# What should a TKD Black Belt know?  What should a TKD Black Belt learn?



## skribs (Apr 23, 2019)

I know every school is different, and some schools have a higher standard of requirements for black belt than others.  I also understand that this can be a highly subjective issue, depending on how you see a black belt (whether their basics are perfect or they just have a firm foundation), and on your own personal bias of the black belts at your school or how you think you were when you got your black belt.

With that said, let's go into this thread understanding that it's an opinion thread, and arguing about opinions is like arguing over whether cheese tastes green or blue.  (It's blue, by the way).  If one person  has a higher standard than you or your school, it doesn't mean they're a snob, and if someone else has a lower standard it doesn't mean they have a McDojang.  So let's try to keep this thread about "my school is X" and not "your school is Y and that's why my school is better".

So onto the question:  what is it you think a black belt should know in Taekwondo?  I'm specifically looking at a KKW/WT school, although I understand that won't cover all TKD schools.  Your post can be as granular as you want it to be, but please avoid generalizing to the point of not saying anything (i.e. "a black belt should know the techniques and learn how to apply them"), unless that generalization is your TL;DR and you go more in-depth than that.

Some more specific questions that I have:

What WT sparring concepts should a black belt know already, vs. learn as a black belt.  For example, are there styles of footwork, concepts such as distance, clinch, or headshots, which you would expect to teach more at black belt, or which a black belt should already know?  Do you think it doesn't matter which ones they know or which ones they learn, as long as some are covered already and some are going to be covered soon?  *In other words, *should a black belt already have a full idea of what black belt sparring will be like, and simply improve it, or since there's new stuff (like headshots) should they learn that when they get there.  


Are there kicks that aren't necessary to know by black belt that you would expect a black belt to learn?  Or any kick not learned by black belt, is it an extra kick that's not necessary?  I'm thinking of kicks that are more difficult and less common, with either niche or no practical application, such as 540 kicks, twist kicks, and high flying jump kicks.


Things that are less associated with Taekwondo, like punches, grabs, and sweeps.  Should these be learned at colored belts, or at black belt?  Should they be an elective piece that you do every once in a while, or part of the core curriculum?  Are they even necessary in Taekwondo, or should you expect fighters to cross-train into another art (i.e. boxing or Judo) to learn them?  


How much of an idea on how to teach should a fresh Black Belt have?  Should they know their role as an assistant, or should that be something they start learning at Black Belt?  Should they be capable of mentoring a single student on improving techniques, running a small group through forms or drills, leading a whole class through stretches and warm-ups, and/or be able to lead an entire class by themselves?


How much of an idea on practical application of self defense should a Taekwondoist have as a fresh black belt, vs. what they learn at black belt?  In this case, do they have all the pieces and can now put them together?  Have they been putting them together the whole time?  Or are there still new pieces to add to the puzzle, such as new scenarios, techniques, and combinations that weren't covered before?


How precise should a fresh black belt's forms be?  Should they be an exact replica of the form, in every individual movement, or is it okay to have a little bit of rawness in the technique?  (For example, punches that show the full reach of the punch instead of the properly squared front stance, kicks that may not be quite as pretty but you can see the power in them, footwork that is a little bit more aggressive but not quite as graceful).  

These are just some of the things I was thinking of.  I'm looking several years down the road, when I might be in charge of my own school, and I'll probably do this several times again before I get there.  (This way, I've thought about it, grown, thought about it again, grown some more, and so on, before I am in charge).  On the one hand, I would want black belts to know everything, but on the other I know its impossible to know everything about martial arts unless it takes 50 years to get your black belt.  (So good luck those starting in their 30s and 40s).  And even then there's going to be gaps.

What do you think?  What are the things a black belt should know, and what are the things you would expect them to learn?


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 23, 2019)

You should know...Why TKD will get you killed.


Sorry couldn't resist....I will put myself in timeout.


----------



## skribs (Apr 23, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> You should know...Why TKD will get you killed.
> 
> 
> Sorry couldn't resist....I will put myself in timeout.



Might be funny if I got it.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> Might be funny if I got it.



Sorry....we had a former poster who made some really bad videos entitled "why (insert martial art style) will get you killed"


----------



## JR 137 (Apr 23, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Sorry....we had a former poster who made some really bad videos entitled "why (insert martial art style) will get you killed"


I miss Isiah90 or whatever his number was. 

Remember the guy dodging nerf gun bullets? That’s who CB’s talking about.


----------



## dvcochran (Apr 23, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> You should know...Why TKD will get you killed.
> 
> 
> Sorry couldn't resist....I will put myself in timeout.


Yes, but that is true of every style.


----------



## skribs (Apr 23, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> I miss Isiah90 or whatever his number was.
> 
> Remember the guy dodging nerf gun bullets? That’s who CB’s talking about.



I didn't take any videos of that, how did you know I did that?

And we weren't dodging.  We were parrying.  With lightsabers.


----------



## skribs (Apr 23, 2019)

Congratulations, @CB Jones , this is the fastest I've ever seen a thread go off-topic.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 24, 2019)

skribs said:


> Congratulations, @CB Jones , this is the fastest I've ever seen a thread go off-topic.



I apologize.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 24, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Yes, but that is true of every style.


Which is why we all need to study. To forget all our styles, so we don't get hurt or killed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 24, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> I apologize.


For what? We should have a trophy for that on MT, man!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 24, 2019)

Back to the topic, I'll pitch in as an outsider, because I love you guys hearing me talk. 

Given the basic structure of TKD, I'd say a BB should be an expert at the most basic kicks and a commensurate proportion of hand strikes. I'd vary the number of those based on whether BB is meant to be "strong foundation" or "highly advanced student". In either case, they should have some of the most basic stuff at a high level. That means the most useful, reliable stuff for sparring and/or self-defense (depending upon the focus of training).

They should have good control, and be able to control angle and distance against someone of similar level.

They should know the basic history of the art (unnecessary, but a personal preference for me, for any art), including the common mythology (so they can speak to it).

They should be competent at the full list of forms being used (since this is common practice in TKD), being able to do any of them up to their rank upon request, without advanced warning.

That covers what I know enough to say I'd require if I knew enough to require it.


----------



## skribs (Apr 24, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Back to the topic, I'll pitch in as an outsider, because I love you guys hearing me talk.
> 
> Given the basic structure of TKD, I'd say a BB should be an expert at the most basic kicks and a commensurate proportion of hand strikes. I'd vary the number of those based on whether BB is meant to be "strong foundation" or "highly advanced student". In either case, they should have some of the most basic stuff at a high level. That means the most useful, reliable stuff for sparring and/or self-defense (depending upon the focus of training).
> 
> ...



The reason I bring up the sparring tactics, is because the rules change at higher belts.  In the tournaments I've been to, colored belts up through blue belt (at any age) aren't allowed to kick to the head.  Red and brown belts over the age of (it varies between 12-16) can do headshots, and black belts (sometimes all ages, sometimes 10-12+) can do headshots.

So the question is, do you have someone preparing for headshots at green and blue belt, so they'll be ready at red or black?  Or do you have them start when it's appropriate in the rules, and just hope they don't do a tournament right after getting that belt and then being unprepared?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 24, 2019)

skribs said:


> The reason I bring up the sparring tactics, is because the rules change at higher belts.  In the tournaments I've been to, colored belts up through blue belt (at any age) aren't allowed to kick to the head.  Red and brown belts over the age of (it varies between 12-16) can do headshots, and black belts (sometimes all ages, sometimes 10-12+) can do headshots.
> 
> So the question is, do you have someone preparing for headshots at green and blue belt, so they'll be ready at red or black?  Or do you have them start when it's appropriate in the rules, and just hope they don't do a tournament right after getting that belt and then being unprepared?


I'd have them starting early (blue/green), so they're ready when it's needed. I'd consider that like testing material, and I'm not fond of testing material that's presented just in time to get ready for the test.


----------



## skribs (Apr 24, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I'd have them starting early (blue/green), so they're ready when it's needed. I'd consider that like testing material, and *I'm not fond of testing material that's presented just in time to get ready for the test.*



Can you elaborate on the bolded/underlined part?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 24, 2019)

skribs said:


> Can you elaborate on the bolded/underlined part?


Sure. I'll give an example of two things from my training. For green (3rd rank up), we tested 9 kick variations. Those were commonly taught about 4-8 weeks before you were ready to test. So, you were scrambling to pass the test, rather than focusing on learning to make the kick useful. After shodan (1st black), there was specific weapons material for nidan. This was typically presented when a shodan was seen as a nidan candidate (close to 3 years of teaching). None of that material was ever even seen before then, so you were left scrambling to figure out how to pass the test for nidan, working with folks who rarely got to use that material (since nobody every learned it before shodan).

The result: in both cases, most people just didn't use that stuff much after they passed the test.

I prefer material to be presented well before it's tested, so folks should at least see - if not experience - every technique and form at least one belt before it is tested. The exception would be material presented at the beginning of a very long belt period. It typically takes a year to get to each next belt with me, so someone getting the green-test material at the beginning of blue (colors are probably backwards of what you're used to) has a lot of time to experience it before testing. I generally like to have at least 3-4 months of no new testable material prior to a test.


