legitimacy in the eyes of many martial artists by not simply granting advanced degrees when paid to do so, but by recognizing martial artists who are well-known and respected by many, but who for many legitimate reasons find themselves unable to be promoted.  Perhaps they founded their own style and are reluctant to self-promote, but are indeed hard-working martial artists whose contributions are recognized and who have put in the many decades of work to prove they are no fly-by-night or wannabe master.  Perhaps they found themselves the sole remaining leader of a style when the highest-ranking master dies without promoting an heir to a higher degree.

So you have people who just do whatever the heck they want.  Hey, I'm a 23 year old 11th dan in Rumble-Ryu, the Link Wray Guitar Slinger style.  Who is to say I am not?  There's no law against it.  Besides, join my dojo and you get these cool sunglasses.

Then you have the people who may or may not be legitimate martial artists, but who need, for business reasons, to be higher ranked so they can promote others to high ranks (and get students, etc, etc).

Then you have the serious and legitimate martial artists who for various extremely legitimate reasons, find themselves unable to be promoted due to circumstances beyond their control, but their lifelong work and dedication to the martial arts are worthy of recognition.

The big problem is telling the difference between these fine upstanding individuals.

There are no styles which did not originally have to 'level up' themselves; all recognized martial arts styles started with someone who either self-promoted or was declared to be the highest rank by others.  Whether or not that is a good thing or a bad thing is highly dependent on the people involved.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 14, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> Why do you need to keep ranking up?
> 
> As there is no one who can grade you, the most ethical way would be not to grade yourself at all.  I don't see that there even a need for you to be graded, I'm not sure Kano or Ueshiba had grades in the arts they created, but I could be wrong.
> 
> Just grade your students.



Traditionally, a Sensei cannot promote his students to his or her own rank, but only to one rank lower, unless designating an heir, in which the promotion takes effect on the death or retirement of the Soke in question.  

But since ranks are essentially meaningless outside of any given organization, it really doesn't matter.  Sure, I could create a style in which I myself had no rank but was simply Soke, and I gave out promotions up to whatever rank I wanted to.

Nothing really right or wrong about any of it; it is what it is.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 14, 2016)

_Ethically_, it's your art that you've created so you can do what you want.

_Realistically_, any rank that you award yourself (or your students award you or a "Grandmaster's council" awards you) is meaningless. Personally I would just forgo claiming any rank at all in your newly created art.

Rank in a martial art can have several functions. It can be a teaching tool for an instructor to keep track of what material a student needs to be working on. It can be a tool for sorting competitors into divisions where they can be on a relatively even playing field. It can be a tool for providing feedback to a student that they are making progress. It can be a signal that a practitioner has met your standards for becoming an instructor in your system. None of these functions is really relevant to you as the founder of the art.

I sometimes suspect that half the people who create their own styles are motivated by the chance to declare themselves "10th dan" or "grandmaster" or "soke." Such ranks really aren't impressive to anyone who knows anything about the context.

One of the members here, Brian VanCise, has created his own system that he teaches - IRT (Instinctive Response Training). If you check his website you will see that he spells out his training and qualifications in other arts, but claims no rank in IRT. If his system survives and flourishes in the long term he will be remembered as the founder. He doesn't need to impress the rubes by declaring himself to be an umpteenth dan Soke Shihan Grandmaster.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 14, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Typically, if a person starts their own style, with or without having achieved a given rank in any other system, they are whatever rank they say they are. They are, to use the Japanese term, 'soke' or originator of the style, and hence the highest possible rank in that style.


I don't believe that is quite right. If I'm understanding it correctly, "Soke" is the title for the _inheritor_ of a ryu, not the founder. Of course, that hasn't stopped a zillion American wannabees from declaring themselves to be "Soke" of whatever art they've invented.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 14, 2016)

Azulx said:


> I have tried discussing this with other martial artists and would like to hear more opinions. If a Black belt (ex. 3rd Dan) leaves an association,federation, alliance, etc. to begin his/her own private practice, what are their options in regards to testing to the next rank. Do they they wait appropriate time lengths and honorarily test themselves? Do they find a higher rank from a similar style or same style to give them some type of honorary test?
> For example: General Choi began creating modern Taekwon-do after he received his 2nd dan in Karate. Who administered his dan exams from 1st dan to 9th? If he created the system how can someone out rank him to test him?
> So to wrap everything up, my main point is, if you begin your own system, what is the most ethical way to continue ranking up?


Rank...
What is it and what does it mean?
It is the standing one has within a organization. And that is all.
It means whatever the organization deems it to mean within that organization.
How one attains a particular rank will be through the administration of whatever standards are set forth by whomever controls the organization.
Other than that rank is and means nothing.

Someone opens a new business and ranks themselves as president of the organization.
Who gave him/her the rank? What options does he/she have to gain higher rank? 

Rank only means what is means within the particular organization that awarded it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 14, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I don't believe that is quite right. If I'm understanding it correctly, "Soke" is the title for the _inheritor_ of a ryu, not the founder. Of course, that hasn't stopped a zillion American wannabees from declaring themselves to be "Soke" of whatever art they've invented.



OK, I'm fine with that definition.  I think we agree on the overall point though, right?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 14, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> OK, I'm fine with that definition.  I think we agree on the overall point though, right?


Yep.

Although I will admit that a self-proclaimed "Soke" makes me roll my eyes harder than a self-proclaimed "10th dan." You can create your own system without having to misuse Japanese terminology.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 14, 2016)

As others have pointed out, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from promoting yourself.
But let's be honest here. You're not "inventing" or "creating" anything. You have training in A. Maybe in B as well. And at most you're combining them. 
To me, the obvious thing is to say "I have X rank in A and Y rank in B and I teach both together." And earn your promotions from a legitimate source within A and B.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 14, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> As others have pointed out, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from promoting yourself.
> But let's be honest here. You're not "inventing" or "creating" anything. You have training in A. Maybe in B as well. And at most you're combining them.
> To me, the obvious thing is to say "I have X rank in A and Y rank in B and I teach both together." And earn your promotions from a legitimate source within A and B.


I think the OP's question was kind of ambiguous on this. Originally the example is just of someone who leaves their current instructor/association and strikes out on their own. In that case I would agree with you. They're not creating their own system, they're just teaching an art without currently being linked to a larger organization.

However, later in the post they mention Choi (who did work on the evolution of karate to modern TKD) and "beginning your own system." That's the part which most people in this thread have been replying to so far.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 14, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yep.
> 
> Although I will admit that a self-proclaimed "Soke" makes me roll my eyes harder than a self-proclaimed "10th dan." You can create your own system without having to misuse Japanese terminology.



I have learned to bite my tongue.   I simply thank my lucky stars that I ended up (almost by accident, or perhaps Providence), training where I train.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 14, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have learned to bite my tongue.   I simply thank my lucky stars that I ended up (almost by accident, or perhaps Providence), training where I train.


I try to remind myself that being a pretentious, self-aggrandizing, self-promoter with delusions of grandeur and a poor understanding of martial arts history doesn't preclude someone from also being a skilled martial artist and innovator. Given that the founders of my primary art check most of those boxes, I _try_ to withhold judgment when I run across someone boasting their membership in the World Sokeship Council or some such. (I don't always succeed, but I try.)


----------



## lklawson (Jan 14, 2016)

Azulx said:


> I have tried discussing this with other martial artists and would like to hear more opinions. If a Black belt (ex. 3rd Dan) leaves an association,federation, alliance, etc. to begin his/her own private practice, what are their options in regards to testing to the next rank. Do they they wait appropriate time lengths and honorarily test themselves? Do they find a higher rank from a similar style or same style to give them some type of honorary test?
> For example: General Choi began creating modern Taekwon-do after he received his 2nd dan in Karate. Who administered his dan exams from 1st dan to 9th? If he created the system how can someone out rank him to test him?
> So to wrap everything up, my main point is, if you begin your own system, what is the most ethical way to continue ranking up?


First, tell me what exactly you think "rank" means?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 14, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yep.
> 
> Although I will admit that a self-proclaimed "Soke" makes me roll my eyes harder than a self-proclaimed "10th dan." You can create your own system without having to misuse Japanese terminology.



Ignoring the misuse of Japanese terminology, I would rather that they call themselves 'head' or 'founder' than give themselves a 10th dan in the style. By doing this, they are able to remain unranked, so there isn't an issue of how they are ranking, but at the same time, through the privilege of being a head, be able to promote others to a rank that has not yet been reached.



Dirty Dog said:


> As others have pointed out, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from promoting yourself.
> But let's be honest here. You're not "inventing" or "creating" anything. You have training in A. Maybe in B as well. And at most you're combining them.
> To me, the obvious thing is to say "I have X rank in A and Y rank in B and I teach both together." And earn your promotions from a legitimate source within A and B.



