# Rank & Time Tables



## American HKD (Nov 1, 2004)

Greetings

Do you think rank after Black Belt 2,3,4,5 etc. is given out too slowly?

Why not a year or two per Dan depending on the person of course?

After you got the basics down the rest come fairly easy!

For example Doju Ji said he dosen't care how old you are or how long you've been in the Art if you know the material you know it end of story. 

( I happen to agree with Doju Ji because many people especially Koreans hold back rank on purpose for many reasons such as competetion with thier students, control, ego, etc. )

He also went on to say many of the tradtional kwan masters from Korea got high rank at a young age is not as unusal as we are led to believe! 

From that point on with the advent of Asociations rank became a more timely process.


----------



## ajs1976 (Nov 1, 2004)

I'm new to this so I have to ask, what is considered the "normal" amount of time someone has to wait?


----------



## American HKD (Nov 1, 2004)

Greetings,


Below is the KHF requirements.

Dan level) (Min. terms of training) (Min. Age) 

(Begin ¢¡ 1 Dan) ( 1 yr. ) - 
(1 Dan ¢¡ 2 Dan) ( 1 yr. ) - 
(2 Dan ¢¡ 3 Dan) ( 2 yrs. ) ( 17 yrs. old ) 
(3 Dan ¢¡ 4 Dan) ( 3 yrs. ) ( 23 yrs. old ) 
(4 Dan ¢¡ 5 Dan) ( 4 yrs. ) ( 30 yrs. old ) 
(5 Dan ¢¡ 6 Dan) ( 5 yrs. ) ( 35 yrs. old ) 
(6 Dan ¢¡ 7 Dan) ( 5 yrs. ) ( 41 yrs. old ) 
(7 Dan ¢¡ 8 Dan) ( 5 yrs. ) ( 46 yrs. old ) 
(8 Dan ¢¡ 9 Dan) ( 5 yrs. ) ( 51 yrs. old )


----------



## iron_ox (Nov 1, 2004)

American HKD said:
			
		

> Greetings
> 
> Do you think rank after Black Belt 2,3,4,5 etc. is given out too slowly?
> 
> ...



Hello Stuart,

I agree here, in Korea, grade seems to be given much more on technical merit and simple ability than "time in rank".


----------



## howard (Nov 1, 2004)

hi stuart,

out of curiosity, does gm ji have a technical curriculum for all of shin mu's dan ranks? in other words, are there formal techniques that you have to demonstrate for each dan rank?

thanks, howard


----------



## American HKD (Nov 1, 2004)

Howard, 

Doju Ji's formal curriculum goes up to 4th Dan although you can learn many variations on each technique past that. 

Doju Ji asks you to demonstrate whatever he wants usually during regular class times or seminars. He doesn't conduct formal testing he just evaluates you any time he wants to.

On a diferrent note I gave a test to two students yesterday I knew they would pass before I tested them and in fact they had no warning of the test at all they came in and I said your testing today. 

In reality the test was of no consequence at all because I already knew they knew the material, it served only to help the students know thier strong and weak points and put a little pressure on them.

So how important is real formal testing? If you know the stuff everyone can see that during classes, seminars, or other events if you dont people will know that too.


----------



## howard (Nov 1, 2004)

stuart, thanks for the info.

btw, i agree with your idea of not testing students until _you_ decide they are ready.
regards, howard


----------



## glad2bhere (Nov 1, 2004)

Dear Stuart: 

".........For example Doju Ji said he dosen't care how old you are or how long you've been in the Art if you know the material you know it end of story...." 

And therein lies the problem. Time is not always just time. And WHAT you know is not always the same from place to place. Let me give you an example. 

When I test someone for Level 2, Hapkido they are responsible for 100% of their Level One Material. At Level 3 testing they are responsible for 100% of Level 2 and 50% of Level I. At Level 4 Testing they are responsible for 100% of Level 3, 50% of Level 2 and 25% of Level 1. Get the pattern here? 

Ok. Now lets move that up to Black Belt. Lets say a person is going for Fourth Dan. They would be responsible for 100% of 3rd Dan including the Cane techniques and grounded fighting techniques. They would be responsible for 50% of the 2nd Dan techniques including Dan Bong and strike point material. They would be responsible for 25% of 1st Dan Techniques including pressure point work and Soh Bong Techniques. They would be responsible for 12% of Brown, 6% of Blue, 3% of Yellow and 1%of White. Now most people for such a test would focus on 3rd Dan material but as you can see you can't just learn the new stuff but must keep facile on the ever-growing amount of old stuff. I made 4th dan this year. According to kwan criteria I won't even be qualified to test for 5th dan until 2010 when I am 60 y/o. And after that I won't be qualified for 6th dan (should I make 5th Dan) until the year 2017 when I am 67. By that time I should know something in the area 450 unique techniques, be facile with at least five weapons and still be out on the mat teaching (Please God). FWIW. 

BTW: I have purposely not included my additional project of prgressing my learning into the area of hapkiyusool. What I am speaking of is only the yu sool level of the Hapkido arts. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## American HKD (Nov 1, 2004)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Dear Stuart:
> 
> ".........For example Doju Ji said he dosen't care how old you are or how long you've been in the Art if you know the material you know it end of story...."
> 
> ...


 
Bruce,

*Ridiculous*

These requirements you stated are ridiculous maybe thats a type of commercialism we find today to hold people back in some sense. 
In academics that wouldn't even work, when you graduated college did they test you on your high school stuff? Or for your Doctorate did you re-test for your bachelors and masters degrees?

Do you think for a minute Hwang Sik Myung went through that? I'll answer for you NO!

That's why I'm saying here many people are kept back over longer time periods for either academic reasons, commercial reasons, ego, or other things.

Master Ji has it RIGHT and I felt the same way for many years but not many Masters will admit it for their own personal egos or pocket books. 

Sorry Bruce you got it wrong here buddy!