----------



## skribs (Apr 24, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Sure. I'll give an example of two things from my training. For green (3rd rank up), we tested 9 kick variations. Those were commonly taught about 4-8 weeks before you were ready to test. So, you were scrambling to pass the test, rather than focusing on learning to make the kick useful. After shodan (1st black), there was specific weapons material for nidan. This was typically presented when a shodan was seen as a nidan candidate (close to 3 years of teaching). None of that material was ever even seen before then, so you were left scrambling to figure out how to pass the test for nidan, working with folks who rarely got to use that material (since nobody every learned it before shodan).
> 
> The result: in both cases, most people just didn't use that stuff much after they passed the test.
> 
> I prefer material to be presented well before it's tested, so folks should at least see - if not experience - every technique and form at least one belt before it is tested. The exception would be material presented at the beginning of a very long belt period. It typically takes a year to get to each next belt with me, so someone getting the green-test material at the beginning of blue (colors are probably backwards of what you're used to) has a lot of time to experience it before testing. I generally like to have at least 3-4 months of no new testable material prior to a test.



That's an interesting take.


----------



## skribs (Apr 24, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Sure. I'll give an example of two things from my training. For green (3rd rank up), we tested 9 kick variations. Those were commonly taught about 4-8 weeks before you were ready to test. So, you were scrambling to pass the test, rather than focusing on learning to make the kick useful. After shodan (1st black), there was specific weapons material for nidan. This was typically presented when a shodan was seen as a nidan candidate (close to 3 years of teaching). None of that material was ever even seen before then, so you were left scrambling to figure out how to pass the test for nidan, working with folks who rarely got to use that material (since nobody every learned it before shodan).
> 
> The result: in both cases, most people just didn't use that stuff much after they passed the test.
> 
> I prefer material to be presented well before it's tested, so folks should at least see - if not experience - every technique and form at least one belt before it is tested. The exception would be material presented at the beginning of a very long belt period. It typically takes a year to get to each next belt with me, so someone getting the green-test material at the beginning of blue (colors are probably backwards of what you're used to) has a lot of time to experience it before testing. I generally like to have at least 3-4 months of no new testable material prior to a test.



One thing we do at my school now, is we have different levels of expectations based on the belt level.  A white belt, we expect to know a punch means you shove your fist out, whereas a green belt should be learning to pivot the foot and hip, and a red belt should have a complete understanding of the punch.  We introduce spinning hook kick at green belt, and as long as they do a pirouette we're happy (I'm happy I just spelled it right).  At blue belt it should resemble a kick, and at red belt it should be a raw technique to the face, and at black belt it should be a crisp motion.

The first belts you learn something it's usually more of a vocabulary test than anything else.


----------



## wab25 (Apr 24, 2019)

You did say you were thinking about this stuff in preparation for running your own school. One thing you will need to decide is: will your school be a rank based school or a skill based school? The answer to that, will help you know what a black belt in your school should know.

*Rank Based School:*
This is a school where the focus is on attaining rank. There is a clear outline of what things are required for each rank. You memorize the things, spend your time in grade and go test. If you properly did the things, you get the rank. This leads to what Gerry was talking about: presenting material just in time to test. The reason is that the idea here is to minimize the time between tests, so that you can get the next one. Schools like this many times have large numbers of ranks, lots of stripes between ranks and even some have patches to earn as well. And of course, all these come with ever increasing testing fees.

*Skill Based School:*
This is a school where rank is secondary. Skill, ability, growth and understanding are key. You will still have a clear outline of what things are required for each rank. But, memorizing where flap your arms and legs and what direction to face, are not enough to pass the test. You need to develop those things, understand those things and be able to apply those things outside the box. Rank advancement takes longer here. Memorizing the things is only the first step... once you memorize the things, now the study begins. Rank is awarded based on what you understand about the things you are studying. As your rank increases, your understanding of what your were doing as a white belt should grow. These schools usually have few ranks... as it is the understanding and growth that are valued, not the memorization of the pattern.

If you are going to run a Rank Based School. Just publish the rank requirements for each rank, stripe and patch. Teach them the things, test to make sure they can do the things and then advance them. In this school, a black belt should have learned all the things on the list. (you will have to also answer the question about whether ranks are cumulative, they do all the things from all the ranks before or whether they just do their thing... this means that after black belt, to become an instructor you would have to relearn all the things again)

If you are going to run a Skill Based School, you will need to define what level of understanding each rank should have of what they are doing. This is more subjective. What are the concepts the each rank introduces? How do you know that the student has the satisfactory understanding of those concepts? In these schools, the students generally practice all the things, even the white belt things. But, you can look at the higher level students and see that they have a greater understanding of the things, not just that they are sharper, faster and snappier. No one in these schools are worried about minimum time in grade requirements... because it takes a while to progress in your understanding of what you are doing. A black belt here would have a very good understanding of most of the principles and ideas taught and should be able to adapt them to new and different situations.


----------



## skribs (Apr 24, 2019)

@wab25  My thought is to try and combine the two.  Taekwondo is very rank-based in its progression.  In fact, the mandated requirements for black belt are 8 specific forms, everything else is up to the individual school's owner (to my knowledge, anyway).  

Ideally, I want to do something in between, where some stuff is rank-specific, and other stuff is skill-based, or at least has a transition from rank-based to skill based.  For example:

Blue belt learns a new technique.  This technique follows the rank-based model, where as long as the blue belt flaps their arms the right way, they get the red belt.
Red belt gains a better understanding of the technique, and must be able to properly apply the technique in a controlled setting.  (i.e. against passive resistance)
Black belt gains even more understanding, and must be able to apply the technique in a different setting (i.e. a different setup, against active resistance, or in sparring)
Trying to figure out how to balance those out is a good time waster for me whenever I do have spare time.  At this point, it's purely academic/theoretical for me, because nobody is actually learning my "curriculum".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 24, 2019)

skribs said:


> That's an interesting take.


It's a philosophy I followed as a student (I'd hang out a while after getting all the material, then test, rather than testing as soon as possible), and fits what I think testing "should" be...which is purely my opinion, of course.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 24, 2019)

skribs said:


> One thing we do at my school now, is we have different levels of expectations based on the belt level.  A white belt, we expect to know a punch means you shove your fist out, whereas a green belt should be learning to pivot the foot and hip, and a red belt should have a complete understanding of the punch.  We introduce spinning hook kick at green belt, and as long as they do a pirouette we're happy (I'm happy I just spelled it right).  At blue belt it should resemble a kick, and at red belt it should be a raw technique to the face, and at black belt it should be a crisp motion.
> 
> The first belts you learn something it's usually more of a vocabulary test than anything else.


That progression works well. Essentially, you've introduced (and started testing) early. The real test comes later, as you expect each level to show more development of the technique. That's in line with what I was saying - I just might not test it formally the first time (though I do have some things I test early that way). Mainly, I don't like to see things just prepared for a test. I like to see the emphasis on the class and progression, and the test is just verification.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 24, 2019)

skribs said:


> @wab25  My thought is to try and combine the two.  Taekwondo is very rank-based in its progression.  In fact, the mandated requirements for black belt are 8 specific forms, everything else is up to the individual school's owner (to my knowledge, anyway).
> 
> Ideally, I want to do something in between, where some stuff is rank-specific, and other stuff is skill-based, or at least has a transition from rank-based to skill based.  For example:
> 
> ...


One thing I've done in my testing is add sparring at every level. The sparring requirements progress, which lets me see the progression of their skills. This goes along with the arm-flapping requirements (thanks @wab25 - I'll be using that for a long time!), which still exist, even with my approach. I really assess 3 things:

Technical progress (this is partly correct arm-flapping, partly actual understanding of the principles)
Fighting/defensive progress (this is mainly in the sparring and in simulation defense lines)
Personal progress (everyone has to progress every rank, even if they were good enough 2 ranks ago to pass this one)
A strength in one area can offset a weakness in another. "Just good enough" in all 3, isn't quite good enough. And yeah, that's very subjective.


----------



## skribs (Apr 24, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> One thing I've done in my testing is add sparring at every level. The sparring requirements progress, which lets me see the progression of their skills. This goes along with the arm-flapping requirements (thanks @wab25 - I'll be using that for a long time!), which still exist, even with my approach. I really assess 3 things:
> 
> Technical progress (this is partly correct arm-flapping, partly actual understanding of the principles)
> Fighting/defensive progress (this is mainly in the sparring and in simulation defense lines)
> ...



How do you handle the sparring requirements?


----------



## Buka (Apr 24, 2019)

In my opinion....
*

What should a TKD Black Belt know?*

How to fight and how to kick_._

*What should a TKD Black Belt learn? *

Everything else that they possibly can.


----------



## paitingman (Apr 24, 2019)

Belts should reflect a level of competency. 
If you get bogged down on curriculum-based belt progressions, students progress but get caught just learning new material (new forms, new techniques, new step sparring, whatever you can come up with).
White belts should learn the basic stances and kicks, and once they have shown proficiency, you give them a yellow belt and they started doing the same kicks as everyone else.
All train roundhouse and sidekick together, and all practice 360 roundhouse and back kick together. Everybody spars together. 
By the time you are brown belt or black belt, you have a great 360 or a great back kick. And you are comfortable sparring.

Every rank you learn a new form, new step sparring, but the punching/kicking and sparring training are the same as everyone else. 
While lower ranks are still training their kicks, upper ranks can delve into details of kicking and sparring or work on wrist lock and throwing techniques (other elements to fighting). 