I think it depends on what type of art he is referring to. Someone else mentioned General Choi..He combined taekkyon and shotokan karate, and while I don't know much about taekkyon, taekwondo and shotokan are completely different styles, so I wouldnt say that rank would be transferable. If someone manages to do a similar thing, and create a completely novel art out of other styles, then IMO they should be called the 'head' for the reason I said to Tony.

If I were to make a style (not that I ever would) it would undoubtedly look very much like a combination of Judo, SKK and Japanese Kenpo. In that situation, I would likely not give myself a rank in the new art, tell people my rank in the other arts when they ask, and wear my belt from one of them (not sure if I would go for highest or lowest). I would also continue training in the other arts so that there isn't an issue in grading my students, and, depending on how big the art becomes, when I am close to passing on I may announce an official successor to have the ability to advance others beyond their rank. More likely the art would be small and I would tell them that if they wished to advance past whatever rank I am at (hopefully a high dan at that point) they would need to get some sort of confirmation from the base arts to do so.

Hope this helps the OP


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 14, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yep.
> 
> Although I will admit that a self-proclaimed "Soke" makes me roll my eyes harder than a self-proclaimed "10th dan." You can create your own system without having to misuse Japanese terminology.


There is a lot of misuse of Chinese terms too.  No, "sigung" does not mean grand master.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 14, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> There is a lot of misuse of Chinese terms too.  No, "sigung" does not mean grand master.



I've stopped arguing about any terms from various martial arts at all.  Too many legitimate discussions, IMHO, devolve into arguments over minutiae that nobody wins.  I don't know that much Japanese and a lot of what I think I know is probably wrong.  I'm OK with being wrong, so if I'm corrected, I just move on.  No need ot get all wrapped around the axle over it.  I looked up 'soke' after I was corrected on its use.  Clearly I am wrong, so no problems!

But either way, I'd rather just discuss the issue and not various terms used to discuss it.  Just so long as we all understand what is meant, right?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 14, 2016)

kempodisciple said:


> I think it depends on what type of art he is referring to. Someone else mentioned General Choi..He combined taekkyon and shotokan karate,



No, he did not. Taekkyon is a dead art. The only people who claim to have trained in it during the Japanese occupation are in the category of "unverifiable", at best, with "utter nonsense" being more common.
The founders of TKD were primarily trained in Shotokan, with a little Judo and Kung Fu in the mix. Tang Soo Do and Soo Bahk Do, which still teach pre-unification forms, use the pinan forms. Which any student of Shotokan will recognise...
General Choi started with his Shotokan training, developed (with others) a new set of poomsae and curriculum that increased the focus on kicking, and renamed it.



kempodisciple said:


> and while I don't know much about taekkyon, taekwondo and shotokan are completely different styles,



They really aren't, not at their roots. The TKD founders changed the emphasis some, to stress kicking. But they're still very similar.

Ultimately, rank has no meaning outside the school or system that issued it. 
If you want legitimacy, I say call your school anything you like, and teach the style(s) you have rank in while being up front about the origins and your rank, and pursue rank within a legitimate organization for that style.
If you want a veneer of legitimacy, there are certainly any number of places that will sell you a pretty certificate to hang on your wall.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 14, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> No, he did not. Taekkyon is a dead art. The only people who claim to have trained in it during the Japanese occupation are in the category of "unverifiable", at best, with "utter nonsense" being more common.
> The founders of TKD were primarily trained in Shotokan, with a little Judo and Kung Fu in the mix. Tang Soo Do and Soo Bahk Do, which still teach pre-unification forms, use the pinan forms. Which any student of Shotokan will recognise...
> General Choi started with his Shotokan training, developed (with others) a new set of poomsae and curriculum that increased the focus on kicking, and renamed it.
> 
> ...


This doesn't really affect my argument. My argument was not focused primarily on TKD, I just used it as an example since he was mentioned earlier, apparently it was a bad example.

I still stand by the statement that if you manage to create an art that is novel (no idea how you would do it), then it would be improper to use your rank in a previous art when discussing your credentials. Instead, if you actually manage to make something novel, you let the art itself and your ability speak for itself, while you simply call yourself, accurately, the 'head' or the 'founder' of the art.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 14, 2016)

My teacher deals with it, by not dealing with it.  While he is the head of his own organization, he no longer seeks out rank. It is what it is, and you can stay, or go. You heard of, "No Capes!"?, he wears, "No Bricks!", and it goes just fine. We call him, Skip, which, so far, has not offended any Asian sensibilities. To others, he is a professor, which means one who professes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 14, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> As others have pointed out, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from promoting yourself.
> But let's be honest here. You're not "inventing" or "creating" anything. You have training in A. Maybe in B as well. And at most you're combining them.
> To me, the obvious thing is to say "I have X rank in A and Y rank in B and I teach both together." And earn your promotions from a legitimate source within A and B.


That's not always feasible. In some cases, ranking in an association can only be acquired by teaching within that association. In those cases, there's no legitimate way to receive higher rank in that style, unless there's another association without that same requirement. If the material being taught doesn't match the teaching/testing curriculum of an association (even if it is essentially the same art) it is unlikely that association would grant rank.

I do tend to agree that rank of a system founder is irrelevant within the system. It can be useful as a marketing tool (since some customers have some idea what the stripes mean), and can have some meaning to those in related systems (when visiting other schools, etc. - my reason for using a rank). To me, the best answer - if you feel the need for rank - is to use a ranking system similar to the primary one you trained under. Start with a rank that is equivalent to what you had in your prior system, and only rank yourself up as you fulfill the requirements you'd expect from students attaining that rank.

That, or just figure out what a rankless founder's belt/sash should be (if you use such) and tie it on.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 14, 2016)

Belt ranks are silly, really.  My honest opinion: they ought to be scaled back tremendously, or just done away with.

In the end, people need to be able to stand on their own two feet with their training and if they choose to teach.  If you are not mentally and emotionally strong enough to do that, then you should not teach.  And I believe the belt ranking system goes a long way to discourage and undermine just that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 14, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Belt ranks are silly, really.  My honest opinion: they ought to be scaled back tremendously, or just done away with.
> 
> In the end, people need to be able to stand on their own two feet with their training and if they choose to teach.  If you are not mentally and emotionally strong enough to do that, then you should not teach.  And I believe the belt ranking system goes a long way to discourage and undermine just that.



I don't disagree, but that's a lot of wishful thinking.  I think you and I both know that this will never happen.  Belt mills exist and always will.  There are no objective standards, no licensing bodies, and no one will likely ever agree to a universal standard of belt or no-belt or whatever.

The situation we have is the situation we have.  Whatever people want to call themselves, whatever belt they want to wear, they do.  All we as legitimate martial artists can do is to keep on doing things as we believe them to be correct.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 14, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't disagree, but that's a lot of wishful thinking.  I think you and I both know that this will never happen.  Belt mills exist and always will.  There are no objective standards, no licensing bodies, and no one will likely ever agree to a universal standard of belt or no-belt or whatever.
> 
> The situation we have is the situation we have.  Whatever people want to call themselves, whatever belt they want to wear, they do.  All we as legitimate martial artists can do is to keep on doing things as we believe them to be correct.


Yes, of course.

However, I still feel it's worth mentioning these alternate ideas, to give people something to think about.  Some people just might make their own decisions about some of these issues, and that could be a good thing.  Or a bad thing.  It all depends.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 14, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Belt ranks are silly, really.  My honest opinion: they ought to be scaled back tremendously, or just done away with.
> 
> In the end, people need to be able to stand on their own two feet with their training and if they choose to teach.  If you are not mentally and emotionally strong enough to do that, then you should not teach.  And I believe the belt ranking system goes a long way to discourage and undermine just that.



In practice, I agree. In principle, belt ranks actually serve a purpose within the school. I remember in my years of training at a larger school, occasionally working with someone I hadn't seen in months, and instantly knowing (because of their belt) which techniques they were likely to have. It saved time and made putting groups together much easier. The issue with them between systems is getting anyone to agree on what each rank really means. Many of us have certain expectations of what "black belt" should mean (a level of competence and understanding), but even that is tenuous. I know one association (actually 3, but the others are derivative) that doesn't award a black belt (shodan) until the individual is ready to teach - they actually have to complete at least a year of student teaching to get it. In another style, they don't let you teach until around 4th degree (yondan). 

But still, it helps inside the school. Even for students, what to work on next can be easily ordered by what's tested next, which is the same as student ranking, whether you use belts and ranks or not. I came very close to removing ranks when I started codifying my new curriculum, and ended up keeping them primarily for this last reason. They bug me, but I find them useful, so I use them.


----------



## kuniggety (Jan 14, 2016)

The funny thing about belt ranking and one organization being more legitimate than others, yadda yadda, is that every martial art with a belt system that goes up to a 10th Dan started by them promoting themself to that rank. It's the chicken or the egg question. Someone has to be the chicken (higher rank) to lay the egg (promote someone to random Dan rank). But how did the first chicken come around with no chicken before it to lay the egg?