----------



## glad2bhere (Nov 1, 2004)

Dear Stuart: 

I didn't say you had to agree. Most people I know would not subscribe to such criteria and thats OK. If its not your cup of tea then I can live with that. What I find is that such an arrangement continues to consistently present me with an evergrowing organization of challenges. 

Now to answer your question, the fact is that what I have outlined is EXACTLY what the academic approach uses and that is a big reason why I use this model. As you move through the academic model you are most consistently held accountable for that material most recent to your education and less accountable for material farther and farther back. No matter what math you are testing in, at some level you are still required to know 2+2. Of course, if you are doing Calculus maybe its less important than your first year of Algebra. I would point out that just because you become so accustomed to the system that you don't recognize it for what it is doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I would also point out that to ignore such a model results in some pretty bleak altrernatives. Where for instance does your study in Hapkido go when you make 1st dan--- now 2nd dan--- now 3rd dan. 
I hear over and over again about how people get so far in their training that there is eventually no where left to go. Lets say you start Hapkido at 20 y/o and make 10th dan by 45. Where is UP from there?

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## sifu Adams (Nov 1, 2004)

I think there should be merit behind the belt.  I have been to tournament where a student was Awarded his/her  2nd, 3rd, 4th degree black based off the time only.  I spent 2 hours doing 56 forms and sparing for 20 min afterwards just to get my 4th degree.  When I was done I knew I had been tested.  We have to have a 5 weapon and 5 empty hand as well as two internals be per rank of black with a minim of 2 years per rank.  however we are tested over everything we know even the white belt material.


----------



## American HKD (Nov 1, 2004)

Bruce,

Last thought on this.

Memorizing X number of techniques is not very important in higher stages like 2nd, 3rd 4th etc. Granted you may want to remember vast numbers of techniques to teach but that's for an entirely different reason. 

Bruce if you continue to train you wont forget the Gup stuff (2+2) or the higher dan stuff. In fact you'll most likey use the lower rank stuff more than the higher dan stuff.

If your teacher is reputable you won't get a higher rank if you don't improve on the previous material that's a given in my book.

But the real bottom line for me is at some point:

It's much more important to understand the principles and make the techniques second nature through training. When that happens memorization becomes very unnecessary.

When you need your skills you won't have time to remember a response it hopefully will just happen naturally without thought, that's what your working for.

FWIW that's what I feel is important once someone has a good understanding of the basics.


----------



## sifu Adams (Nov 1, 2004)

I guess you would have to see the katas.  we are learning and our theros come from the katas.  ex.  we have praing matis trap, blitz, thrust, and fist. each of the katas teach you new things. they teach better combonation and angle of attacks.  some teac you ground fighting, grapping, throws, how to use weapons bladed not bladed, sticks, knives ect.... I think if you were to limmit your self with the tech. how would you ever learn new ones?


----------



## American HKD (Nov 1, 2004)

sifu Adams said:
			
		

> I think there should be merit behind the belt. I have been to tournament where a student was Awarded his/her 2nd, 3rd, 4th degree black based off the time only. I spent 2 hours doing 56 forms and sparing for 20 min afterwards just to get my 4th degree. When I was done I knew I had been tested. We have to have a 5 weapon and 5 empty hand as well as two internals be per rank of black with a minim of 2 years per rank. however we are tested over everything we know even the white belt material.


Dear Sifu,

I'm sure your teacher knew you were capable before you tested hence what was the test really for? To make you feel good about yourself, to show to others what you acomplished?

To me you earned your rank before the test in the years of training.

Thats the real test years of dedication to your Art!


----------



## sifu Adams (Nov 1, 2004)

We have only 5 who have tested for 4th.  3 made it.  why the others were not ready the knew they had the "time" in but not ready to test.  time is not what makes a black belt.  we (me and you ) can learn a kata on the same day, I may work on my kata everyday for the next 5 years.  you may copy the notes and put the tape on a self get it back out in 5 year and review it for 6 months  and try to test. who do you think learnded the most from the kata and who do you think will pass the test?


----------



## glad2bhere (Nov 2, 2004)

American HKD said:
			
		

> Memorizing X number of techniques is not very important in higher stages like 2nd, 3rd 4th etc. Granted you may want to remember vast numbers of techniques to teach but that's for an entirely different reason.
> 
> Bruce if you continue to train you wont forget the Gup stuff (2+2) or the higher dan stuff. In fact you'll most likey use the lower rank stuff more than the higher dan stuff.
> 
> ...


My guess is that you and I simply have different values about what we do or something. I can't quite put my finger on it because I don't hear what I am saying as different from you. I don't hear myself saying that basics aren't important. What I think I am saying is that those basics are constantly carried deeper and deeper into the art. Its not just a matter of learning more techniques. Rather, does one see the Hapkido principles and make them understood at simple levels? How about at intermediate levels? Higher levels? Free-form? In hyung?  With weapons? In interpersonal relationships? In pressure point work?  In strike point work? In groundwork? How does relating to these principles change when you go from 30 to 40? 40 to 50? 50 to 60? 

I guess I don't see Hapkido as a phys ed course, or combative gymnastic. I view is as a way of life and a way of living and I think that is what I try to assess when I test someone. I suspect thats what my teacher is trying to assess when he tests me.  FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## American HKD (Nov 2, 2004)

Bruce,

I'll try to be clearer here.
Memorizing large numbers of techniques *for it's own sake* is a waste of time and effort in the Dan levels IMO.

So many of our techniques are variations or the same skills is used over and over in different places. 

To understand the technique fully and how to cross apply it from a hold, punch, kick, etc. means only learning it once! 
Memorizing where it comes up in 10 different places is not needed.

That's what I mean for the most part. 

Moreover my type of thinking will greatly reduce the inflated number of techniques there actually are in HKD making it easier to learn, less to memorize, quicker to advance in the dan levels once the basic principles are learned.