Black belts should be able to show their knowledge of the material (forms, step sparring, etc.) and really just show a level of proficiency that reflects how they have been training these same kicks for the number of years they've put in. 
Your sparring should look like you've been sparring for years. lol. 
That's really all for us.


----------



## skribs (Apr 25, 2019)

paitingman said:


> Belts should reflect a level of competency.
> If you get bogged down on curriculum-based belt progressions, students progress but get caught just learning new material (new forms, new techniques, new step sparring, whatever you can come up with).
> White belts should learn the basic stances and kicks, and once they have shown proficiency, you give them a yellow belt and they started doing the same kicks as everyone else.
> All train roundhouse and sidekick together, and all practice 360 roundhouse and back kick together. Everybody spars together.
> ...



This can depend on the size of your school.  My old school, this is how we did things, because we had 1 class with about 20 people in it.  The school I'm at right now has somewhere in the range of 150-200 students, split into 10 different classes based on age and rank.  So our blue belts are only training with blue belts, our red belts only with red belts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 25, 2019)

skribs said:


> How do you handle the sparring requirements?


At a few weeks in (supposed to be 5-10 weeks in, but varies by need), there's a test I call "foundation". There's no belt for this test, I just won't progress to the formal NGA curriculum until they pass it. Part of this test is two 30-second rounds of "defensive sparring". That means no offense, just controlling space and angle by blocks, jamming, and footwork - the other person is in constant "attack" mode, but very light and technical.

For yellow, it's the other side of the same test. This should be about a year in, so they have plenty of time to get there. It's a test for being able to maintain pressure with reasonable attacks (rather than flailing aimlessly) and with lots of control.

From there, each rank (blue, green, purple, and brown) adds a level of difficulty. First it's full sparring, then we add grappling, then ground rounds. For black - if I ever get anyone there - it's 10 1-minute rounds of moderate MMA-style sparring (it can go to the ground).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 25, 2019)

skribs said:


> This can depend on the size of your school.  My old school, this is how we did things, because we had 1 class with about 20 people in it.  The school I'm at right now has somewhere in the range of 150-200 students, split into 10 different classes based on age and rank.  So our blue belts are only training with blue belts, our red belts only with red belts.


I'm not a fan of upper ranks never training with lower ranks (it robs the lower ranks of the experience), but it's good for upper ranks to have time together. That can be hard to do in smaller schools, and larger schools it gets hard to manage mixed classes.


----------



## wab25 (Apr 25, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> This goes along with the arm-flapping requirements (thanks @wab25 - I'll be using that for a long time!)


Well, if you are going to use it, get it right. It was arm *and leg* flapping requirements.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 25, 2019)

wab25 said:


> Well, if you are going to use it, get it right. It was arm *and leg* flapping requirements.


Yes, sir.


----------



## skribs (Apr 25, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not a fan of upper ranks never training with lower ranks (it robs the lower ranks of the experience), but it's good for upper ranks to have time together. That can be hard to do in smaller schools, and larger schools it gets hard to manage mixed classes.



The "Junior Black Belts" (Red 2-stripe, the belt right before black belts) and black belts assist with the classes, so there is a little bit of that going on.  And we do have make-up classes on the weekends which are a catch-all.  But we have way too many people to try and just randomly sort them into different classes.

The other side is that we start kids as young as 4.  Where most classes are by "kid" and "teen + adult", the white and yellow belts are further broken up into "little kid" and "big kid".  Those 4 & 5 year olds are often intimidated by the 10 & 12 year olds in the big kids class, or intimidated by all the higher belts when they first start.  The same thing happens when they move into purple belt, which is now 4-12 years old, and the 4 & 5 year olds are scared to join the class with the bigger kids.  (At that point, they just have to get over it).


----------



## Balrog (May 12, 2019)

skribs said:


> ...snip...
> 
> What do you think?  What are the things a black belt should know, and what are the things you would expect them to learn?


To me, a Black Belt indicates that the individual has learned the curriculum of the style and has performed it in a testing environment before higher ranks.  

I also equate earning 1st Degree to graduating from high school.  You have learned the basics, now it's time to go to college and do some serious studying.


----------



## skribs (May 12, 2019)

Balrog said:


> To me, a Black Belt indicates that the individual has learned the curriculum of the style and has performed it in a testing environment before higher ranks.
> 
> I also equate earning 1st Degree to graduating from high school.  You have learned the basics, now it's time to go to college and do some serious studying.



Does that mean there's no curriculum past your first dan test?
What do you study when you "go to college"?


----------



## dvcochran (May 12, 2019)

skribs said:


> The reason I bring up the sparring tactics, is because the rules change at higher belts.  In the tournaments I've been to, colored belts up through blue belt (at any age) aren't allowed to kick to the head.  Red and brown belts over the age of (it varies between 12-16) can do headshots, and black belts (sometimes all ages, sometimes 10-12+) can do headshots.
> 
> So the question is, do you have someone preparing for headshots at green and blue belt, so they'll be ready at red or black?  Or do you have them start when it's appropriate in the rules, and just hope they don't do a tournament right after getting that belt and then being unprepared?


Per your original question; a BB should be aware of the rules of sparring at every level if that is a requirement of their school/system. Beyond that, only the rules that apply specifically to them would be relevant. This would be very far down on my list of requirements.


----------



## CB Jones (May 12, 2019)

skribs said:


> Does that mean there's no curriculum past your first dan test?
> What do you study when you "go to college"?



Where my son trains....all the techniques are learned for 1st dan.  After first dan it is more about perfecting the use of the techniques and accomplishments in the art (teaching, competing, judging, reffing, years of dedication, etc...)


----------



## skribs (May 13, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Per your original question; a BB should be aware of the rules of sparring at every level if that is a requirement of their school/system. Beyond that, only the rules that apply specifically to them would be relevant. This would be very far down on my list of requirements.



You're looking at this one backwards.  It's not about knowing the things that came before.  It's about whether as a colored belt they should be practicing for their level, or for the changes ahead.


----------



## skribs (May 13, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Where my son trains....all the techniques are learned for 1st dan.  After first dan it is more about perfecting the use of the techniques and accomplishments in the art (teaching, competing, judging, reffing, years of dedication, etc...)



Are there new footwork and strategies introduced, or is it purely about improving what you already know?


----------



## CB Jones (May 13, 2019)

skribs said:


> Are there new footwork and strategies introduced, or is it purely about improving what you already know?



Basic footwork and strategy is learned with the techniques leading up to 1st dan.  After that the BB continues to figure out their own "individual style" regarding footwork and strategy.

Also, they are encouraged to take techniques and strategies from other schools or styles of karate that will work for them.

The org/lineage consists of 10 or 11 different schools so at the advance levels there are variations in strategies and individual styles.


----------



## dvcochran (May 13, 2019)

skribs said:


> You're looking at this one backwards.  It's not about knowing the things that came before.  It's about whether as a colored belt they should be practicing for their level, or for the changes ahead.


You have to ask that question? If your promotions are so easy someone can be working for the Next level, something is amiss. Most styles have techniques that "run over", a front kick for example; a TKD student will do this kick nearly every class they attend for as long as they practice, regardless of their rank. A person has to actively work on improving the kick for the same length of time. That is a very hard thing for some people to wrap their head around and they get disenfranchised with the practice and may end up quitting. This reality of repetition is one of the hardest things for an instructor to learn how to help students deal with.


----------



## dvcochran (May 13, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Basic footwork and strategy is learned with the techniques leading up to 1st dan.  After that the BB continues to figure out their own "individual style" regarding footwork and strategy.
> 
> Also, they are encouraged to take techniques and strategies from other schools or styles of karate that will work for them.
> 
> The org/lineage consists of 10 or 11 different schools so at the advance levels there are variations in strategies and individual styles.


I would say that is very unique. Have there been in rifts about "who method or technique" is correct?


----------



## CB Jones (May 13, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I would say that is very unique. Have there been in rifts about "who method or technique" is correct?



There are disagreements at times...but as long as it is effective it is accepted.


----------



## skribs (May 13, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> You have to ask that question? If your promotions are so easy someone can be working for the Next level, something is amiss. Most styles have techniques that "run over", a front kick for example; a TKD student will do this kick nearly every class they attend for as long as they practice, regardless of their rank. A person has to actively work on improving the kick for the same length of time. That is a very hard thing for some people to wrap their head around and they get disenfranchised with the practice and may end up quitting. This reality of repetition is one of the hardest things for an instructor to learn how to help students deal with.



Once again, you misunderstand.  The rules literally change at black belt.

Colored belt - can punch or kick to body.  Cannot punch or kick to head.
Black belt - can punch to body, can kick to body or head.  Cannot punch to head.

The question in this case is should a colored belt start training for the strategies that will be used in black belt competition, or should they focus on their level.  In the scenario you get your black belt in June and there is a tournament in July, do you:

Put your red belt back on, because you haven't been training to set up or defend against headshots.
Have been training to set up and defend against headshots since red belt, because you were training ahead.
Go to the tournament, having only spent a month training to set up and defend against headshots, because you only train at your level and you will fight at your level.
Not compete at all, and wait until next July, because you haven't been training headshots and aren't ready to compete.
As to what people can or can't prepare for by testing, that's ignoring:

Mixed classes, where lower level students try higher things
Progression of the technique as it appears in the curriculum (i.e. our green belts get an introduction to the spinning hook kick, blue belts are expected to make it look like a kick, and red belts are expected to be proficient in it)
Different learning speeds and time-in-grade requirements
We have some students that take 8 months or more to get through the material required for one test.  By the time I got my green belt I knew 95% of what I'd need for my black belt, from watching the other classes.  We have some students that take years to understand how to do basic kicks.  I landed a 540 roundhouse on my 3rd try as an orange belt, and we have a girl who was doing head level double-back-kicks within seconds of me showing her how to do them.