That all being said. They have their usefulness within that organization, just not outside of it. Using even a non-martial arts analogy is that as a senior non-commissioned officer (i.e. Enlisted) in the US military, I have more faith, trust, and authority entrusted in me than junior officers (commissioned) in many other countries' militaries even though officers (even the lowest officer rank) outrank all enlisted ranks. But what each of those ranks really means is only applicable to that country (and sometimes even service as there can be a disparity between services).


----------



## Azulx (Jan 14, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I do tend to agree that rank of a system founder is irrelevant within the system. It can be useful as a marketing tool (since some customers have some idea what the stripes mean), and can have some meaning to those in related systems (when visiting other schools, etc. - my reason for using a rank). To me, the best answer - if you feel the need for rank - is to use a ranking system similar to the primary one you trained under. Start with a rank that is equivalent to what you had in your prior system, and only rank yourself up as you fulfill the requirements you'd expect from students attaining that rank.



gpseymour - Thank you very much for your answer. I appreciate everyone taking the time to answer my questions, but I have found yours to be the closest one to home. My instructor was close to fourth dan at his old school. He had a falling out with the Master Instructor over financial reasons. Therefore he was no longer allowed to test.My instructor was the Head Instructor when the Master Instructor was not there, and had at least 4 years experience with running martial arts schools. After the falling, he became the head instructor at a different school under his own system. Here is were he felt the need to test since he was already 3 years into a different school and was suppose to test for 4th dan almost 4 years ago. Since he was no longer affiliated with the old organization; he asked the owner of the new school a 6th dan in a different art , to give him an honorary test. I thought this was ethical, considering the situations that happened beyond his control. I just wanted to see what others opinions were and I found yours to be the best.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 14, 2016)

Personally, if I was the 6th Dan you reference, I would not be comfortable giving him a test.  I cannot test him in my system which he has not trained, nor can I text him in his system which I have not trained.  Unless the systems are just different lineages of the same system and a crossover/conversion was done.

For some things there is simply no fix.


----------



## Azulx (Jan 14, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Personally, if I was the 6th Dan you reference, I would not be comfortable giving him a test. I cannot test him in my system which he has not trained, nor can I text him in his system which I have not trained. Unless the systems are just different lineages of the same system and a crossover/conversion was done.
> 
> For some things there is simply no fix.



Flying Crane, I appreciate your reply, and thank you for your opinion. I understand where you are coming from. Honestly the test was more of a formality than anything. He was the owner of the school and in the long run , having a higher ranked head instructor in the additional art the school taught, was beneficial for the school.Plus, our instructor wanted to rank up, which was a win-win.Especially, since he didn't want to just rank himself up. Like you said , there is no easy fix, it is a complicated situation, that not every instructor faces. There is no "right" way to go about it. I just wanted others' opinions, not others' approvals.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 14, 2016)

Azulx said:


> Flying Crane, I appreciate your reply, and thank you for your opinion. I understand where you are coming from. Honestly the test was more of a formality than anything. He was the owner of the school and in the long run , having a higher ranked head instructor in the additional art the school taught, was beneficial for the school.Plus, our instructor wanted to rank up, which was a win-win.Especially, since he didn't want to just rank himself up. Like you said , there is no easy fix, it is a complicated situation, that not every instructor faces. There is no "right" way to go about it. I just wanted others' opinions, not others' approvals.



Well, yes, he did in fact just "rank himself up" from what you're describing.
He paid someone to sign a certificate that says he has XXX knowledge, when that person isn't qualified to make that determination.
An "honorary test" is an oxymoron. There's no such thing. Honorary rank is not based on knowledge or ability. Earned rank is (at least theoretically, since we can all show exceptions...). A test can only be given by someone with the knowledge being tested.
I can test someone's knowledge of TKD MDK. I can test their knowledge of human Anatomy & Physiology. I can test someones knowledge of ACLS, PALS, TNCC and lots of other medical stuff. I can test someones knowledge of recreational and technical SCUBA diving standards.
I cannot test someone who practices (for example) Goju Ryu. I am not qualified.

If it makes your instructor feel better to perform in front of someone untrained in your system, that's fine. But in reality, he self promoted.
And that's fine. As others have said, the founders of most arts self promoted.
I personally prefer the honesty of self promotion over a "test" given by an unqualified examiner. You might as well just write to Ashida Kim or the Council of Sokes and do it through the mail.


----------



## Azulx (Jan 14, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> He paid someone to sign a certificate that says he has XXX knowledge, when that person isn't qualified to make that determination.



He did not pay him, he just asked him if he would witness the test. You are correct that the person wasn't qualified to administer the test. In the end , if he would not have had falling out, there's no doubt he would have have passed the dan exam. Politics and business sometimes ruin the merit of martial arts. I have had discussions with my instructor about the situation, it's not because it boosts his ego to test in front of someone who knows nothing. He was just a Master in a style of martial arts, and he felt that he would be understanding and proctor the test. 

He could of done what many head instructors do and just given himself 9 degrees, but he just wanted the degree that he would have been, if he wasn't screwed over. My instructor is 60 years old, 60 years is the minimum age for a 9th dan in the system he was in. It would be believable that a 60 year old is a ninth degree. He didn't want to do that he just wanted to test for the degree he was screwed out of. 

Not everyone is after the Title Master or Nine Degrees. Things happen out of people's control. he doesn't even make us call him master. Just Mr. and his last name.There are associations that for a nice $500.00 check will give you a pretty certificate and a Dan from and international organization. That's great, and all, but in the end he would be the same martial artist and the only difference would be that he is now $500.00 more broke, than he was before. It came down to the fact that he worked hard ran a man's school and, in the end that man who he had worked so hard for, screwed him over out of testing and money. He has dedicated the majority of the last 15 years of his life to bettering the lives of his students and progressing himself as a martial artists. He just asked for someone who had done the same thing to witness the test.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 14, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Personally, if I was the 6th Dan you reference, I would not be comfortable giving him a test.  I cannot test him in my system which he has not trained, nor can I text him in his system which I have not trained.  Unless the systems are just different lineages of the same system and a crossover/conversion was done.
> 
> For some things there is simply no fix.


I'd tend to agree with this. If someone from the mainline of my art (Nihon Goshin Aikido) came to me to test even for a student rank, I could test them based upon the mainline curriculum (which I came up through). However, if someone came to me from a related art - say, Ueshiba's Aikido - I wouldn't be able to test them in any meaningful way. I would, however, have a discussion similar to this one with them, possibly suggesting they grade themselves as they would anyone else (since ranks appear reasonably consistent and meaningful across the mainline of Ueshiba's Aikido).

-Gerry


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 15, 2016)

Azulx said:


> He did not pay him, he just asked him if he would witness the test. You are correct that the person wasn't qualified to administer the test. In the end , if he would not have had falling out, there's no doubt he would have have passed the dan exam. Politics and business sometimes ruin the merit of martial arts. I have had discussions with my instructor about the situation, it's not because it boosts his ego to test in front of someone who knows nothing. He was just a Master in a style of martial arts, and he felt that he would be understanding and proctor the test.
> 
> He could of done what many head instructors do and just given himself 9 degrees, but he just wanted the degree that he would have been, if he wasn't screwed over. My instructor is 60 years old, 60 years is the minimum age for a 9th dan in the system he was in. It would be believable that a 60 year old is a ninth degree. He didn't want to do that he just wanted to test for the degree he was screwed out of.
> 
> Not everyone is after the Title Master or Nine Degrees. Things happen out of people's control. he doesn't even make us call him master. Just Mr. and his last name.There are associations that for a nice $500.00 check will give you a pretty certificate and a Dan from and international organization. That's great, and all, but in the end he would be the same martial artist and the only difference would be that he is now $500.00 more broke, than he was before. It came down to the fact that he worked hard ran a man's school and, in the end that man who he had worked so hard for, screwed him over out of testing and money. He has dedicated the majority of the last 15 years of his life to bettering the lives of his students and progressing himself as a martial artists. He just asked for someone who had done the same thing to witness the test.


Sounds like he was trying to find a solution to a messy and unfortunate situation.  I get it.  Personally I'm not a fan of the solution, but I get it.  And as you said, sometimes the politics and business ruin the martial arts.  This is a good example of a situation created by politics and business, without a clean solution.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 15, 2016)

Azulx said:


> Flying Crane, I appreciate your reply, and thank you for your opinion. I understand where you are coming from. Honestly the test was more of a formality than anything. He was the owner of the school and in the long run , having a higher ranked head instructor in the additional art the school taught, was beneficial for the school.Plus, our instructor wanted to rank up, which was a win-win.Especially, since he didn't want to just rank himself up. Like you said , there is no easy fix, it is a complicated situation, that not every instructor faces. There is no "right" way to go about it. I just wanted others' opinions, not others' approvals.