----------



## iron_ox (Nov 2, 2004)

Hello Stuart,

I agree here.  I teach that there is a clear division between technique and application.  Technique (good ones) have multiple applications from different situations, grabs, etc. - therefore the best way to learn is, in my opinion, strong knowledge of technique.


----------



## glad2bhere (Nov 2, 2004)

My agreement with you both comes out of an odd place, so please hear what I am going to say clearer as I mean no disrespect to my teacher. 

The World Hapkido Federation has a set curriculum and I don't think that there are any (many?) techniques that you would not recognize from your own practice. Now, I must say that what Kevin says is probably symptomatic of the WHF curriculum in that a clear distinction between the basic technique and its applications have been blurred. 

Earlier you may remember that I said that by 5th dan I could expect to know about 450 techniques. That includes kicks, punches, blocks, parries, chokes, pins, throws projections --- the whole bit including the respective weapons. There are about 50 unique techniques to each rank so 9 ranks times 50=450. Now how did I do that. Well, what I am talking about is the "academic approach" to that same WHF curriculum. In other words, when I teach an armbar at Level One I don't teach straight grab, and then cross-grab and then grab-on-one-foot and grab-with-one-eye closed as separate and unique techniques. An armbar is an armbar--- a unique technique. So in the WHF curriculum you might have 10 armbar techniques. In the academic approach you may have one or two. The permutations are addressed, but in another part of the class called "practicum". Anyhow, thats how I handle it.  FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## SmellyMonkey (Nov 2, 2004)

Bruce-

Off subject (meaning, not relating to your last post)

I oftentimes find myself agreeing with some of your posts or disagreeing with some of your posts....without actually knowing what the hell you are talking about.   

I don't think I'm alone, either.

Kevin- is Bruce easier to understand in person?

Now I need to go build a spreadsheet to see an example of the permutations....

Jeremy


----------



## American HKD (Nov 2, 2004)

Greetings,

Bruce maybe we're on the same page after all?

In the 2 curriculums I learned, Doju Ji's and KHF's there were many repeat techniques that are totally unnecessary. 

I never counted all the individual techniques but there aren't more than a hundred or so core principles, the rest is all the applications.

A student who knows the core material can discover and create any applications he wishes. That's living breathing Hapkido not sterile and rigid thinking as many unknowingly subscribe to.

Doju Ji feels his system Sin Moo is a core system of Hapkido and whatever direction a master level student takes with it is Ok with him as long as the principles are kept in tact. 

That's the greatest attitude of any Master to be so secure with his students and his teachings he does'nt need to pigeon hole his MA.


----------



## glad2bhere (Nov 2, 2004)

Dear Jeremy: 

Actually you are getting me on a "good" day.  artyon: 

Seriously, though. Think about this for a second. 

For a couple hundred years here in America the "Little Red Schoolhouse" was the backbone of Learning. Higher education was for the elite and was an exclusive club away from the unwashed multitudes. Then along come Dewey and bunch of others and starts codifying the school process and now we have the school system that we do today. 

Funakoshi and Itosu did the same for Karate. Kano did the same for Judo. Ueyshiba did the same for Aikido. The Butokukai did the same for Japanese Budo. As far as I can see we are a little overdue in the Hapkido community. And not only don't I CARE if you follow my thinking all the time---- I DON'T WANT you following my thinking all the time. I want you provoked enough to kick in with "..... yeah,,,, but what about this!!!" We already have a very vague kind of uniformity about the Hapkido arts. It shows up all the time. What we don't have are people willing to give it the regard it deserves and that usually falls along those political lines I was talking about. THATS why its important to get the politics out of the closet and sitting at the table for all to see. 

The YMK Hapkido material bears a resemblance to what Kevin does. It also bears a resemblance to what YOU do, Jeremy! It also bears a resemblance to Bong Soo Han, Han Jae Ji and Kwang Sik Myungs' material. We keep kidding ourselves that one guy is from across the street and the rest of the Hapkido community is from Mars. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## iron_ox (Nov 2, 2004)

SmellyMonkey said:
			
		

> Kevin- is Bruce easier to understand in person?
> 
> Jeremy



Hello Jeremy,

Yep


----------



## Kumbajah (Nov 2, 2004)

Questions  on cataloging techniques/ requiring dan ranks to know "lower" techniques  - do you have a set curriculum for gup ranks? If so how can you not catalog techniques and be responsible for them? How will dan ranks convey your curriculum if they are not responsible for them? When we test you maybe asked for any prior material covered. If you don't know it you don't pass. Happened to me on my brown belt test, knew all the brown belt material but spaced on the blue belt material. 

Brian


----------



## glad2bhere (Nov 2, 2004)

Dear Brian: 

The hysterical thing is, I told my Level 2-s exactly that same thing. When they had succeeded and past their test I told them when they would test for their Level Three (Blue Belt) the majority of points lost would NOT be on the Yellow or Level Two material. Rather, the most points lost, and their possible failure would be on the Level ONE material which is typically ignored by gueppies in their excitement to learn the New Stuff. Wanna hear something funny? 

At Monday nights class I paired a Level Two with a Level One who wanted a pre-test on some wrist techniques. Expectedly the Level One fumbled around a bit----- but so did the Level Two. After class he made a recommitment to giving a bit more attention to both Level Two AND Level One.

 Students; ya gotta love 'em!! 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## whalen (Nov 3, 2004)

I tried to stay out of this but after two cups of Starbucks coffee I want to add my 2 cents for arguments sake and to address a major problem

But there seems to be a major problem in what is happening in Hapkido as far as testing goes " No Camp is without Problems" but this goes a lot deeper than that, rank is no longer respected and rightfully so in some cases  loyalty to your Master is frowned upon, it is no longer important in the chase for the next dan.

My Master is well known in korea and was an early Student Of Ji,Han Jae from Sung Moo Kwan he was promoted to 7th dan in 1971 during the early days of the KHA. After training in Japan with the aikido people as part of a KHA friendship exchange which often  sends a team to my Masters  Dojang (chun-Do-Kwan). He and other fellow Masters were embarrassed by the rank that some of them held at such an early age. In protest he refused a promotion for 27 years he is now an eighth dan under the KHF. And is very well respected he is one of the founding members, and is old school trained.