People learn at different rates, and just because someone is capable of looking ahead, doesn't mean the curriculum is bad.


----------



## skribs (May 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> It's a philosophy I followed as a student (I'd hang out a while after getting all the material, then test, rather than testing as soon as possible), and fits what I think testing "should" be...which is purely my opinion, of course.



It depends on how important rank is to you.  To me, it's more political than anything else at this point.  My rank in Hapkido, on the other hand, I feel differently about.


----------



## dvcochran (May 14, 2019)

skribs said:


> Once again, you misunderstand.  The rules literally change at black belt.
> 
> Colored belt - can punch or kick to body.  Cannot punch or kick to head.
> Black belt - can punch to body, can kick to body or head.  Cannot punch to head.
> ...


Is this a hypotheical or do you only attend one tournament a year? Any exposure is better than none so if that is your school's MO, they should enter the tournament. The way you frame the question, a person should compete only when they have a good chance of winning. There is no other way to get tourney experience other than going to tournaments.


To try and wrangle in the line of questions for this thread:

What is the average time for one of your students to get to BB?
What forms are required?
What kicks and technique  are required?
What one/two/three-steps are required?
How many times and who do they spar?
How is sparring measured?
How/what breaking is required?
How long is an average BB testing?
No long answers necessary. Just your Dojangs requirements for each bullet.


----------



## skribs (May 14, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Is this a hypotheical or do you only attend one tournament a year? Any exposure is better than none so if that is your school's MO, they should enter the tournament. The way you frame the question, a person should compete only when they have a good chance of winning. There is no other way to get tourney experience other than going to tournaments.



Ok, let's take white belts and throw them in the black belt division.  After all, if they should compete regardless of chance of victory, that's the best way to do it, right?

It's not about a good chance of winning, but a fair one.  Someone who hasn't practiced the techniques, strategies, and defenses for what's allowed in the rules isn't going to do very well.



> To try and wrangle in the line of questions for this thread:
> 
> What is the average time for one of your students to get to BB?
> What forms are required?
> ...



Maybe you should re-read the first post and remind yourself why I made this thread in the first place.


----------



## CB Jones (May 14, 2019)

skribs said:


> The rules literally change at black belt.
> 
> Colored belt - can punch or kick to body. Cannot punch or kick to head.
> Black belt - can punch to body, can kick to body or head. Cannot punch to head.
> ...



So yall dont train to throw headshots or defend headshots until Black Belt?

Do yall mostly train for competition?

At my son's school, they train to fight and then for competition then apply those techniques according to the competition rules.  So you learn all the techniques and basic strategy before blackbelt.  As a blackbelt you are refining those techniques and figuring out different strategies to utilize them.


----------



## skribs (May 14, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> So yall dont train to throw headshots or defend headshots until Black Belt?
> 
> Do yall mostly train for competition?
> 
> At my son's school, they train to fight and then for competition then apply those techniques according to the competition rules.  So you learn all the techniques and basic strategy before blackbelt.  As a blackbelt you are refining those techniques and figuring out different strategies to utilize them.



We do train for the competition rules, but we don't go to competitions that often.  We probably average one per year.

We train to keep our hands up, and we train punch defenses to the head, but in our defense practice we don't generally train for kicks to the head (because most people on the street aren't going to try to kick you in the head).  As for sparring, we don't want kids to practice for sparring rules they aren't allowed to use, and then have to NOT use their techniques when they get to the competition.

Keep in mind the majority of our blue and red belts are between 6-10 years old.


----------



## dvcochran (May 14, 2019)

skribs said:


> Ok, let's take white belts and throw them in the black belt division.  After all, if they should compete regardless of chance of victory, that's the best way to do it, right?
> 
> It's not about a good chance of winning, but a fair one.  Someone who hasn't practiced the techniques, strategies, and defenses for what's allowed in the rules isn't going to do very well.
> 
> ...


Your white belt analogy is unequivocally a kneejerk response. No where was the conversation about a white belt. It was a high red just months from testing for BB. I certainly hope there is quite a lot of difference between the two at you school. Your reasoning leaves me wondering.


----------



## skribs (May 14, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Your white belt analogy is unequivocally a kneejerk response. No where was the conversation about a white belt. It was a high red just months from testing for BB. I certainly hope there is quite a lot of difference between the two at you school. Your reasoning leaves me wondering.



First off, we weren't talking about that.  We were talking about a fresh black belt competing, not a high red.  The discussion of high red is whether they should be learning the techniques and tactics they will use as red belts in competition, or as black belts.  You made it sound like it doesn't matter, *that even if they've only been training the tactics for a month*, they should go compete, because that's how you get experience.  You made it sound like I don't want actual competition, but only want to spar when we are likely to win.

My white belt analogy is right on point.  Someone who has only been training the style for a month, should not be against experienced fighters.  Furthermore, you recognize that it was an analogy, which means you understood exactly what I meant.  Yes, I know we're not talking about white belts.  However, we are talking about a relatively similar level of experience with the rules and regulations, as the game changes significantly once you allow head kicks.

Which circles back to the options previously available:

Compete a step down
Train for black belt division ahead of time
Compete at the black belt division despite your lack of experience
Wait to compete until you've trained at your level for an appropriate amount of time


----------



## dvcochran (May 14, 2019)

skribs said:


> First off, we weren't talking about that.  We were talking about a fresh black belt competing, not a high red.  The discussion of high red is whether they should be learning the techniques and tactics they will use as red belts in competition, or as black belts.  You made it sound like it doesn't matter, *that even if they've only been training the tactics for a month*, they should go compete, because that's how you get experience.  You made it sound like I don't want actual competition, but only want to spar when we are likely to win.
> 
> My white belt analogy is right on point.  Someone who has only been training the style for a month, should not be against experienced fighters.  Furthermore, you recognize that it was an analogy, which means you understood exactly what I meant.  Yes, I know we're not talking about white belts.  However, we are talking about a relatively similar level of experience with the rules and regulations, as the game changes significantly once you allow head kicks.
> 
> ...


You did not answer my question as to how many tournaments do you go to in a year? 
At what level would you be competing? It is just one tournament. If the student goes in with the right mindset, largely by virtue of their instructor, a loss in this situation should not be an earth shattering issue. 
Number 1: This would be an egregious copout unless there was no one in their division to spar and the lower level competitors agree to it. And they should have a heavy advantage so would not the pendulum be swinging the other way?
Number 2: We kick to the head from day one. You do train TKD right? If they have known about this tournament for some time and planned to compete and they knew it was going to be significantly different then yes they should have already been training for it. 
Number 3: Yes
Number 4: Why wait? Do you cut off a finger for every loss?


----------



## paitingman (May 14, 2019)

skribs said:


> Once again, you misunderstand.  The rules literally change at black belt.
> 
> Colored belt - can punch or kick to body.  Cannot punch or kick to head.
> Black belt - can punch to body, can kick to body or head.  Cannot punch to head.
> ...


We would always train with head kicks with those who were ready to somewhere in the beginning ranks. 
I don't remember what rank I was but once I wasn't a beginner people started kicking me in the head and I started trying to do it back. 

We all trained with control contact with one another; sometimes we had full contact under supervision just depending on the tempo of the day. 

As far as competition,
I remember rules would differ quite a bit given the tournament and who's hosting. They would kind of decide details like headshot rules for certain ages depending on the pool of athletes that day and the overall vibe amongst the Kwangjangnims for this event. 
So if you were color belt and they decided no headshots at all, it might be disappointing, but you fought hard anyway.


----------



## skribs (May 14, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> You did not answer my question as to how many tournaments do you go to in a year?
> At what level would you be competing? It is just one tournament. If the student goes in with the right mindset, largely by virtue of their instructor, a loss in this situation should not be an earth shattering issue.
> Number 1: This would be an egregious copout unless there was no one in their division to spar and the lower level competitors agree to it. And they should have a heavy advantage so would not the pendulum be swinging the other way?
> Number 2: We kick to the head from day one. You do train TKD right? If they have known about this tournament for some time and planned to compete and they knew it was going to be significantly different then yes they should have already been training for it.
> ...




It's probably only a few months of training.  It's not like they're going down to the white belt division.
That would be against the rules at the lower belt levels.
.
No, but repeated kicks to the head are not a good thing for the human body.


----------



## JR 137 (May 18, 2019)

Reading through the entire thread, it seems you’re asking about competition rather than curriculum. About should someone learn stuff beyond their rank simply so they can compete at a certain level on a certain day. 

The answer is yes. And no. It depends on the individual and shouldn’t be a blanket policy.

Our organization holds a closed tournament every year. Only Seido students compete in it. The rules are pretty good regarding what’s allowed and what isn’t. In kata, students are only allowed to perform kata within their rank, as recognized by the syllabus. The only exception is a student may perform a kata one rank lower if they’ve just promoted. I competed in a tournament 3 years ago in a pool of 24 people at my rank. 3 or 4 did a lower rank kata, and it was obvious they just promoted because their belts were still creased (that fold you can see on the ends that hang down).