Too late; I approve.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 15, 2016)

Azulx said:


> He did not pay him, he just asked him if he would witness the test. You are correct that the person wasn't qualified to administer the test. In the end , if he would not have had falling out, there's no doubt he would have have passed the dan exam. Politics and business sometimes ruin the merit of martial arts. I have had discussions with my instructor about the situation, it's not because it boosts his ego to test in front of someone who knows nothing. He was just a Master in a style of martial arts, and he felt that he would be understanding and proctor the test.
> 
> He could of done what many head instructors do and just given himself 9 degrees, but he just wanted the degree that he would have been, if he wasn't screwed over. My instructor is 60 years old, 60 years is the minimum age for a 9th dan in the system he was in. It would be believable that a 60 year old is a ninth degree. He didn't want to do that he just wanted to test for the degree he was screwed out of.
> 
> Not everyone is after the Title Master or Nine Degrees. Things happen out of people's control. he doesn't even make us call him master. Just Mr. and his last name.There are associations that for a nice $500.00 check will give you a pretty certificate and a Dan from and international organization. That's great, and all, but in the end he would be the same martial artist and the only difference would be that he is now $500.00 more broke, than he was before. It came down to the fact that he worked hard ran a man's school and, in the end that man who he had worked so hard for, screwed him over out of testing and money. He has dedicated the majority of the last 15 years of his life to bettering the lives of his students and progressing himself as a martial artists. He just asked for someone who had done the same thing to witness the test.


In the old days, anyone could claim to be a Master of fighting.  Of course, they might have to face a challenge match or duel.

George Silver has some very unkind words to write about "supposed masters" from continental Europe teaching in England with their un-English sissy little rapiers.  One of the more famous, Rocco Bonetti (made famous in the modern context by a reference from the cult-classic "The Princess Bride") was a Master of Italian Rapier, teaching in London.  Apparently unpopular with the English Fencing Masters, who taught the English weapons of Broadsword &tc., because he was taking the rich students away from them, Bonetti had at least one duel, which he lost.  It appears that Bonetti pissed off a river boatman. Bonetti drew his rapier and was clocked with an oar for his trouble.  Silver himself challenged the Italian Rapier Master named Saviolo to a duel, quite publicly, issuing "handbills" (a common convention at the time) and having one hand delivered to Saviolo, who decided to ignore it and was quickly branded a coward.

So, historically, if you think you can fight, call yourself a Master then open a school, teach private lessons, or both.  But just be prepared for someone to check and see if you actually know what you're talking about.  Historically speaking, this could sometimes be friendly and sometimes not.

You know what?  Same thing still applies today.  Grapplers are particularly eager to check out anyone who claims to teach grappling.  Sometimes they'll just drop in and watch a class or two.  If the instructor knows what he's doing, they'll nod and leave, maybe strike up a conversation and make a contact.  If the instructor is teaching BS, they'll spread the word.  Sometimes, the instructor so questioned will start talking smack.  Usually some sort of more-or-less civilized challenge match will ensue.  Physical injuries are rare but reputations and students can be gained or lost.

So just tell your guy to call himself a "Master" and let it ride from there.  Eventually someone who is a Master will drop in and watch some of his stuff.  If your guy doesn't know his stuff, word will spread.  The worst that can happen, realistically, is your guy's reputation as a martial artist will be trashed.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Buka (Jan 15, 2016)

Martial Arts might have been more interesting had they chosen suspenders instead of belts. I'm sure the same nonsense would have gone on concerning rank, but it would have probably been more fun.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 15, 2016)

lklawson said:


> So just tell your guy to call himself a "Master" and let it ride from there.  Eventually someone who is a Master will drop in and watch some of his stuff.  If your guy doesn't know his stuff, word will spread.  The worst that can happen, realistically, is your guy's reputation as a martial artist will be trashed.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Realistically, I don't think that happens anymore.  'Dojo Challenges' are a thing of the past, and in some cases, that's a good thing.  Some of the stuff I've read about the 'old days' are quite scary.  I for one have no plans to invade any dojos, challenge any students or instructors, or have fights in the parking lots over 'our styles differ, we must fight'.  Too old for that nonsense.

The actual, legitimate, schools are few and far between, and tend not to partake in spreading rumors or attacking other schools, even if it is quite well understood that what they teach is somewhat lacking.

The few who know the difference between a legitimate good reputation and a prancing pack of poseurs are generally already fully engaged with a 'real' school and not in need of elucidation.

It is unfortunate, but we live in a world where style beats substance for the majority of citizens.  It is the look of excellence, not actual excellence, that impresses many.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 15, 2016)

Buka said:


> Martial Arts might have been more interesting had they chosen suspenders instead of belts. I'm sure the same nonsense would have gone on concerning rank, but it would have probably been more fun.



Even more interesting if you consider what 'suspender's are in the UK!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 15, 2016)

Buka said:


> Martial Arts might have been more interesting had they chosen suspenders instead of belts. I'm sure the same nonsense would have gone on concerning rank, but it would have probably been more fun.



I have often thought of 'belts' as being somewhat analogous to the awards and ribbons worn by the military, as well as the ranks worn on the sleeves of the enlisted ranks.

Napoleon noted that men would fight much more fiercely when given a bit of colored ribbon to wear upon their chests.  I have seen many students beam with pride and joy when awarded a new color belt.  Mostly among the children, true, but it does seem to keep many of them motivated to attend and to work hard.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 15, 2016)

Azulx said:


> gpseymour - Thank you very much for your answer. I appreciate everyone taking the time to answer my questions, but I have found yours to be the closest one to home. My instructor was close to fourth dan at his old school. He had a falling out with the Master Instructor over financial reasons. Therefore he was no longer allowed to test.My instructor was the Head Instructor when the Master Instructor was not there, and had at least 4 years experience with running martial arts schools. After the falling, he became the head instructor at a different school under his own system. Here is were he felt the need to test since he was already 3 years into a different school and was suppose to test for 4th dan almost 4 years ago. Since he was no longer affiliated with the old organization; he asked the owner of the new school a 6th dan in a different art , to give him an honorary test. I thought this was ethical, considering the situations that happened beyond his control. I just wanted to see what others opinions were and I found yours to be the best.


One thing I'm not really clear on from your account. Did your instructor create a new art of his own that he is now teaching or is he still teaching the same thing that he was trained in, just without the backing of an organization and senior instructor?


----------



## Azulx (Jan 15, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> One thing I'm not really clear on from your account. Did your instructor create a new art of his own that he is now teaching or is he still teaching the same thing that he was trained in, just without the backing of an organization and senior instructor?



It is the same art in essence (TKD), but an entirely different curriculum and philosophy of teaching from his first school. So our chambers,but our forms and the way we spar are different from the original school.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 15, 2016)

My old teacher left the organization he taught in and became independent.  He started working out regularly with a teacher in a similar style of karate.  That teacher promoted him after a few years.

Since then, there's a group of independent karate teachers who started working out together.  Several of them trained together when affiliated with the same system, and they brought in friends of theirs.  They slowly formed their own organization that puts on seminars for each other's students, and formed a panel for ranking purposes.  Their rank certificates simply say karate (no specific style of karate).  They have minimum time in grade requirements, they have to practice and teach traditionally accepted Japanese and/or Okinawan kata, have to attend a set number of seminars per time period, and teach a set number of seminars per time period.  Their panel looks at all of this, and other things and has to have a unanimous vote to promote a member.

Not a bad way of doing things if you ask me.  It's only as good as the panel though.  Knowing several of the members and knowing of a few more, I think they're legit.  If I were to go independent (I'm not a teacher), I'd probably go that route.


----------



## Steve (Jan 16, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Belt ranks are silly, really.  My honest opinion: they ought to be scaled back tremendously, or just done away with.
> 
> In the end, people need to be able to stand on their own two feet with their training and if they choose to teach.  If you are not mentally and emotionally strong enough to do that, then you should not teach.  And I believe the belt ranking system goes a long way to discourage and undermine just that.


They're very important in a competitive martial art, such as bjj or tkd.


----------



## Steve (Jan 16, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have often thought of 'belts' as being somewhat analogous to the awards and ribbons worn by the military, as well as the ranks worn on the sleeves of the enlisted ranks.
> 
> Napoleon noted that men would fight much more fiercely when given a bit of colored ribbon to wear upon their chests.  I have seen many students beam with pride and joy when awarded a new color belt.  Mostly among the children, true, but it does seem to keep many of them motivated to attend and to work hard.


Belts in bjj, at least, are more analogous to stripes in the military.   Blue belt is like an E-3, purple is E-4/E-5, brown is an E-6/E-7 and a black belt is a chief.  