Picture the look on his face when several years ago when there was an attempt in Korea to unify all of Hapkido, and a group of Master's from around the world showed up 5  of them non-korean under the age of 42 were his rank with less than 10 years of Hapkido experience. When he asked one of these so called seminar masters at the meeting  they stated their rank 9th dan. His response was the best I have ever heard "Oh, you 9th Dan 9 years I 40 dan 40 years" then got up bowed and walked out of the meeting.

To quote J.R West " anything that is acquired easy is given easy " I can only give an example and an observation of what i have witnessed over the years.

  When I Test ANY STUDENT of mine or my students students you are required to show all you know including previous Belts material. You may ask why ? Plain and simple as you progress through the Rank system the techniques from the earlier ranks become more polished with more practice time, unless they are not practiced it is also a way for you to observe how the rough edges smoothed out during the time they took to perfect what they had already learned. 

 Most if not all students will have their Favorite techniques we all do, These are usually the first there or four you will automatically perform without any given thought (because they have become second nature) these are usually done first. I have proved this time and time again through my 28 years of teaching. And have some very impressive Black Belts.

  Now lets say You require only a few techniques, Yes they most defiantly will be your most effective, but on the other hand if you try to pick and choose what technique should be someone's favorite technique we are creating ROBOTS we all have different bodies and likes and dislikes. If the student is given more choices they are most likely to find their own particular techniques that suit their own physical limitations.

  Should there be time in grade ? most definitely  you mean to tell me some 20 something 9th dan has contributed and dedicated himself more than someone who has dedicated his entire life ? No way... Would you rather take the advise of someone who took as many shortcuts as possible to get where they are ? I think not at what point do we step back and look at the big picture ?

Lets take a serious hard look on what is happening with this. I had a FORMER Student whom was a first dan, Attended a seminar and 10 Days later he is a fourth dan not bad for about 5 years of Hapkido. he does not teach (he brown noses) last I heard he outranks me....But boy can he talk Hapkido just ask him. 

Lets look at long term effects on what is happening with this, it cheapens the rank, and does not consider after a certain point in age Mother nature gets even with you for every Flip Fall every spin Kick you feel it. So how can one judge the higher ranks at the level we judge a YOUNG first or second Dan yes, they will be faster , More limber and they bounce up faster off the mat..

Yes we all have core techniques that are the mostly the same some small variations but the same. Will I reduce what I require ? No way For those looking for shortcuts go some place else I am sure they can find someone willing to promote them once the check clears. Everyone of My Black Belts knows somewhere around 400 techniques at first Dan this does not include kicks that is separate.

You can ask anyone that has ever tested under me it is and can be done.

Hal Whalen
Chun-Do-Kwan


----------



## American HKD (Nov 3, 2004)

Greetings,

Hal

I agree with most of what you said, including making sure the previous techniques are improved on and not giving some one with 5 yrs in HKD a 4th dan etc.

Your teacher was a 7th dan from Ji at what age?

My teacher Master Son was a 6th Dan at 32, KHA Ji was president at the time same as yours, he made a 6th dan in 16 years starting hapkido when he was 16 yrs old thats an average of 1 dan every 2.5 years not that long not to short either agreed! 

Also the KHF, KHA only spot checked lower grades techniques during testing not making the student do everything from the begining. At least thats how I was always tested. 

My real main point is many instructors now a days set very ridig standards they never had to go through themselves and I think it's for ego, money, control of students, etc! 

Doju Ji says in Korea it wasn't like that nor was it with your or my intructor why should it be like that now?


----------



## glad2bhere (Nov 3, 2004)

American HKD said:
			
		

> My real main point is many instructors now a days set very ridig standards they never had to go through and I think it's for ego, money, control of students, etc!
> 
> Doju Ji says in Korea it wasn't like that with your or my intructor why should it be like that now?



Ok, Stuart but now you are going too far the OTHER way. I have seen some exchanges on DOCHANG DIGEST and other places about people wanting their students to do all sorts of extraordinary things including tests that last a couple of days, say, over a weekend. Can't see it myself. To me the idea is to present a person with a challenge by which he solves problems using the skills he has learned. The newest material gets the closest scrutiny with diminishing percentages after that. I mean, lets say I hold a person testing for 2nd Dan accountable for 100% of each of the previous ranks hes' held. What would be the point? Is there something special he gets for putting up with a needlessly difficult test? 

Now having said that, lets go back to Dojunim Jis' comment. The reason tests should be challenging and perhaps more challenging now than before is that by making them a bit more challenging we can learn what parts of the test actually measure skills and ability and what parts are actually just a pain in the butt. For instance, in the kwan I belong to we have 5 hyung. What if I start making my students test by doing all hyung 5 times each.  And this proves what to me? That I can make them jump through hoops to get that paper? Can't see it. Tought tests for the sake of tough tests is like learning dozens of exotic variations on techniques for the sake of learning exotic variations. Thoughts? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## whalen (Nov 3, 2004)

American HKD said:
			
		

> Greetings,
> 
> Also the KHF, KHA only spot checked lower grades techniques during testing not making the student do everything from the begining. At least thats how I was always tested.
> 
> ...



Well where Do i start When I tested for 1st Dan there were two tests one was the at Kwan level or as they used to call it club black belt you had to perform every technique each side. At a test Held At the Kwan headquaters. Then when the KHA held its dan testing  you had a partner from a different dojang that was also testing the head of test board would call out random areas and you had to then demonstrate the number of Techniques required.

My second and third dan test's were different they were held in the dojang and i was required to do every technique i knew at each level.

As far as doing it for the money you do not me or you would never state that i charge $25 over the cost of the test fee and on more than one occasion i have paid for the test myself because they could not afford it. It does not keep me in coffee.