Not that we’re really discussing kata, but it kind of ties in - my teacher has taught some students a kata above their current rank because they were going to compete a few weeks after they promoted. Simply put, they had their material down for their current rank and it wouldn’t hinder them to learn the material before they were technically supposed to. Others weren’t taught a new kata early and competed using the kata they knew. It all depends on the student. 

When it comes to sparring and rule changes, it should be the same thing - teach those that are ready to go beyond their rank, and don’t teach those that aren’t. It shouldn’t be a blanket policy. 

Something else I can’t get past here...
You’re only competing once a year? Why is what comes down to a few students at most once a year an issue? Teach whoever is ready and willing and be done with it. 

If the question is should you start teaching every student stuff above their rank so they’re ready for the next rank (not a competition thing), the answer is an easy no. Their current rank is supposed to be doing that already. If you’re consistently teaching people things above their current rank, then curriculum is too easy and needs to change. Or you’re too impatient as a teacher and getting too bored with repetition. Of course there might be a few who can move faster through things, but they’re the exception and not the norm.


----------



## Balrog (May 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> Does that mean there's no curriculum past your first dan test?
> What do you study when you "go to college"?


I can't speak for other organizations.  ATA has a curriculum up through 8th Degree Black Belt.


----------



## skribs (May 19, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Reading through the entire thread, it seems you’re asking about competition rather than curriculum. About should someone learn stuff beyond their rank simply so they can compete at a certain level on a certain day.
> 
> The answer is yes. And no. It depends on the individual and shouldn’t be a blanket policy.



It's kind of both.  The rules of the competition depend on where you are in the curriculum.  Maybe I should make another thread that ignores competition, since we've focused on that heavily in this thread.

Even if you break from it, having a blanket policy is a good thing.

It gives lower level instructors a template to follow when leading class (for example, do drills appropriate to this belt level)
It gives higher level instructors an expectation for what exercises the large group can handle together

My experience is in a school with around 150-200 active students, with individual classes for each belt level.  Classes have about 15-25 students per class.  It's very safe to assume that:

The white and yellow belt class are learning the proper technique
The purple and orange belt class are learning basic footwork
The green belt class should have mastered the basics, and is learning more applicable footwork (i.e. slides and double kicks)
The blue belt class should have a handle on all of the above, and be ready to put it all together
The red belt class should be able to handle more complicated drills
Now, there are purple and orange belts who can do kicks at the blue and red belt level.  But I can't do that when I'm leading the purple and orange belt class, because for every kid that can do tornado kicks and jumping back kicks already, there's 5 more that barely understand the concept of a step-behind side kick or a back kick.  That's why a blanket standard exists.



> If the question is should you start teaching every student stuff above their rank so they’re ready for the next rank (not a competition thing), the answer is an easy no. Their current rank is supposed to be doing that already. If you’re consistently teaching people things above their current rank, then curriculum is too easy and needs to change. Or you’re too impatient as a teacher and getting too bored with repetition. Of course there might be a few who can move faster through things, but they’re the exception and not the norm.



This is actually the best answer I've gotten.  That I should train slightly up, because I'm training them to be that rank.  This really answers the question.


----------



## skribs (May 19, 2019)

Balrog said:


> I can't speak for other organizations.  ATA has a curriculum up through 8th Degree Black Belt.



So what is the difference between the pre-black-belt and post-black-belt curriculum?  You've given me a used-car-salesman version of the answer, but I'm curious about specific things that are different.


----------



## JR 137 (May 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> It's kind of both.  The rules of the competition depend on where you are in the curriculum.  Maybe I should make another thread that ignores competition, since we've focused on that heavily in this thread.
> 
> Even if you break from it, having a blanket policy is a good thing.
> 
> ...


I don’t know exactly what you mean by “train slightly up.”

Our belt order goes white-blue-yellow-green-brown-black. There’s a rank between each color, adding up to 10 kyu/colored belt ranks. White belts train as white belts. They don’t learn blue belt stuff because they’re not blue belts yet. They’ll learn blue belt stuff when they earn their blue belt. Even if they’ve learned the white belt stuff pretty quickly (which they typically do because our white belt syllabus is pretty short), they can always get better. Why start teaching blue belt stuff when a white belt has memorized their white belt stuff? Let them get good at the white belt stuff. Let them get bored with it a bit. Once they promote, then teach them blue belt stuff. It’s not about memorizing techniques and being able to look half way decent while doing them in line drills; it’s about them having a solid functional knowledge of them. 

My first green belt class was pretty interesting. I was the only one there that night, so my teacher taught me the entire syllabus for that rank that night. Two kata, 2 standardized solo drills, and one standardized partner drill. My previous experience made that possible. So I learned in one night everything I needed to learn in 6 months. Should he have started teaching me the next rank’s stuff a few weeks later? Of course not. Even if I was somehow able to test for the next rank and pass that test, what’s the point? My green belt material wasn’t as good as it would’ve been if I focused on it for 6 months.

Use each rank to learn and get good at that rank, rather than saying “that’s good enough, let’s move on.” If it’s good enough to move on to material for the next rank, then promote them to the next rank. If everyone’s good enough to promote to the next rank after a month, then something’s wrong. The syllabus, the standards, the teacher’s attention span, the students’ attention spans, etc. 

My previous organization was started by two people who left my current organization. The colored belt syllabus is about 90% identical (maybe more). Even though it was close to 15 years in between stints, I still somehow remembered practically everything. If I forgot something, seeing it once or being told once was enough to jog my memory. And I still started at white belt and tested for practically every rank. I double promoted twice. I tested a little early once or twice. But I wasn’t taught stuff above my rank. If I knew it already, they’d allow me to do it. But it wasn’t “that’s good enough, now let me teach you this.”

We learn the material for our current rank. If we know it well enough, we keep practicing it until it’s time to promote. If we don’t know it we’ll en, we keep practicing it until we do, then we promote. We don’t start learning stuff above our rank, simply because we can always improve the stuff for our current rank. 

The only time I’ve seen people taught something above their rank was last year when 2 people were going to compete in a tournament 3 weeks after their test. They knew their material well enough, so my teacher decided to make an exception.


----------



## skribs (May 19, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> I don’t know exactly what you mean by “train slightly up.”
> 
> Our belt order goes white-blue-yellow-green-brown-black. There’s a rank between each color, adding up to 10 kyu/colored belt ranks. White belts train as white belts. They don’t learn blue belt stuff because they’re not blue belts yet. They’ll learn blue belt stuff when they earn their blue belt. Even if they’ve learned the white belt stuff pretty quickly (which they typically do because our white belt syllabus is pretty short), they can always get better. Why start teaching blue belt stuff when a white belt has memorized their white belt stuff? Let them get good at the white belt stuff. Let them get bored with it a bit. Once they promote, then teach them blue belt stuff. It’s not about memorizing techniques and being able to look half way decent while doing them in line drills; it’s about them having a solid functional knowledge of them.
> 
> My first green belt class was pretty interesting. I was the only one there that night, so my teacher taught me the entire syllabus for that rank that night. Two kata, 2 standardized solo drills, and one standardized partner drill. My previous experience made that possible. So I learned in one night everything I needed to learn in 6 months. Should he have started teaching me the next rank’s stuff a few weeks later? Of course not. Even if I was somehow able to test for the next rank and pass that test, what’s the point? My green belt material wasn’t as good as it would’ve been if I focused on it for 6 months.



Let me simplify it down.  Something like:

A white belt should learn drills 1-5. 
A yellow belt should know drills 1-5, and learn drills 6-10.
A purple belt should know drills 1-10, and learn drills 11-14.
An orange belt should know drills 1-14, and learn drills 15-22.
A green belt should know drills 1-22, and learn drills 23-28.
You get the idea.  So drill 7 should be something that a purple belt knows, but that a yellow belt is learning.  A white belt shouldn't be expected to know it yet, and a green belt should really have it down.

So the question is, if we continue on and lets say drills 35-40 are for red belts, should those be aimed at red belt sparring or black belt sparring?  Since a black belt should know them, that's the time to introduce them.  (Or should those be saved for drills 41-47).



> Use each rank to learn and get good at that rank, rather than saying “that’s good enough, let’s move on.” If it’s good enough to move on to material for the next rank, then promote them to the next rank. If everyone’s good enough to promote to the next rank after a month, then something’s wrong. The syllabus, the standards, the teacher’s attention span, the students’ attention spans, etc.
> 
> My previous organization was started by two people who left my current organization. The colored belt syllabus is about 90% identical (maybe more). Even though it was close to 15 years in between stints, I still somehow remembered practically everything. If I forgot something, seeing it once or being told once was enough to jog my memory. And I still started at white belt and tested for practically every rank. I double promoted twice. I tested a little early once or twice. But I wasn’t taught stuff above my rank. If I knew it already, they’d allow me to do it. But it wasn’t “that’s good enough, now let me teach you this.”
> 
> ...



This is all good information, but I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion.  We're talking about what people should know before black belt or learn after black belt, as per the design of the curriculum.  Your assessment would come after that's been decided.