The rank in bjj tend to be a reflection of the experience and respect afforded to the person wearing it, not the source of the respect.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2016)

JR 137 said:


> My old teacher left the organization he taught in and became independent.  He started working out regularly with a teacher in a similar style of karate.  That teacher promoted him after a few years.
> 
> Since then, there's a group of independent karate teachers who started working out together.  Several of them trained together when affiliated with the same system, and they brought in friends of theirs.  They slowly formed their own organization that puts on seminars for each other's students, and formed a panel for ranking purposes.  Their rank certificates simply say karate (no specific style of karate).  They have minimum time in grade requirements, they have to practice and teach traditionally accepted Japanese and/or Okinawan kata, have to attend a set number of seminars per time period, and teach a set number of seminars per time period.  Their panel looks at all of this, and other things and has to have a unanimous vote to promote a member.
> 
> Not a bad way of doing things if you ask me.  It's only as good as the panel though.  Knowing several of the members and knowing of a few more, I think they're legit.  If I were to go independent (I'm not a teacher), I'd probably go that route.



Not me. Pretty much everything I dislike. No offense to you intended.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 16, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not me. Pretty much everything I dislike. No offense to you intended.



No offense taken.  Why do you dislike it?  Just trying to get a different perspective, not start one of the regular arguments that seem to be the norm around here.  Not that I think you're one of those either.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2016)

JR 137 said:


> No offense taken.  Why do you dislike it?  Just trying to get a different perspective, not start one of the regular arguments that seem to be the norm around here.  Not that I think you're one of those either.



Well, I kind of described it earlier, and you reinforced it. Guy has a certain level of training, but for whatever reason loses his instructor. Decides to open his own place, sans-oversight. There's my first issue. Do I understand how it could happen? Yes. Unfortunate.

Guy then gets together an association of ronin-of-sorts and agree to a curriculum, standards, and start promoting each other. And their students. There's my second problem.

You also mentioned required seminars and tournaments for promotions and that's my third problem with this.  That's not martial arts, that's a business. And while I completely understand why people choose to run martial arts as a profit center, it's not for me.

Please understand that I mean no ill will, but it's contrary to what I want or why I train. My sensei has a sensei, and his sensei was the founder of our style. We have an actual lineage, and each sensei was given permission to teach by their own instructor. I see that as incredibly important.


----------



## geezer (Jan 16, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> ...My sensei has a sensei, and his sensei was the founder of our style. We have an actual lineage, and each sensei was given permission to teach by their own instructor. I see that as incredibly important.



So your sensei's sensei's sensei ...his grandfather-teacher, if you will, founded his own style. So many people have done that. Well, either their own style or breakaway organization. Who has the right to do that and who doesn't? It seems pretty subjective to me.


----------



## Buka (Jan 16, 2016)

A long time ago in a land far, far away, some guy started some kind of Martial Art training. And it was right and just.

Then, some other guy, more than likely one of the first guy's people, started to teach it a little differently as he got older and more experienced. It too, was right and just. 

Extrapolate at your pleasure.  Hopefully with a smile and a nod.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Please understand that I mean no ill will, but it's contrary to what I want or why I train. My sensei has a sensei, and his sensei was the founder of our style. We have an actual lineage, and each sensei was given permission to teach by their own instructor. I see that as incredibly important.


But your founder took limited training in two other styles and made up his own as well.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 17, 2016)

Lineage is stressed, to the students, by the schools that have it, and not so stressed by the schools that don't.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 17, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, I kind of described it earlier, and you reinforced it. Guy has a certain level of training, but for whatever reason loses his instructor. Decides to open his own place, sans-oversight. There's my first issue. Do I understand how it could happen? Yes. Unfortunate.
> 
> Guy then gets together an association of ronin-of-sorts and agree to a curriculum, standards, and start promoting each other. And their students. There's my second problem.
> 
> ...



Tournaments are not required.  Attending seminars and teaching them are required.  Professional development, if you will.  They are free for them members of the board, and cost minimal to students.  I went to one, and it was $40 (plus my own travel expenses).  Not sure about other dojos, but we as students weren't required to attend.  Strongly encouraged, as it was great experience to learn different approaches from different people.

Their group is mainly New York State and bordering states based.  It's a way for independent CIs to train together, learn from one another, and exchange information.  Promoting each other is probably the least of their concerns, as it doesn't happen very often.

Chuck Merriman is an advisor to their board, last I knew.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 17, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> But your founder took limited training in two other styles and made up his own as well.



With the permission of his instructors.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 17, 2016)

geezer said:


> So your sensei's sensei's sensei ...his grandfather-teacher, if you will, founded his own style. So many people have done that. Well, either their own style or breakaway organization. Who has the right to do that and who doesn't? It seems pretty subjective to me.


I didn't say a person hasn't the right to do it. I said doing what the OP described (which isn't quite the same thing, but I won't quibble) isn't for me. It's nothing I find attractive.


----------



## Buka (Jan 17, 2016)

JR 137 said:


> Tournaments are not required.  Attending seminars and teaching them are required.  Professional development, if you will.  They are free for them members of the board, and cost minimal to students.  I went to one, and it was $40 (plus my own travel expenses).  Not sure about other dojos, but we as students weren't required to attend.  Strongly encouraged, as it was great experience to learn different approaches from different people.
> 
> Their group is mainly New York State and bordering states based.  It's a way for independent CIs to train together, learn from one another, and exchange information.  Promoting each other is probably the least of their concerns, as it doesn't happen very often.
> 
> Chuck Merriman is an advisor to their board, last I knew.



I learned a lot from Coach Merriman back in the day. Is his boy, Chad, still training? Great kid.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2016)

Buka said:


> Chad, still training? Great kid.


Yep he's a 7th Dan now


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 17, 2016)

Buka said:


> I learned a lot from Coach Merriman back in the day. Is his boy, Chad, still training? Great kid.



I've never met Mr. Merriman.

When I started training under my former Sensei, he was with a large local organization (started by 2 former Kyokushin senseis who followed Tadashi Nakamura to Seido).  They broke away from Seido for reasons unknown to me.  My teacher broke away from them several years later, while I was still his student.  His brief explanation was he had taught under them for 5 years and ran his own dojo for 15+ years.  In that time, every issue he brought up was quickly dismissed.  Every change he brought up was quickly dismissed.  He followed his heart and broke away to teach what and how he thought he should teach.  There users to be about 15 independently owned dojos in that organization. There's currently 2 left - the founder and his right-hand man.  I'm not bashing those 2 guys at all; they're great guys, but you have to wonder about their policies if everyone is leaving.  None of the people who left started things that were much different than what they were doing.  

I left about 2 years after he split away from them.  I got offered a graduate assistantship about 5 hours away that I couldn't turn down.  After that came a career, wife and children.  15 years later when I got back into karate, my Sensei moved the dojo an hour away, and his schedule conflicts with mine.  Had I been able to, I'd have gone back.


----------



## Buka (Jan 17, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Yep he's a 7th Dan now



Great to hear. Haven't seen him in thirty years or so, but he was a great guy and a helluva fighter. I don't think he knew how to step backwards, you always knew where to find him, right in your face. I'm glad to hear he's still in the arts.


----------



## Buka (Jan 17, 2016)

JR 137 said:


> I've never met Mr. Merriman.
> 
> When I started training under my former Sensei, he was with a large local organization (started by 2 former Kyokushin senseis who followed Tadashi Nakamura to Seido).  They broke away from Seido for reasons unknown to me.  My teacher broke away from them several years later, while I was still his student.  His brief explanation was he had taught under them for 5 years and ran his own dojo for 15+ years.  In that time, every issue he brought up was quickly dismissed.  Every change he brought up was quickly dismissed.  He followed his heart and broke away to teach what and how he thought he should teach.  There users to be about 15 independently owned dojos in that organization. There's currently 2 left - the founder and his right-hand man.  I'm not bashing those 2 guys at all; they're great guys, but you have to wonder about their policies if everyone is leaving.  None of the people who left started things that were much different than what they were doing.
> 
> I left about 2 years after he split away from them.  I got offered a graduate assistantship about 5 hours away that I couldn't turn down.  After that came a career, wife and children.  15 years later when I got back into karate, my Sensei moved the dojo an hour away, and his schedule conflicts with mine.  Had I been able to, I'd have gone back.



Sorry, man, that sucks. I don't think most us appreciate how lucky we all are in having a place we love to train in within a reasonable distance. Until, of course, it's no longer there.


----------



## Buka (Jan 17, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Please understand that I mean no ill will, but it's contrary to what I want or why I train. My sensei has a sensei, and his sensei was the founder of our style. We have an actual lineage, and each sensei was given permission to teach by their own instructor. I see that as incredibly important.



I agree, Bill, but not everyone is as fortunate. Some of my instructors have passed away, others have moved far away and we rarely get to train together anymore.