What happens is some people by nature will only do what they need to get by and that is fine it is in their nature others will try an justify why they do not.

On the other hand when you are exhausted and when you think you have reached your limit you reach inside to find out you have what it takes and it gets you threw it.

Ask mike T he has been to several of my tests I HAVE NEVER MADE THEM DO ANYTHING I DID NOT DO.

Hope this clears up any misconceptions.

Hal Whalen


----------



## American HKD (Nov 4, 2004)

whalen said:
			
		

> Well where Do i start When I tested for 1st Dan there were two tests one was the at Kwan level or as they used to call it club black belt you had to perform every technique each side. At a test Held At the Kwan headquaters. Then when the KHA held its dan testing you had a partner from a different dojang that was also testing the head of test board would call out random areas and you had to then demonstrate the number of Techniques required.
> 
> My second and third dan test's were different they were held in the dojang and i was required to do every technique i knew at each level.
> 
> ...


Hal

I didn't mean you specifically. 

I'm talking from my expirience with commercial school owners who need to make a living from MA or Instructors who just make it unrealistically hard to purposely keep the student at a lower dan level.

BTW all my tests were from white belt on were done as follows:

1. Do all techniques for the belt your going for i.e. 2nd gup, 1 gup, 1st dan etc.

2. Do several techniques of choice from all previous grades mainly as you said to show your improvement. That's not to say my an Instructor didn't ask you to do specific techniques that he wanted to see or check out.

I never met anyone who did everything from all previous grades for a test but am sure there some who do and that's thier business.

Anyway what do you think about time in grade? 
I think 2 years between dan levels is more than enough time if you practice.

Ji Han Jae trained 7 years with Choi and was 3rd dan.

I really think this minimum time in grade is un realistic and it depends on how good you are nothing else. 

Hal 

Please explain from your expirience in Korea time in rank from 30 years ago probably much shorter than 10 years maybe a bit longer until now very long.

Why is there a trend like that in your opinion?


----------



## whalen (Nov 4, 2004)

American HKD said:
			
		

> Hal
> 
> 
> I really think this minimum time in grade is un realistic and it depends on how good you are nothing else.
> ...



When i trained in Korea 28 years ago (my first time ) It was 1 year between 1-2 , 18 months  between 2-3 , 3 years between 3-4, 4 years between 4-5 .After that i never asked because I went further than my original plan or goal.

Now if this does  go through two years between ranks can us old timers like bruce and myself  recieve retroactive promotions ? Just kidding....

Stu,

What seems to happen is that people try and justify the ranks they have if they are earned fast . Either by the guy that issues them or the people that recieve them , How many 7-8 dans are out there that just attended seminars and maybe a week here or there ?That own dojangs but do not even teach Hapkido.

This was A MAJOR stumbling block when they tried to unite Hapkido in Korea. There were more 8-9 Dans  with very little training that would now become seniors to those that had well over 35-40 years teaching Hapkido.

these people would be making the policy for a new organization it scared them especially where they had the Rank but not the skill or the leadership skills that they would expect from that position.

Not that i am one to talk about people skills or leadership traits, all i wanted to do when i grew up was teach hapkido, Now having done that for almost 30 years I am waiting to grow-up......

Hal


----------



## American HKD (Nov 4, 2004)

whalen said:
			
		

> When i trained in Korea 28 years ago (my first time ) It was 1 year between 1-2 , 18 months between 2-3 , 3 years between 3-4, 4 years between 4-5 .After that i never asked because I went further than my original plan or goal.
> 
> Now if this does go through two years between ranks can us old timers like bruce and myself recieve retroactive promotions ? Just kidding....
> 
> ...


Hal 

That's what used to make me upset when I left Master Son's school and started training with others 4th, 5th dan and I was way better then them at a 2nd & 3rd Dan.

But you can't go the totally go the opposite way and restrict the good Hapkidoin from getting the rank they deserve in a timely manor.


----------



## whalen (Nov 4, 2004)

American HKD said:
			
		

> Hal
> 
> That's what used to make me upset when I left Master Son's school and started training with others 4th, 5th dan and I was way better then them at a 2nd & 3rd Dan.
> 
> But you can't go the totally go the opposite way and restrict the good Hapkidoin from getting the rank they deserve in a timely manor.



Now is this about skill ? Recognition ? They were promoted to fast You would rather be a second Dan That people say WOW,,, When they see you move or do your Hapkido.

Or would you rather have them say "what the F####." And be embarrassed and have your Masters more ashamed than proud ?

I was a 5th dan before Pelligrini stared Hapkido 10 years later he was an 8th and i made sixth.

Did it bother me oh yeah at first . But technique skill I surpass he wildest dreams i am more respected in the Hapkido World (so I would Like To believe).

I have never been an embarrassment to My Masters or the Kwan i belong too. i never chased the Dollar even though I could use the money Honor, respect, Integrity are worth more than anything.

Here is something you should think about : " You are either part of the Problem or part of the solution"

Hal whalen


----------



## American HKD (Nov 4, 2004)

whalen said:
			
		

> Now is this about skill ? Recognition ? They were promoted to fast You would rather be a second Dan That people say WOW,,, When they see you move or do your Hapkido.
> 
> Or would you rather have them say "what the F####." And be embarrassed and have your Masters more ashamed than proud ?
> 
> ...


For me it wasn't about ego I felt I worked hard for many years didn't have high rank and really didn't care, but when people with a 2,3,4 dans a head of me were not as good I felt I should have that rank too. But that's on the personal side of this issue.

*People should get the rank they deserve in a timely manor that's all. *


----------



## SmellyMonkey (Nov 4, 2004)

American HKD said:
			
		

> For me it wasn't about ego I felt I worked hard for many years didn't have high rank and really didn't care, but when people with a 2,3,4 dans a head of me were not as good I felt I should have that rank too. But that's on the personal side of this issue.
> 
> *People should get the rank they deserve in a timely manor that's all. *


Of course we can understand what it is like to be ranked lower than a person who is not as good as you.  I think everyone who cares more about skills than rank can understand (and I bet everyone has stories of their own on this issue.)