----------



## dvcochran (May 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> It's kind of both.  The rules of the competition depend on where you are in the curriculum.  Maybe I should make another thread that ignores competition, since we've focused on that heavily in this thread.
> 
> Even if you break from it, having a blanket policy is a good thing.
> 
> ...



A blanket standard does not exist. Your school may have it own standards but they in no way apply to another organization. It is misleading to make such a remark. I think this is part of @JR 137 's point. 
A student should only train up in very, very limited circumstances. Period.


----------



## skribs (May 19, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> A blanket standard does not exist. Your school may have it own standards but they in no way apply to another organization. It is misleading to make such a remark. I think this is part of @JR 137 's point.
> A student should only train up in very, very limited circumstances. Period.



I am talking about a blanket requirement for a school.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 20, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> A blanket standard does not exist. Your school may have it own standards but they in no way apply to another organization. It is misleading to make such a remark. I think this is part of @JR 137 's point.
> A student should only train up in very, very limited circumstances. Period.


I'm curious about this. Mainline NGA has a pretty standardized curriculum (plus whatever the individual instructor wants to add), so I'm familiar with the curriculum-per-level approach (in NGA, the core is 10 new techniques per level up to brown). But I have no issue with a student learning beyond that number. If a blue belt (white-yellow-blue-green-purple-brown), is in a class with a bunch of purple and brown belts, and I think they can handle the technique the others want to work on, I'll teach them the new technique. If this happens often enough as they move through the ranks, it's possible they'll have most of the brown belt curriculum (what it takes to get to brown) in advance. The parts of the curriculum outside the 50 Classical techniques are even more subject to being picked up early.

What do you see as the issue with a student getting some of their material in advance?


----------



## JR 137 (May 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I'm curious about this. Mainline NGA has a pretty standardized curriculum (plus whatever the individual instructor wants to add), so I'm familiar with the curriculum-per-level approach (in NGA, the core is 10 new techniques per level up to brown). But I have no issue with a student learning beyond that number. If a blue belt (white-yellow-blue-green-purple-brown), is in a class with a bunch of purple and brown belts, and I think they can handle the technique the others want to work on, I'll teach them the new technique. If this happens often enough as they move through the ranks, it's possible they'll have most of the brown belt curriculum (what it takes to get to brown) in advance. The parts of the curriculum outside the 50 Classical techniques are even more subject to being picked up early.
> 
> What do you see as the issue with a student getting some of their material in advance?


The issue I see with students getting some of their material in advance is they start practicing and doing that rather than what they should be working on and refining. 

Why should a student work on a jumping roundhouse kick when their regular roundhouse still needs work and they’re not required to know jumping roundhouse? Why start teaching standardized drill #5 when 1-4 are their requirement and they can still use work on those? Why teach a kata higher than their requirement?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 20, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> The issue I see with students getting some of their material in advance is they start practicing and doing that rather than what they should be working on and refining.
> 
> Why should a student work on a jumping roundhouse kick when their regular roundhouse still needs work and they’re not required to know jumping roundhouse? Why start teaching standardized drill #5 when 1-4 are their requirement and they can still use work on those? Why teach a kata higher than their requirement?


Okay, that makes sense where it’s progressive like the roundhouse and jumping roundhouse. NGA’s formal curriculum mostly isn’t progressive like that, so can be mixed more readily. 

As for the rest, I sometimes teach in advance for a couple of reasons. Sometimes it’s just convenient (the student can handle the new info, and I have someone who needs to learn it - put them together). Sometimes, it’s just to stave off boredom. My students get all the material for their rank over a few months, then spend months working that material before testing. Something new thrown in gives them a break.


----------



## Buka (May 20, 2019)

I teach basics first, just as I imagine everyone else does. But then I give them a ton of stuff next. More than they can possibly learn. I stay on them to always work their basics.

It seems to work for us. Since we do a lot of fight training, the more advanced guys throw stuff at them that the beginners don't do yet. All well controlled, gently. They catch on quickly, and it gives them a desire to want to both defend it and to do it. It's the old "do unto others' approach. 

American Karate isn't really taught in steps. To me, it would take too long.


----------



## dvcochran (May 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I'm curious about this. Mainline NGA has a pretty standardized curriculum (plus whatever the individual instructor wants to add), so I'm familiar with the curriculum-per-level approach (in NGA, the core is 10 new techniques per level up to brown). But I have no issue with a student learning beyond that number. If a blue belt (white-yellow-blue-green-purple-brown), is in a class with a bunch of purple and brown belts, and I think they can handle the technique the others want to work on, I'll teach them the new technique. If this happens often enough as they move through the ranks, it's possible they'll have most of the brown belt curriculum (what it takes to get to brown) in advance. The parts of the curriculum outside the 50 Classical techniques are even more subject to being picked up early.
> 
> What do you see as the issue with a student getting some of their material in advance?


Very little. Obviously, if the student isn't ready for additional material and an instructor still teaches it (like in your color belt scenario for example)it is easy to see how that would have a negative effect on the student. But if they are up to date on their required material, and have time until the next testing I see no problem with it. Especially when it is only one or two techniques. As time get condensed near their next testing many people would forget about the new material and concentrate on their next requirements. I know my pea-brain would.


----------



## JR 137 (May 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, that makes sense where it’s progressive like the roundhouse and jumping roundhouse. NGA’s formal curriculum mostly isn’t progressive like that, so can be mixed more readily.
> 
> As for the rest, I sometimes teach in advance for a couple of reasons. Sometimes it’s just convenient (the student can handle the new info, and I have someone who needs to learn it - put them together). Sometimes, it’s just to stave off boredom. My students get all the material for their rank over a few months, then spend months working that material before testing. Something new thrown in gives them a break.


I’m not saying never teach anyone anything above their current rank. It’s the mark of a good teacher to know who to teach what and when. There’s no absolutes. And especially with small groups.

If you’ve got a bunch of, say 2nd kyus, who are regulars and there’s a single 6th kyu who’s regularly there that night, it would make sense to teach him a few things so he can participate in some partner stuff with the rest of the group instead of always being off on his own and doing his own thing. That’s not an unreasonable thing when you’ve got a small student base and don’t have rank specific classes. But if you’ve got a student base of 100+ and you’ve got rank specific classes, then that’s not really a concern.

My thing when I started replying to the thread was it seemed like people were consistently learning stuff above their rank “so they’re ready for the next rank” (not a direct quote) or even black belt. Basically, so when they get to the new rank they’ve been doing some of the stuff already and aren’t on a day one basis for that rank. That makes zero sense to me. As a 1st kyu, why teach me 1st dan stuff? I’ll learn the 1st dan stuff when I’m actually a 1st dan. I’ll have plenty of time. Same for any and every other rank. And if the students are constantly breezing through the established syllabus for each rank and you’re teaching them some stuff for the next rank simply because they’re bored and you want to get ahead on the next rank’s material, then there’s something wrong. Like I said previously, either the curriculum isn’t deep enough, there’s too much time between promotions, the teacher’s standards are too low (what’s good enough for that teacher may be sub par for many others), or the teacher has ADD tendencies.

If you’ve got more than enough students to fill rank specific classes (even if they’re 2-3 ranks at a time), you don’t need to start teaching beyond the rank regularly. If the students have sufficiently demonstrated the syllabus for a rank and not going forward is holding them back, then promote them.

My 1st kyu katas are Saiha and Tensho. I knew both before I joined my current organization. And knew them quite well as I won a few tournaments with Saiha. My teacher’s not teaching me Seiunchin nor any other shodan kata. He wouldn’t if I asked and I wouldn’t want to if he offered. And I already know 2 of the 3 empty hand shodan kata from my previous school. I’m more than content to keep improving my Saiha and Tensho. I’ll work on Seiunchin and Gekisai Sho (the ones I already know) when I’m a shodan. It’s not a race. There’s no trophy nor any special recognition for getting to shodan nor any other rank faster. When I go into my shodan test, is knowing shodan kata going to help me? Nope. Knowing my 10th-1st kyu kata better sure will though. Same for other standardized stuff that I learned at my previous school that’s in my current school’s syllabus.

Maybe I’m looking at this the wrong way. Maybe I’m too much of a perfectionist. But I do know that getting better at the basics and kyu syllabus is going to make me a better shodan whenever that time comes. I’m not chasing rank nor eager to do stuff that looks cool. I’m chasing improvement, no matter how long that takes. I get better at the lowest rank stuff every time I do it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 21, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> My thing when I started replying to the thread was it seemed like people were consistently learning stuff above their rank “so they’re ready for the next rank” (not a direct quote) or even black belt. Basically, so when they get to the new rank they’ve been doing some of the stuff already and aren’t on a day one basis for that rank. That makes zero sense to me. As a 1st kyu, why teach me 1st dan stuff? I’ll learn the 1st dan stuff when I’m actually a 1st dan. I’ll have plenty of time. Same for any and every other rank. And if the students are constantly breezing through the established syllabus for each rank and you’re teaching them some stuff for the next rank simply because they’re bored and you want to get ahead on the next rank’s material, then there’s something wrong. Like I said previously, either the curriculum isn’t deep enough, there’s too much time between promotions, the teacher’s standards are too low (what’s good enough for that teacher may be sub par for many others), or the teacher has ADD tendencies.