But we (me and mine) weren't just given permission to teach by our instructors, we were threatened (in a good way) if we didn't keep teaching.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 17, 2016)

Buka said:


> I agree, Bill, but not everyone is as fortunate. Some of my instructors have passed away, others have moved far away and we rarely get to train together anymore.
> 
> But we (me and mine) weren't just given permission to teach by our instructors, we were threatened (in a good way) if we didn't keep teaching.



I realize that many find themselves in unfortunate circumstances as the OP pointed out. I am not calling it wrong, just speaking for myself.

I know a great martial artist, very good, very powerful, masterful technique, whose sensei passed unexpectedly. He was faced with a choice of finding a new sensei or promoting himself, or not doing either. He chose the latter. He runs his late sensei's dojo, but wears the rank he was given, nothing more.

IMHO he is greatly the superior of many who style themselves masters, but he still holds only the last rank his sensei gave him. I respect him greatly for that. He is not my sensei, but I have had the privilege of knowing him for several years.


----------



## TSDTexan (Jan 17, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I try to remind myself that being a pretentious, self-aggrandizing, self-promoter with delusions of grandeur and a poor understanding of martial arts history doesn't preclude someone from also being a skilled martial artist and innovator. Given that the founders of my primary art check most of those boxes, I _try_ to withhold judgment when I run across someone boasting their membership in the World Sokeship Council or some such. (I don't always succeed, but I try.)


For every Bruce Lee there are 20,000,000 paper tigers.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 17, 2016)

Buka said:


> Sorry, man, that sucks. I don't think most us appreciate how lucky we all are in having a place we love to train in within a reasonable distance. Until, of course, it's no longer there.



Luckily, I found a place that's pretty close and dirt cheap.  Those are added bonuses, as my current dojo is everything I was looking for.  I visited about 8 places, some a couple of times.  In the end, where I am now just felt right.  Had it been twice as much and twice as far, I would've still joined.

I keep in touch with my old Sensei.  Still a great guy.  I'm honestly not sure which one I'd pick if I had an even choice.  Then again, I wouldn't have looked in to anywhere else had he still been accessible to me.


----------



## geezer (Jan 17, 2016)

JR 137 said:


> No offense taken.  Why do you dislike it?  Just trying to get a different perspective, not start one of the regular arguments that seem to be the norm around here....



I just had to get back to _this _comment.  It cracked me up. ...JR, for a guy that's pretty new to the forum, you catch on quick. I hope you keep posting!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 17, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Realistically, I don't think that happens anymore.  'Dojo Challenges' are a thing of the past, and in some cases, that's a good thing.  Some of the stuff I've read about the 'old days' are quite scary.  I for one have no plans to invade any dojos, challenge any students or instructors, or have fights in the parking lots over 'our styles differ, we must fight'.  Too old for that nonsense.
> 
> The actual, legitimate, schools are few and far between, and tend not to partake in spreading rumors or attacking other schools, even if it is quite well understood that what they teach is somewhat lacking.
> 
> ...



I read somewhere that the average age of a new instructor, as well as the creator of a new style, has risen dramatically in the last 3 decades - perhaps by as much as 20 years (from mid-20's to mid-40's). Perhaps that is part of the reason why there's less of this crap. I, as you said, am too old for that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 17, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Even more interesting if you consider what 'suspender's are in the UK!
> 
> View attachment 19739


Are we still talking about "martial arts" or are we into "marital arts"?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 17, 2016)

TSDTexan said:


> For every Bruce Lee there are 20,000,000 paper tigers.


Ya know, in China, you can be a, one in a million, kind of guy, but alas, there are ten thousand other people, just like you.


----------



## TSDTexan (Jan 18, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I read somewhere that the average age of a new instructor, as well as the creator of a new style, has risen dramatically in the last 3 decades - perhaps by as much as 20 years (from mid-20's to mid-40's). Perhaps that is part of the reason why there's less of this crap. I, as you said, am too old for that.



As I am 41, and I Don't do it for the money.
0 dollar tuition school. 

But I will run a guy off if he ain't serious about the family business.


----------



## TSDTexan (Jan 18, 2016)

Touch Of Death said:


> Ya know, in China, you can be a, one in a million, kind of guy, but alas, there are ten thousand other people, just like you.



Exactly.


----------



## TSDTexan (Jan 18, 2016)

Touch Of Death said:


> Ya know, in China, you can be a, one in a million, kind of guy, but alas, there are ten thousand other people, just like you.


The journey of ten thousand students begins with a single class.


----------



## TSDTexan (Jan 18, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I try to remind myself that being a pretentious, self-aggrandizing, self-promoter with delusions of grandeur and a poor understanding of martial arts history doesn't preclude someone from also being a skilled martial artist and innovator. Given that the founders of my primary art check most of those boxes, I _try_ to withhold judgment when I run across someone boasting their membership in the World Sokeship Council or some such. (I don't always succeed, but I try.)




I was pressed for time when I made my Bruce Lee quip.
But heres what I wanted to say.
To teach fighting there are two prerequisites

1. Understanding how to fight.
2. Understanding how to teach.

Far too many schools build only good fighters who fight instinctively. They don't have a cognitive framework, they hustle and bustle their skillsets and try and hit the zone and stay in "flow" without deep strategy. 

Better schools teach a man to be a thinking fighter.

Rarer yet are the schools that invest the time into each student the teaching skills, and methods to become great educators.

You can be the best fighter in the world and still be unable to teach beyond techniques, because you don't know a language to reach out that which you know instinctively and transmit it.

Then on the other hand, you can have an academic who was trained by academics,  and no one has street experience for a generation or two.... and the art is on its way to becoming broken.

Great teachers are as rare as the ideal circumstances that tried them in fire, and poured sound knowledge into them.

Great teachers find better students to better their art.


----------



## TSDTexan (Jan 18, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, I kind of described it earlier, and you reinforced it. Guy has a certain level of training, but for whatever reason loses his instructor. Decides to open his own place, sans-oversight. There's my first issue. Do I understand how it could happen? Yes. Unfortunate.
> 
> Guy then gets together an association of ronin-of-sorts and agree to a curriculum, standards, and start promoting each other. And their students. There's my second problem.
> 
> ...



Yet history tells us that the rootstock of Karate was very much a case of *"then gets together an association of ronin-of-sorts and agree to a curriculum, standards, and start promoting each other. And their students."
*
So the apple don't fall from the tree.
Returning GIs try to establish dojos.
And blam!

Politics ensues.
American branches of asian traditional art associations become full blown U.S. associations fully independent from their respective sources.


I may quibble about some minor details but overall the following is an acceptable accounting:


How the masters got their ranks: the origins of karate ranks

I find it remarkable that the founder of the Moo Duk Kwan, who taught three different styles over the years often wore a white belt. Some even, while performing a demo in front of very large numbers.

And their is no send or third records that can prove he was ranked anywhere by any teacher, that H.K. acknowledges as his teacher.

One Korean claimed he awarded a green belt (high kyu) to H.K.  H.K. responded back with "I took a few classes 1 or 2 weeks, how could I have a green belt from him?"

Some founders care nothing about the appearance of rank. Because sometimes your to busy getting stuff done to worry about rankings and titles.

Either youve got the knowledge and leadership skils or you don't. A piece of paper or colored fabric don't guarantee either.

In my lineage we like to say "the proof is in the foot".
A bjj guy might say... the proof is In the roll.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 18, 2016)

TSDTexan said:


> I was pressed for time when I made my Bruce Lee quip.
> But heres what I wanted to say.
> To teach fighting there are two prerequisites
> 
> ...



In the association I grew up in, there was (and still is) a specific period of student teaching before one gets certified as an instructor (which is concommittant with shodan). In my new curriculum, I shifted where this happens (shodan first, then instructor training - very little difference) and added what I've learned in the professional training (corporate education) arena over nearly 25 years. I've seen great technicians who could have been great teachers, but who were never taught now, so they became mediocre instructors with a few star students who managed to get what they needed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 18, 2016)

TSDTexan said:


> Yet history tells us that the rootstock of Karate was very much a case of *"then gets together an association of ronin-of-sorts and agree to a curriculum, standards, and start promoting each other. And their students."
> *
> So the apple don't fall from the tree.
> Returning GIs try to establish dojos.
> ...




Yep, what you said. 


In fact, there is a similar (yet different story) for Nihon Goshin Aikido. Richard Bowe learned it while stationed in Chitose. When his instructor (the founder) died, Bowe came back to the US, later opening a dojo under the auspices of the founder's step-son (Soke, I suppose, though I've never heard the term used in the association). After the Soke retired (closing the only remaining school in Japan), Bowe formed an association headed by himself. At that point, he had been ranked 5th Dan.