Consider this personal issue you have to be part of your training.  Do you:
A.  Let this injustice continue to make you angry.
B.  Decide to yourself that you are going to be the best damn 3rd degree the world has ever seen.
C.  Ignore rank and focus on the training.


----------



## American HKD (Nov 4, 2004)

SmellyMonkey said:
			
		

> Of course we can understand what it is like to be ranked lower than a person who is not as good as you. I think everyone who cares more about skills than rank can understand (and I bet everyone has stories of their own on this issue.)
> 
> Consider this personal issue you have to be part of your training. Do you:
> A. Let this injustice continue to make you angry.
> ...


 
Time heals all things and eventually all thing work out. 

If your have good skills every one will see it.

But the fact is everyone has different standards that won't change, so the moral is be the best you can be that's it.


----------



## glad2bhere (Nov 4, 2004)

I could be missing something, in which case I apologize for butting in. 

Is what I am hearing a resistance TO having a time-in-grade requirement, or is it just the *prescribed length.* What I am asking is are people in this discussion saying that there should be no time-in-grade requirement at all or perhaps only a very short one--- say, one year? 

Sorry I have read all of these posts at least twice and I can't exactly determine what is being put forward here. Help. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## whalen (Nov 4, 2004)

Bruce,
That is the way I took it they are saying 2 years max time in grade. I am not sure if this would work.

Also what they failed to relies in korea Class is six Days a week NO EXCUSE .......Or you are gone Master Yu's is three hours 

Average American twice a week or maybe three times ? Here you have it they train twice as much as we do in a given week ?

Hal


----------



## glad2bhere (Nov 4, 2004)

Yes, and I see this as a real hinderance to reconciling the time in grade thing. (BTW I stand solidly behind time in grade.) I know from the previous response that most people think the YMK Hapkido approach is a bit extreme, but your point is pretty valid. When I trained with Dojunim Kim in September it was twice a day for 2-3 hours a session. Here in the States I teach three classes a week at 2 hours a piece and then an hour of sword. So a typical week in Korea for me was about say 28 hours of training. A typical week here in the States is say 7. We are talking a difference of 4x as much training in Korea or looking at it the other way only 25% training here in the States. (Now for the sake of arguement I am putting to one side my own training research which is in a bit different category. I'm trying to keep this as clean as possible.) 

My conclusion is that if a guy says he has THREE years time in grade here in the States I immediately think of my own situation and tabulate 7 hours a week or 364 hours/year for a total of 1092 hours per time in grade. But if that same person says they only have TWO years time in grade while studying at a traditional kwan in Korea we could be talking about 2912 hours per time in grade.A year less and almost three times as much mat time. And whose to say that a guy in America (or Korea) doesn't take a week off now and then? 

For my gueppies I keep careful eye on their mat hours. Once a person makes BB I suspect they have some level of dedication and integrity, but I don't know that we can always count on this. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## American HKD (Nov 4, 2004)

Greetings,

I don't mind time in grade. But I whole heartedly dis-agree with an "inflated" lenght of unrealistic time based on nothing designed for the sole purpose of holding people back from grade.

A reasonable lenght of time needed to aquire the nessarsary skills. I think two years between Dan levels should act as a minimum and the rest is up to the person and the instructor. 

Example:
Two years minimum time in grade and the rest is up to the instructor if the persons qualified to test or not.  
Don't just pick a number based on nothing to make someone wait.

Clear yet?


----------



## kwanjang (Nov 4, 2004)

American HKD said:
			
		

> Greetings,
> 
> I don't mind time in grade. But I whole heartedly dis-agree with an "inflated" lenght of unrealistic time based on nothing designed for the sole purpose of holding people back from grade.
> 
> A reasonable lenght of time needed to aquire the nessarsary skills. I think two years between Dan levels should act as a minimum and the rest is up to the person and the instructor...



Greetings everyone:
I use the old standard of two years to second, three years to third, four years to fourth etc., and I was quite happy with this formula.  It takes me a long time to teach people all the stuff they need for their respective ranks; because, I just don't show them the stuff, I expect them to practice it for quite some time before I show more stuff.

A few years ago, while talking to JR and Geoff at the Jackson seminar, Geoff pointed out something I had not even considered until that time.  He asked me a simple question: "how long do you plan to live?"  This took me by surprise, and it became obvious in a very short time that, if I kept to my present time table, I would NEVER be able to teach my highest ranking student enough to have him succeed me in carrying on the art I was made guardian of.

So, back to the drawing board it was, and I had to adjust my thinking AND my teaching schedule to better reflect the anticipated life I hopefully have left to live.  Good thing I am no longer wild and woolley like I used to be, else I am sure some jealous husband would cause me to take the likelyhood of being shot into consideration as well lol.  In any case, it is interesting to see how others look at time lines, and it will no doubt help me with my dilemma.  Funny how none of this was a worry to me until my GM passed away and left me with this mess.  Much easier not to lead a clan and just have fun on the mat


----------



## American HKD (Nov 4, 2004)

kwanjang said:
			
		

> Greetings everyone:
> I use the old standard of two years to second, three years to third, four years to fourth etc., and I was quite happy with this formula. It takes me a long time to teach people all the stuff they need for their respective ranks; because, I just don't show them the stuff, I expect them to practice it for quite some time before I show more stuff.
> 
> A few years ago, while talking to JR and Geoff at the Jackson seminar, Geoff pointed out something I had not even considered until that time. He asked me a simple question: "how long do you plan to live?" This took me by surprise, and it became obvious in a very short time that, if I kept to my present time table, I would NEVER be able to teach my highest ranking student enough to have him succeed me in carrying on the art I was made guardian of.
> ...


Dear Rudy,

I don't believe from my own reseach in Chinese, Korean or Japanese MA student were made to purposely wait any lenght of time to be Instructors or Masters etc.