Some of this might be a difference in how people look at the rank divisions. For instance, when I speak of "brown belt material", that's the stuff they have to know to be a brown belt, while you'd be talking about the material learned by a brown belt. I'm pretty sure that's not the distinction in question, but let's consider a middle point between those. Some folks might consider "brown belt" material to be stuff any brown belt should be aware of, so they'd start introducing it before brown, but not focusing on it until they pass the brown belt test. That way even a fresh brown belt isn't starting from square one on that material. This isn't my view, and doesn't appear to be yours, but doesn't seem unreasonable. If you did this at every rank, it would add a small amount of material before the first earned rank (yellow for me, something like chartreuse for you, as far as I can remember ), but would be no significant increase in material after that.


----------



## JR 137 (May 21, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Some of this might be a difference in how people look at the rank divisions. For instance, when I speak of "brown belt material", that's the stuff they have to know to be a brown belt, while you'd be talking about the material learned by a brown belt. I'm pretty sure that's not the distinction in question, but let's consider a middle point between those. Some folks might consider "brown belt" material to be stuff any brown belt should be aware of, so they'd start introducing it before brown, but not focusing on it until they pass the brown belt test. That way even a fresh brown belt isn't starting from square one on that material. This isn't my view, and doesn't appear to be yours, but doesn't seem unreasonable. If you did this at every rank, it would add a small amount of material before the first earned rank (yellow for me, something like chartreuse for you, as far as I can remember ), but would be no significant increase in material after that.


I look at “brown belt material” as the stuff they learn while wearing a brown belt. So the major stuff I need to learn as a brown belt (1st kyu) are Saiha and Tensho kata, kihon kumite #7 and yakusoku kumite #4. Along with some other stuff. And I’m responsible for improving everything for every previous rank.

What should a 1st kyu know for his first class as a 1st kyu? Everything from the 2nd-10th kyu syllabus. He’ll learn the 1st kyu requirements while he’s a 1st kyu. And chances are pretty good he’s seen 1st kyu stuff from being in class with 1st kyus. I’ve seen yudansha level kata enough to know which is which and the basic flow and movements of the various ones just by being in class with them and watching them doing their thing. When I learn them I won’t be completely oblivious to what’s going on, but it’s not like I’ve been informally them to get me ready for those ranks.


----------



## Balrog (May 21, 2019)

skribs said:


> So what is the difference between the pre-black-belt and post-black-belt curriculum?  You've given me a used-car-salesman version of the answer, but I'm curious about specific things that are different.


New techniques, new forms.  The Black Belt forms are much longer and more challenging than the colored belt forms.  The new techniques are more challenging as well, plus different applications of old techniques.

We also do more advanced weapons training.  Again, new forms for the weapons and more detailed application of the basics.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 21, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> I look at “brown belt material” as the stuff they learn while wearing a brown belt. So the major stuff I need to learn as a brown belt (1st kyu) are Saiha and Tensho kata, kihon kumite #7 and yakusoku kumite #4. Along with some other stuff. And I’m responsible for improving everything for every previous rank.
> 
> What should a 1st kyu know for his first class as a 1st kyu? Everything from the 2nd-10th kyu syllabus. He’ll learn the 1st kyu requirements while he’s a 1st kyu. And chances are pretty good he’s seen 1st kyu stuff from being in class with 1st kyus. I’ve seen yudansha level kata enough to know which is which and the basic flow and movements of the various ones just by being in class with them and watching them doing their thing. When I learn them I won’t be completely oblivious to what’s going on, but it’s not like I’ve been informally them to get me ready for those ranks.


My point was simply that it's arbitrary, however we draw that line. Testing material isn't the only measure of what a student "should know" at any given level, so if someone deems it appropriate that a brown belt should be familiar with (but not tested for competency on) some material they'll be tested on later, that's not that big a difference. I don't test stick work until green belt, but it would be unusual for one of my students not to start working that material sometime either late yellow or early blue (one or two ranks early).


----------



## JR 137 (May 21, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> My point was simply that it's arbitrary, however we draw that line. Testing material isn't the only measure of what a student "should know" at any given level, so if someone deems it appropriate that a brown belt should be familiar with (but not tested for competency on) some material they'll be tested on later, that's not that big a difference. I don't test stick work until green belt, but it would be unusual for one of my students not to start working that material sometime either late yellow or early blue (one or two ranks early).


I understand where you’re coming from and I’m sure we’re a lot closer to agreeing than we appear to be on paper (actually, this screen).

Your approach is teach them what you feel they’re ready for when they’re ready, and don’t teach to a test. I agree.

My approach would be “ instead of playing around with that stick that you don’t need to use until later on, put the stick down and get better at the stuff you’re required to learn.”

One example that sticks out in my mind...
One of my basketball guys was a 6’10 power forward. Big, strong, stereotypically not a guard. He wasn’t fast nor agile enough, and he didn’t have the outside range. He had great range for a post player, but not guard range. What did this guy do during unstructured stuff? Shot 3s. Nothing but 3s and shooting guard stuff. The coach was always all over him. “Why don’t you work on your jump hook? Why don’t you work on positioning for rebounds? Why don’t you work on free-throws? It’s not like those are so perfect where you should start adding more stuff to your game that you don’t even need.” If that guy actually listened and spent half as much time doing those things as he did trying to be Larry Bird, he’d still be playing after college. He had a European league workout with a bunch of coaches and scouts who quickly walked away and started watching other people who actually spent time refining what they were supposed to rather than what they liked to do. It became painfully obvious to everyone in the gym that he thought he was a shooting guard rather than a power forward. 

Practice what you need, not what you want. 

But again, we’re on the same page.


----------



## CB Jones (May 21, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> One example that sticks out in my mind...
> One of my basketball guys was a 6’10 power forward. Big, strong, stereotypically not a guard. He wasn’t fast nor agile enough, and he didn’t have the outside range. He had great range for a post player, but not guard range. What did this guy do during unstructured stuff? Shot 3s. Nothing but 3s and shooting guard stuff. The coach was always all over him. “Why don’t you work on your jump hook? Why don’t you work on positioning for rebounds? Why don’t you work on free-throws? It’s not like those are so perfect where you should start adding more stuff to your game that you don’t even need.” If that guy actually listened and spent half as much time doing those things as he did trying to be Larry Bird, he’d still be playing after college. He had a European league workout with a bunch of coaches and scouts who quickly walked away and started watching other people who actually spent time refining what they were supposed to rather than what they liked to do. It became painfully obvious to everyone in the gym that he thought he was a shooting guard rather than a power forward.



Sounds like he was ahead of the current trend since the pros have evolved to more stretch 4s and power forwards that can play shoot and pass from the outside....if only the coach would have helped him develop that aspect.....



Just messing with ya, JR.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 21, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> I understand where you’re coming from and I’m sure we’re a lot closer to agreeing than we appear to be on paper (actually, this screen).
> 
> Your approach is teach them what you feel they’re ready for when they’re ready, and don’t teach to a test. I agree.
> 
> My approach would be “ instead of playing around with that stick that you don’t need to use until later on, put the stick down and get better at the stuff you’re required to learn.”


Actually, this is where our biggest difference is. What they "need" isn't dictated by the test, in my mind. The test is just a point-in-time measurement to assure they're ready for the next level - so the rank indicated on their waist lets their training partners know what they can assume the person knows and can deal with. So, someone must know the stick work to get past green belt, but that's just the point by which it must be at a certain level. The learning starts way before that, and on purpose.

Here's where my argument comes from: in my progress in NGA, there were 9 kicks tested for green belt. Most of those weren't introduced until sometime late- to middle-blue (the rank right before green). That meant students scrambled to get those kicks ready for testing, but never had a chance to really settle into them. So they left most unused, and just brushed them up for the next test. By introducing those kicks much earlier than they are tested, the student has more opportunities to work on them and develop competence before they are first tested on them. Thus, their focus becomes using the kicks in some meaningful way, rather than trying to get past the test.



> One example that sticks out in my mind...
> One of my basketball guys was a 6’10 power forward. Big, strong, stereotypically not a guard. He wasn’t fast nor agile enough, and he didn’t have the outside range. He had great range for a post player, but not guard range. What did this guy do during unstructured stuff? Shot 3s. Nothing but 3s and shooting guard stuff. The coach was always all over him. “Why don’t you work on your jump hook? Why don’t you work on positioning for rebounds? Why don’t you work on free-throws? It’s not like those are so perfect where you should start adding more stuff to your game that you don’t even need.” If that guy actually listened and spent half as much time doing those things as he did trying to be Larry Bird, he’d still be playing after college. He had a European league workout with a bunch of coaches and scouts who quickly walked away and started watching other people who actually spent time refining what they were supposed to rather than what they liked to do. It became painfully obvious to everyone in the gym that he thought he was a shooting guard rather than a power forward.
> 
> Practice what you need, not what you want.


I don't think that's analogous. You're talking about someone practicing something outside their role. That would be like a BJJ guy spending free mat time at the heavy bag, when he's ostensibly preparing for BJJ competition. It doesn't suit the role he's training for.



> But again, we’re on the same page.


Mostly, we are. But I'm enjoying the discussion. I like trying to understand how other folks see things.


----------



## JR 137 (May 21, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Sounds like he was ahead of the current trend since the pros have evolved to more stretch 4s and power forwards that can play shoot and pass from the outside....if only the coach would have helped him develop that aspect.....
> 
> 
> 
> Just messing with ya, JR.