How, now, to handle rank? Well, he just compressed them and made 5th Dan as high as it goes. Years later, some of the instructors convinced him to expand it to 6 Dan ranks, and he eventually removed his own rank (I think he wears either a black belt with no stripes now, or a red belt). As of yet, nobody in the association has ever been ranked 6th Dan, in my knowledge.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 18, 2016)

Something that might be relevant to the discussion is the fact that in many arts rank beyond a certain level reflects seniority and time in grade teaching and contributing to the art rather than additional skill or fighting ability. I suppose it could be argued that there is a distinction between self-promoting to a rank that is supposed to reflect a certain degree of skill and knowledge vs having that rank already and self-promoting to one of those "seniority" ranks based on time spent teaching.

I feel like it's kind of pointless either way, but plenty of martial artists who are senior to me in skill and experience have gone the self-promotion route. Whatever makes them happy.


----------



## Buka (Jan 18, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I know a great martial artist, very good, very powerful, masterful technique, whose sensei passed unexpectedly. He was faced with a choice of finding a new sensei or promoting himself, or not doing either. He chose the latter. He runs his late sensei's dojo, but wears the rank he was given, nothing more.
> 
> IMHO he is greatly the superior of many who style themselves masters, but he still holds only the last rank his sensei gave him. I respect him greatly for that. He is not my sensei, but I have had the privilege of knowing him for several years.



You mentioned "promoting himself" (I realize you weren't talking about him) does this go on a lot today?
I don't mean to sound naive, especially being an old dog, but I haven't really seen this other than a couple of times with nitwits nobody cared about and who only had a cup of coffee in the Martial Arts world.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 18, 2016)

Buka said:


> You mentioned "promoting himself" (I realize you weren't talking about him) does this go on a lot today?
> I don't mean to sound naive, especially being an old dog, but I haven't really seen this other than a couple of times with nitwits nobody cared about and who only had a cup of coffee in the Martial Arts world.



For those creating a new system who are accustomed to working within specific ranking structures (like the 10-dan system), they will often want to carry that to their new system. If an instructor, for instance has a 5th dan in his primary style, then starts a new system, he has approximately three options if he wants to keep working with a 10-dan system:

1) Keep his current rank, and increase it
(rank himself up) appropriately as he meets the criteria he sets for those ranks. This is tough to do reasonably.

2) Find some organization to offer him rank. This might work if his system (in style and rank requirements) is close enough to others that an organization could reasonably review his qualifications. Otherwise, this is often seen as a sham.

3) Go without rank, himself, in the new style. Many see this as being equivalent to declaring oneself a "master", since this is approximately the same as granting oneself the highest possible rank in the new style.

None are optimal.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 18, 2016)

Buka said:


> You mentioned "promoting himself" (I realize you weren't talking about him) does this go on a lot today?
> I don't mean to sound naive, especially being an old dog, but I haven't really seen this other than a couple of times with nitwits nobody cared about and who only had a cup of coffee in the Martial Arts world.



I believe it is not common but not rare or unheard of, based only on what I have seen in my general geographic area.  Inside my particular style, I would say definitely not; but my group doesn't really partake of the larger MA circle around my area for the most part.


----------



## Azulx (Jan 18, 2016)

I am glad I posted this question. It is great to see the diversity of opinions on the ethics of ranking up. From everything I am reading, there seems to be no easy solution. In the end someone will not be fan of whatever route you have taken. It's a shame , no matter what you do in that situation, you will be  a villain, in someone's eyes.


----------



## geezer (Jan 18, 2016)

I guess_ I'm _the only guy here to found his own style and promote himself, and give himself a prestigious title. And I ain't sorry! 

My core art is Wing Chun and I received my rank in that the traditional way from my old Chinese sifu. In addition, I studied _PMAS Combat Escrima _under Rene Latosa in the 1980's, earned "Instructor" rank, and ran the local club here in Phoenix for a while. I think I still have the certificate in a drawer somewhere. Since then I have trained with some other people, especially the DTE (Direct Torres Eskrima) guys. The head of DTE suggested that I form my own group, "Heck just do your own thing and call it Steve's Escrima" he said. Eventually I actually did that. Except we called our group PCE (Practical Combat Escrima) keeping the "Combat Escrima" name to honor my first teacher, GM Latosa.

As head of this new organization, I selected a _prestigious location_ for our school: Indian School Park (hey, it's _free_), got _flashy uniforms_: A club T-shirt that you can wear with your sweats or gym shorts, _a curriculum_ (OK I _did_ work really hard on that, expanding upon the old PMAS material I previously used) and, best of all _an important title for me. _After a little thought, I picked the title of some of the guys I've respected the most in my life, namely _coach. _

Oh, almost forgot, as we expanded and I became the head escrima dude for the NVTO (the Ving Tsun association I belong to) we printed up nice certificates for student grades. But I never got around to making up one for me. Why bother. Somewhere in a drawer I've still got that old one from Rene Latosa. Besides GM Rene always said "Certificates are just pieces of paper. And it's not who you trained with, or your title, it's what _you_ can do that matters." _Still, I really like the title of *coach *and I'm sticking with it!_

BTW, when I can afford it, I still try to further my training with guys like GM Rene Latosa,  Maestro Martin Torres, Jeff LaTorre... and some other great guys. And since in our  FMA we don't use belts, if I ever get good enough to promote myself again to ...er, I dunno, something like _super head-honcho coach_, I don't have to buy some kind of expensive embroidered belt!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 18, 2016)

Azulx said:


> I am glad I posted this question. It is great to see the diversity of opinions on the ethics of ranking up. From everything I am reading, there seems to be no easy solution. In the end someone will not be fan of whatever route you have taken. It's a shame , no matter what you do in that situation, you will be  a villain, in someone's eyes.



I disagree. I may not want to follow the path of self-promotion or whatever, but I do not see anyone who does so as a villain; I thought I went out of my way to make that clear.  My choices apply to me, no one else.  People are free to do as they wish, and I'm not going to call them names or disrespect them for doing so.  My tolerance for people who do not follow my path does not imply that I approve of theirs, nor does it imply that I do not approve.  It merely means it is not my choice.  I do not have to like something to accept it.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 18, 2016)

geezer said:


> _an important title for me. _After a little thought, I picked the title of some of the guys I've respected the most in my life, namely _coach. _





geezer said:


> _Still, I really like the title of *coach *and I'm sticking with it!_



At my gym we usually go by first names, but "coach" is the one title that I don't mind being addressed as. It doesn't carry any connotations that I'm the toughest or most knowledgeable - just that I can help other people on their personal path to becoming better martial artists. 



geezer said:


> Except we called our group PCE (Practical Combat Escrima) keeping the "Combat Escrima" name to honor my first teacher, GM Latosa.



Hmm ... I may need to do some branding if I ever open my own Jiu-Jitsu school. How about "ICC" - Impractical Combat Cuddling.


----------



## Buka (Jan 18, 2016)

I've been called a lot of things over the years (whoa!) depending on where I was teaching and how whoever in charge wanted the students to address those teaching. But for the last twenty years I'm only addressed as coach. As one dojo owner friend of mine says, "Yeah, but it's with a capital C....because he's an old fart."


----------



## Azulx (Jan 18, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I disagree. I may not want to follow the path of self-promotion or whatever, but I do not see anyone who does so as a villain; I thought I went out of my way to make that clear. My choices apply to me, no one else. People are free to do as they wish, and I'm not going to call them names or disrespect them for doing so. My tolerance for people who do not follow my path does not imply that I approve of theirs, nor does it imply that I do not approve. It merely means it is not my choice. I do not have to like something to accept it.



    My post was not directed at anyone specifically it was a general statement. You made it clear that you did not see someone who takes the path self-promotion, as a villain. That being said, that logic does not apply to everyone who has read this post or will read the post.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 19, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> At my gym we usually go by first names, but "coach" is the one title that I don't mind being addressed as. It doesn't carry any connotations that I'm the toughest or most knowledgeable - just that I can help other people on their personal path to becoming better martial artists.


I hate being called Sensei at Judo.  Too much baggage.  I tried to get people to call me "coach" until someone up the food chain (whom I respect) reminded me that "Coach" is an official USJA Designation.  <sigh>

Now I just make sure that everyone coming in knows "Sensei" only means "teacher" or "instructor" and, in Japan, the First Grade Teacher who looks like she should be getting ready for Prom instead of teaching, is still called "Sensei" by her students.  That usually manages to communicate the concept.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 19, 2016)

lklawson said:


> I hate being called Sensei at Judo.  Too much baggage.  I tried to get people to call me "coach" until someone up the food chain (whom I respect) reminded me that "Coach" is an official USJA Designation.  <sigh>
> 
> Now I just make sure that everyone coming in knows "Sensei" only means "teacher" or "instructor" and, in Japan, the First Grade Teacher who looks like she should be getting ready for Prom instead of teaching, is still called "Sensei" by her students.  That usually manages to communicate the concept.
> 
> ...