People may have been made to wait because of mis-trust, or not shown real technique so the Master would always be Top Dog, not just to wait around for nothing etc.

Yes the person should be able to prove he has the skills, but time has nothing to do with it.  It's an individual assesment and has no basis on how long you WAIT between grades.

I think this is so simple yet many have trouble dealing with it, because of some old misconceptions or that's how everyone does it or he's to young to be this or that Dan.

Hal

You'll like this I first started my Alarm Company at 26 years old, I was a very we'll trained Electrician with about 8 years learning in a commercial/industrial background. It took me 3 years to make Journeyman grade in my company and it was Union because I really tried hard and the boss knew it and they jumped me up ahaead of schedule why because I could do the job.

People wouldn't hire me a few times on certain big jobs only because I was young therefore they believed I didn't knew my trade or could handle the job. 

The same thing is going on here! Time is a factor of sorts but not all that important!


----------



## glad2bhere (Nov 4, 2004)

OK--- just for fun lets drop the idea of time in grade measured by an arbitrary number of years. Personnally the Kwan I belong to does things not unlike what Rudy is talking about. For myself I don't know that I am going to make it to much more than 7th Dan. For me thats not a problem since I would train in Hapkido whether I had rank or not. But I wonder if we have reached a point where we need to consider using mat hours rather than years for dan ranks much like we use mat hours for gueppies. If this were something to consider, I toss out the following for further consideration. 

My students train under the following requirements.

Level One needs 78 mat hours to qualify to test for Level Two 

Level Two needs 156 mat hours to qualify to test for Level Three 

Level Three needs 234 mat hours to qualify to test for Level Four

Level Four needs  312 mat hours to qualify to test for 1st Dan. 

So where would we go from there? 

1st Dan needs 390 mat hours to qualify to test for 2nd Dan?

2nd Dan needs 468 mat hours to qualify to test for 3rd Dan?

3rd Dan needs 546 mat hours to qualify to test for 4th Dan? 

Seems like this is a bit more tightly regulated than simply telling someone they need "two years" or "three years". Of course it would also make "grandfathering" a bit tougher, but I figure that people who do that are going to do it whether they have a genuine rationale or not.  Thoughts?  Comments? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## American HKD (Nov 4, 2004)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> OK--- just for fun lets drop the idea of time in grade measured by an arbitrary number of years. Personnally the Kwan I belong to does things not unlike what Rudy is talking about. For myself I don't know that I am going to make it to much more than 7th Dan. For me thats not a problem since I would train in Hapkido whether I had rank or not. But I wonder if we have reached a point where we need to consider using mat hours rather than years for dan ranks much like we use mat hours for gueppies. If this were something to consider, I toss out the following for further consideration.
> 
> My students train under the following requirements.
> 
> ...


Your still missing the point. NO TIME just skill however long or short it takes.

Why is that not the essense? 

Individual Merit is all that counts that's freaking you'll out.


----------



## glad2bhere (Nov 4, 2004)

".......Your still missing the point. NO TIME just skill however long or short it takes.

Why is that not the essense? 

Individual Merit is all that counts that's freaking you'll out......." 

Actually, time IS the point. We are participating in the practice and promotion of an art. The definition of an art ("the ability to make something or follow a plan") is based on accumulated skill rather than simply demonstrating a body of knowledge. In this way an artist demonstates not that they simply know how to do something (say, draw a face) but to do it at a distinct level of quality. The ability to do this, excepting prodigies, is commonly a function of how much time a person spends diligently polishing their skills. 

So, just exactly how does one maintain quality within the context of an art? If you don't want to use time in grade, and if certificates and rank can be falsified, and in a world where people have avowed that Hapkido can be whatever people say it is, how, exactly, does one maintain the integrity of the art? Thoughts? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## American HKD (Nov 4, 2004)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> ".......Your still missing the point. NO TIME just skill however long or short it takes.
> 
> Why is that not the essense?
> 
> ...


Simple the "human factor" everyones capabilities are different and can't be put into a box [time frame].

You and I both learn at varying levels, speeds, absorbtion rate. We maintain or forget what we learned that way as well. 

To judge one based on anything but the individual qualities is a mistake and very inhuman.

I've been teaching two guys one had a yellow belt for a year and trained 3 times a week consistantly [a very normal person by all accounts mind you]
but had trouble absorbing and easily forgot.

The 2nd guy took 3-4 months and came 1 or twice a week they were what they were and passed the test when they were each ready.

Time is meaningless.  

The end.


----------



## glad2bhere (Nov 4, 2004)

Then I think you need to explain how you can continue to participate in an activity based on a hierarchy. You yourself have a rank. Maybe you can explain to me what that means. 

Maybe you can explain to me how one maintains the integrity of the art with nothing more than a subjective evaluation of where a person is at any given time? 

If I were to begin to pull things together across a range of posts what I think I am hearing is something close to the following. 

Hapkido is whatever a person says it is though preferably that material should relate to Ji. 

There is no actual set criteria, and what criteria there is is constantly in flux. 

There is no amount of time over which one is expected to develope, nor a standard regarding what it is that they are suppose to know, nor an identified level of performance consistent across the range of practitioners. 

Excuse me, Stuart, but I think a person could be forgiven to wondering just what it is that you are advocating. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## American HKD (Nov 4, 2004)

Bruce now were getting somewhere!..........Then I think you need to explain how you can continue to participate in an activity based on a hierarchy. You yourself have a rank. Maybe you can explain to me what that means. 

*Its means I have a mind and can use it. Rank mean nothing in the end what rank did any MA founder have when they started thier own thing*
*Someone elses. Dont worry I'm not starting anything. *

Maybe you can explain to me how one maintains the integrity of the art with nothing more than a subjective evaluation of where a person is at any given time? 

*It's only up to the teacher has in the old days. 
*
If I were to begin to pull things together across a range of posts what I think I am hearing is something close to the following. 

Hapkido is whatever a person says it is though preferably that material should relate to Ji. 

*That's a little to ridig for me, but related to Ji and Choi of course*

There is no actual set criteria, and what criteria there is is constantly in flux. 

*Every thing must be flexable and bend to live*

There is no amount of time over which one is expected to develope, nor a standard regarding what it is that they are suppose to know, nor an identified level of performance consistent across the range of practitioners. 

*It's all on an individual basis using a core of techniques and principles in which an ivdividual can use to discover, explore, create.*

Excuse me, Stuart, but I think a person could be forgiven to wondering just what it is that you are advocating..........

*Nothing but being real!

*


----------



## glad2bhere (Nov 5, 2004)

Dear Stuart: 

I may be misunderstanding what you are suggesting or perhaps I am beginning to understand but am curious at how you are pulling things together. 

Remember that old adage about "there is no  "I"  in t--e--a--m?" I think you may be working to do just that. What I am reading is a strong argument for making what you are doing in Hapkido more oriented to the individual. As far as I can see there is nothing wrong with this. In fact it is a huge part of the Kwan approach in that the teacher develops each individual to the best of their potential within the context of the kwan. In return for this mentoring, the student responds with unqualified respect and support. Its a pretty basic system. 

Now, the trouble that I think you and I are having is that you ALSO subscribe to a hierarchical organization. Such organizations by definition require that the individual subvert or surrender part or all of their individual agenda to the  authority of the leader. (BTW: In a Kwan the individuals likewise surrender much of their individuality but this is more voluntary--- and in return they are cared-after by the teacher or mentor.) If I am hearing correctly, on one hand you want the organizational benefit of having a rank, a place in the organization, and a leader to make decisions coordinating among the various practitioners.  On the other hand you wish to eschew selective bits of the organizational policies and protocols which you find unacceptable or irritating. 
I think its this desire to "have it both ways" thats confusing me. If you like the Kwan approach I would recommend that you particiapte in Hapkido from this side of things.  If you like the organizational ("corporate") approach I would suggest you stay with that. I think you will confuse yourself (and others) trying to have it both ways.  Thoughts? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## American HKD (Nov 5, 2004)

Bruce wrote..........

Dear Stuart: 

I may be misunderstanding what you are suggesting or perhaps I am beginning to understand but am curious at how you are pulling things together. 

Remember that old adage about "there is no "I" in t--e--a--m?" I think you may be working to do just that. What I am reading is a strong argument for making what you are doing in Hapkido more oriented to the individual. As far as I can see there is nothing wrong with this. In fact it is a huge part of the Kwan approach in that the teacher develops each individual to the best of their potential within the context of the kwan. In return for this mentoring, the student responds with unqualified respect and support. Its a pretty basic system. 

*Yes that's right! Good
*
Now, the trouble that I think you and I are having is that you ALSO subscribe to a hierarchical organization. Such organizations by definition require that the individual subvert or surrender part or all of their individual agenda to the authority of the leader.

*Yes and the Organization doesn't alway have the individual needs in mind.  Only the Instructor can!*

 (BTW: In a Kwan the individuals likewise surrender much of their individuality but this is more voluntary--- and in return they are cared-after by the teacher or mentor.) If I am hearing correctly, on one hand you want the organizational benefit of having a rank, a place in the organization, and a leader to make decisions coordinating among the various practitioners. 

*Good so far.*

On the other hand you wish to eschew selective bits of the organizational policies and protocols which you find unacceptable or irritating. I think its this desire to "have it both ways" thats confusing me. If you like the Kwan approach I would recommend that you particiapte in Hapkido from this side of things. If you like the organizational ("corporate") approach I would suggest you stay with that. I think you will confuse yourself (and others) trying to have it both ways. Thoughts? ..............

*I think any teacher  wants the best for thier students good instruction and do whats best for the students indivdually (personal) and good recognition from peers (corporate).*

*Important point*
*The teacher should be the bottom line in all of this and the corporate should be a support to us not the other way around!*


----------



## glad2bhere (Nov 5, 2004)

American HKD said:
			
		

> *The teacher should be the bottom line in all of this and the corporate should be a support to us not the other way around!*




Very Nice! Then, actually, we are very much more in agreement than I probably realized from the start. I wholeheartedly support the kwan approach and have had problems with most people only because there was more than a little difficulty in keeping the typical membership organization distinct from the kwan. To my way of thinking the organization _"should"_ serve the interests of the kwan and its members. Unfortunately my experience is that most organizations lead a parasitic existence siphoning off resources without ever giving anything back. Organizations giving paper for the kwan is actually redundant, since, as you point out it is the teacher and not the organization who knows the student best. From the way that you describe it, this all makes perfect sense to me the way I understand Korean traditions coming together.  

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## American HKD (Nov 5, 2004)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Very Nice! Then, actually, we are very much more in agreement than I probably realized from the start. I wholeheartedly support the kwan approach and have had problems with most people only because there was more than a little difficulty in keeping the typical membership organization distinct from the kwan. To my way of thinking the organization _"should"_ serve the interests of the kwan and its members. Unfortunately my experience is that most organizations lead a parasitic existence siphoning off resources without ever giving anything back. Organizations giving paper for the kwan is actually redundant, since, as you point out it is the teacher and not the organization who knows the student best. From the way that you describe it, this all makes perfect sense to me the way I understand Korean traditions coming together.
> 
> Best Wishes,
> 
> Bruce


Bruce,

That's it.

Government always thinks it's superior to the people who support it and that's totally backwards.

I would totally support people or an Organization who understands this.
That's what missing with the KHF as we all just expirienced.

Ji doesn't seem to bother with all this at all. He's for the individual growth of the Instructor and could care less about any corporate. Its really hard for the other leaders to deal with this because he doesn't try to control us and has no Organization to set controls. 

In fact he's very encouraging about doing your own thing and Sin Moo is the Core system.

HE GETS IT!


----------