There is also 'senpai' if you don't care for 'sensei'.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 19, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is also 'senpai' if you don't care for 'sensei'.


But then I'd have to explain the whole Senpai/Kohai relationship.  I really wish I could get "Mr. Lawson" to stick.  Sometimes I can get them to stick with "Sir," which works just fine for me.  

Several years back now, I stopped in at a TSD school, just so see what's what.  I hadn't practiced TSD in decades and I guess I was wanting to take a trip down memory lane.  The dojang was empty when I went in so I spent time looking at the photos on the wall.  I recognized a few of the folks, including Stephen Wall, who I trained under back when I was living in Flint.  I didn't expect that.  Anyway, eventually some dude came out wearing a black belt and a dobok.  I stuck my hand out, smiled, and said, "Hi, I'm Kirk."  He too my hand, and with a very serious look, replied, "I'm Sabum."  Feh.  He ain't my Sabum.  His "rank" was too danged important to him to give me his name.  Not even a Rank+Name.  Just rank.  pft.  He asked me what I was looking for and I told him I was just looking and walked out.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 19, 2016)

lklawson said:


> But then I'd have to explain the whole Senpai/Kohai relationship.  I really wish I could get "Mr. Lawson" to stick.  Sometimes I can get them to stick with "Sir," which works just fine for me.
> 
> Several years back now, I stopped in at a TSD school, just so see what's what.  I hadn't practiced TSD in decades and I guess I was wanting to take a trip down memory lane.  The dojang was empty when I went in so I spent time looking at the photos on the wall.  I recognized a few of the folks, including Stephen Wall, who I trained under back when I was living in Flint.  I didn't expect that.  Anyway, eventually some dude came out wearing a black belt and a dobok.  I stuck my hand out, smiled, and said, "Hi, I'm Kirk."  He too my hand, and with a very serious look, replied, "I'm Sabum."  Feh.  He ain't my Sabum.  His "rank" was too danged important to him to give me his name.  Not even a Rank+Name.  Just rank.  pft.  He asked me what I was looking for and I told him I was just looking and walked out.
> 
> ...


Honcho, El Jefe, Bossman, The Big Cheese, Dear Leader, I'm sure you can find something.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 19, 2016)

lklawson said:


> Several years back now, I stopped in at a TSD school, just so see what's what. I hadn't practiced TSD in decades and I guess I was wanting to take a trip down memory lane. The dojang was empty when I went in so I spent time looking at the photos on the wall. I recognized a few of the folks, including Stephen Wall, who I trained under back when I was living in Flint. I didn't expect that. Anyway, eventually some dude came out wearing a black belt and a dobok. I stuck my hand out, smiled, and said, "Hi, I'm Kirk." He too my hand, and with a very serious look, replied, "I'm Sabum." Feh. He ain't my Sabum. His "rank" was too danged important to him to give me his name. Not even a Rank+Name. Just rank. pft. He asked me what I was looking for and I told him I was just looking and walked out.


Nice of him to give early warning that his school isn't anywhere you would want to train.

I've run into a number of egotists in the martial arts over the years. Probably a few who would introduce themselves as "Sifu So-and-so" or the like. I don't think I've ever met someone who only introduced himself by title and didn't even include a name.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 19, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Nice of him to give early warning that his school isn't anywhere you would want to train.
> 
> I've run into a number of egotists in the martial arts over the years. Probably a few who would introduce themselves as "Sifu So-and-so" or the like. I don't think I've ever met someone who only introduced himself by title and didn't even include a name.



Maybe that was his name?  OK, probably not.


----------



## pgsmith (Jan 19, 2016)

I have the folks in the dojo call me Paul. Saves me a lot of headache as well as creating a less formal atmosphere.  
  I remember meeting a guy in the bar at a sword event a number of years back that introduced himself to me as "master (name here)". Of course I had to make a Dr. Who joke about it, but he obviously wasn't a fan since he didn't get it.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 19, 2016)

lklawson said:


> Several years back now, I stopped in at a TSD school, just so see what's what.  I hadn't practiced TSD in decades and I guess I was wanting to take a trip down memory lane.  The dojang was empty when I went in so I spent time looking at the photos on the wall.  I recognized a few of the folks, including Stephen Wall, who I trained under back when I was living in Flint.  I didn't expect that.  Anyway, eventually some dude came out wearing a black belt and a dobok.  I stuck my hand out, smiled, and said, "Hi, I'm Kirk."  He too my hand, and with a very serious look, replied, "I'm Sabum."  Feh.  He ain't my Sabum.  His "rank" was too danged important to him to give me his name.  Not even a Rank+Name.  Just rank.  pft.  He asked me what I was looking for and I told him I was just looking and walked out.



At least he used the title right. I've seen a few people add the honorific -nim when speaking of themselves. That's a huge nono.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 19, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> I have the folks in the dojo call me Paul. Saves me a lot of headache as well as creating a less formal atmosphere.


Well, that guy up the food chain from me was insistent that I should allow and encourage the use of Sensei because, in his words, "it just means 'teacher' and you've earned it by teaching."  OK.  I still have to remind the adults after class that, now class is over, I'm just "Kirk."  I've given up with the kids.  I guess it makes it easier for them.  But sometimes I'll see one of the kids out in public and they'll yell, "Hey Sensei!!!" and I won't even hear it.  I'm not Sensei, I'm Kirk.  She Who Must Be Obeyed will nudge me and say, "they're yelling at you."  hahahahaha



> I remember meeting a guy in the bar at a sword event a number of years back that introduced himself to me as "master (name here)". Of course I had to make a Dr. Who joke about it, but he obviously wasn't a fan since he didn't get it.


hahaha  Funny.  A JSA specific event or something more broad?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 19, 2016)

How about Maestro?  That has a nice ring to it.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 19, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> At least he used the title right. I've seen a few people add the honorific -nim when speaking of themselves. That's a huge nono.


Feh.  He might as well have called himself "Grand Poo-Bah."







Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 19, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> How about Maestro?  That has a nice ring to it.


It does.  But I also run in the Western Martial Arts circles and that rank has a very specific meaning and some very talented swordsmen tend to take exception to someone using it without having earned it.  

In the old days, I could have called myself "Professor," particularly due to the the pugilism which I sometimes teach.  But some FMA's are now using "Professor" and my friends in academia also get persnickity.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 19, 2016)

Just call me Bill...the Magnificent.


----------



## pgsmith (Jan 19, 2016)

lklawson said:


> Well, that guy up the food chain from me was insistent that I should allow and encourage the use of Sensei because, in his words, "it just means 'teacher' and you've earned it by teaching."  OK.


  I understand that. I used to be in the same boat until I changed arts. Now I can get away with it since I don't have an official teaching license in Mugai ryu, so we're just a study group. 



lklawson said:


> hahaha  Funny.  A JSA specific event or something more broad?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



  JSA specific. It was at one of Bob Elder's East Coast Tai Kai in Orlando.


----------



## Azulx (Jan 19, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> At least he used the title right. I've seen a few people add the honorific -nim when speaking of themselves. That's a huge nono.



     What is the difference between Sabum and Sabumnim?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 19, 2016)

lklawson said:


> I hate being called Sensei at Judo.  Too much baggage.  I tried to get people to call me "coach" until someone up the food chain (whom I respect) reminded me that "Coach" is an official USJA Designation.  <sigh>
> 
> Now I just make sure that everyone coming in knows "Sensei" only means "teacher" or "instructor" and, in Japan, the First Grade Teacher who looks like she should be getting ready for Prom instead of teaching, is still called "Sensei" by her students.  That usually manages to communicate the concept.
> 
> ...



Interestingly, I've never had a problem with "Sensei" - I don't think it carried the "weight" in my instructor's school that it does some places. We found it easier than "Mr. Wyndham" or "Mr. Seymour", especially for new students who didn't remember an instructor's name. So, "Excuse me, Sensei" sometimes was a really formal, "Hey, whatever-your-name-is, can I get some help?"


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 19, 2016)

lklawson said:


> Feh.  He might as well have called himself "Grand Poo-Bah."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And now I know the title I'll be bestowing upon myself. Thanks, Kirk.


----------



## kuniggety (Jan 19, 2016)

Azulx said:


> What is the difference between Sabum and Sabumnim?


Nim is an honorific added to the end of someone's name. You use it when addressing others, not when addressing yourself. It's pretty common in Asian countries. It's sort of the equivalent of me introducing myself as "Mr. Walker" to someone but I think on an even more awkward level.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 19, 2016)

kuniggety said:


> Nim is an honorific added to the end of someone's name. You use it when addressing others, not when addressing yourself. It's pretty common in Asian countries. It's sort of the equivalent of me introducing myself as "Mr. Walker" to someone but I think on an even more awkward level.


I think it'd be more on par with an American judge introducing himself thusly: "Hi, I'm the right honorable Horace Smith."


----------