That’s fine and good if you’re built and can move like Kevin Garnett or Tim Duncan. Not so good if you’re built and move like Shaq.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 21, 2019)

I guess I tend to feel that a good instructor will be able to evaluate the student and can make a determination about when the student is ready for more material, and what that material may be, regardless of the color of belt he is wearing.

What I do find odd is the notion of teaching a student “this” or “that” in sort of a violation of the progression of material as a specific strategy for an advantageous position in some competitions that are coming up in the future.  

I am sure that my complete disconnection and disinterest in competition is why I find this as odd.  I just don’t see that as a purpose in training, but I also realize that is just me.


----------



## JR 137 (May 21, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> I guess I tend to feel that a good instructor will be able to evaluate the student and can make a determination about when the student is ready for more material, and what that material may be, regardless of the color of belt he is wearing.
> 
> What I do find odd is the notion of teaching a student “this” or “that” in sort of a violation of the progression of material as a specific strategy for an advantageous position in some competitions that are coming up in the future.
> 
> I am sure that my complete disconnection and disinterest in competition is why I find this as odd.  I just don’t see that as a purpose in training, but I also realize that is just me.


I see your side and agree. I also see the other side and agree that you should do a good job of preparing your students to compete if your school embraces competition. Give the student a chance to be competitive rather than throwing them into the fire.

There’s really no right or wrong. It all depends on the school’s goals/values/whatever you’d call it, and the individual student.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 21, 2019)

I will expect

1st degree black belt - know all the offense techniques.
2nd degree black belt - have good tournament fighting record.
3rd degree black belt - know all the defense (counters), and counters to counters (combos).


----------



## Flying Crane (May 21, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> I see your side and agree. I also see the other side and agree that you should do a good job of preparing your students to compete if your school embraces competition. Give the student a chance to be competitive rather than throwing them into the fire.
> 
> There’s really no right or wrong. It all depends on the school’s goals/values/whatever you’d call it, and the individual student.


Yeah, I guess the whole notion of strategic positioning for the sake of a competition is just very foreign to me in the context of learning a martial art.  It reflects the primary mindset of the school in placing a high priority on winning competitions under a specific rule set.  

It’s not my cup of tea, which i realize is my own issue and not theirs.  They can do whatever they want.  I do some something else.


----------



## Buka (May 21, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I'm curious about this. Mainline NGA has a pretty standardized curriculum (plus whatever the individual instructor wants to add), so I'm familiar with the curriculum-per-level approach (in NGA, the core is 10 new techniques per level up to brown). But I have no issue with a student learning beyond that number. If a blue belt (white-yellow-blue-green-purple-brown), is in a class with a bunch of purple and brown belts, and I think they can handle the technique the others want to work on, I'll teach them the new technique. If this happens often enough as they move through the ranks, it's possible they'll have most of the brown belt curriculum (what it takes to get to brown) in advance. The parts of the curriculum outside the 50 Classical techniques are even more subject to being picked up early.
> 
> What do you see as the issue with a student getting some of their material in advance?



Triggered an old memory I hadn't thought of for a long time. So....I first trained in Greek Goju Ryu. It was my first art and I loved it. But the guys who got me started in it stopped going as frequently, and I couldn't get there as much as I wanted to. (almost two hours public transportation) Left after a few months. Man, I was big time bummed.

Shortly afterwards I found a school in a nearby town to me and started going there. A couple years goes by, I'm a green belt now, and the fellas who started me at the other place stopped up to see me. I was working out with another guy and these fellas watched and commented to each other "brown belt technique, brown belt technique, black belt technique" (they were kind of shocked that a green belt would be doing something that they themselves had yet to learn)

They stopped by a week later with their gis and we did some friendly sparring. They were both brown belts. Remembering their comments, I only threw stuff they were not familiar with. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. That always stuck with me.

It's why I give the students a lot to choose from. If a student asks me "Can you show me how to throw a jump spinning back kick? I'll say sure, but first you have to learn a back kick and I'll teach him that, then you have to learn to take to the air and teach him that. And let me show you what can happen when you do that - and I'll throw one and have one of the black belts just rip me out of the air and crash me to the ground like a shot bird.

Just like there's some students who will never be athletic enough to throw that kick. No matter how long they train. But they'll learn how to counter or neutralize it. And they love that. Obviously that has nothing to do with self defense....except for a little bit. Teaches you to play the cards you're dealt, how to overcome certain physical things, teaches body movement, distance, timing etc etc.

And we never actually had a curriculum necessary for the advanced of rank. Sometimes white to yellow, but that was about it.


----------



## Buka (May 21, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> That’s fine and good if you’re built and can move like Kevin Garnett or Tim Duncan. Not so good if you’re built and move like Shaq.



That's the beauty of it, Garnett and Duncan are certainly built and move differently than Shaq - yet all three excelled to the very pinnacle of their game.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 21, 2019)

Buka said:


> Triggered an old memory I hadn't thought of for a long time. So....I first trained in Greek Goju Ryu. It was my first art and I loved it. But the guys who got me started in it stopped going as frequently, and I couldn't get there as much as I wanted to. (almost two hours public transportation) Left after a few months. Man, I was big time bummed.
> 
> Shortly afterwards I found a school in a nearby town to me and started going there. A couple years goes by, I'm a green belt now, and the fellas who started me at the other place stopped up to see me. I was working out with another guy and these fellas watched and commented to each other "brown belt technique, brown belt technique, black belt technique" (they were kind of shocked that a green belt would be doing something that they themselves had yet to learn)
> 
> ...


When I was working out how I wanted to teach, I seriously wanted to divorce rank from the curriculum points. But it's too deeply ingrained in me. When I try to imagine not doing it, I see myself just throwing things at the students willy-nilly, because I'm trying really hard not to do what my mind is used to. In the end, I succumbed and did what worked for me, though I still don't think it's the most efficient way to teach...it's just apparently the most efficient way I can teach. 

And students seem to like it as much as I did when I was going through the ranks, so I have to wonder if that whole exercise was just me wanting to change stuff without a good reason.


----------



## dvcochran (May 21, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> I understand where you’re coming from and I’m sure we’re a lot closer to agreeing than we appear to be on paper (actually, this screen).
> 
> Your approach is teach them what you feel they’re ready for when they’re ready, and don’t teach to a test. I agree.
> 
> ...


I wish I have a school full of students with your frame of mind. I would make teaching so much easier. Just stay with the curriculum and never deviate. 
I don't know any other way to say it other than it is balance and recognition from the teacher. The majority of people need something to break up the repetition every one in a while, that is the balance. I see some instructors do it more than others. I feel it is the instructors responsibility who, what, and when someone can learn something outside their required curriculum, that is the recognition. 
Some people just are not very teachable, like the kid shooting 3's in his spare time. When something is voluntary, like school sports or MA, it is hard to help some people understand they are hurting their own progress.


----------



## JR 137 (May 21, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I wish I have a school full of students with your frame of mind. I would make teaching so much easier. Just stay with the curriculum and never deviate.
> I don't know any other way to say it other than it is balance and recognition from the teacher. The majority of people need something to break up the repetition every one in a while, that is the balance. I see some instructors do it more than others. I feel it is the instructors responsibility who, what, and when someone can learn something outside their required curriculum, that is the recognition.
> Some people just are not very teachable, like the kid shooting 3's in his spare time. When something is voluntary, like school sports or MA, it is hard to help some people understand they are hurting their own progress.


Well, I’m going to be 43 soon enough, so that probably explains my getting it right before I move on mentality. And that I’ve been there, done that with chasing rank in my early 20s. I’ve seen the stuff that looked really cool before I learned it, then learned it and thought why did I think that was so cool after I had it down enough times to realize that it’s not that big a deal anymore. I’ve been through getting my black belt and realizing I’m still just JR no matter what color my belt is. 

In a nutshell, I’ve learned to enjoy the process far more than the outcome. The outcome is just a side effect in a sense. It’s about getting better and making the difficult stuff easier. Learning a new kata is fun and all, but I’ll learn it at the right time. The dojo’s not going anywhere any time soon and neither am I.


----------



## JR 137 (May 21, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, I guess the whole notion of strategic positioning for the sake of a competition is just very foreign to me in the context of learning a martial art.  It reflects the primary mindset of the school in placing a high priority on winning competitions under a specific rule set.
> 
> It’s not my cup of tea, which i realize is my own issue and not theirs.  They can do whatever they want.  I do some something else.


Sure it’s strategic positioning for some, but not all. And I wasn’t thinking strategic positioning; I was thinking merely give the student a chance for a little success when they compete, ie the first time they point fight shouldn’t be in a tournament.

I’ve never competed in something I’ve never done before nor have I competed in something I absolutely knew I had zero chance of being somewhat competitive. But other people have and do. And that’s fine if they’re ok with it. But if I’m teaching and I’ve got a student who wants to compete for the right reasons, I’m going to help him out. I’m going to help give him a chance at a little success. I think any rational teacher would under the right circumstances.


----------



## skribs (May 22, 2019)

Balrog said:


> New techniques, new forms.  The Black Belt forms are much longer and more challenging than the colored belt forms.  The new techniques are more challenging as well, plus different applications of old techniques.
> 
> We also do more advanced weapons training.  Again, new forms for the weapons and more detailed application of the basics.



This confuses me, because of what you wrote earlier in the thread:

"To me, a Black Belt indicates that the individual has learned the curriculum of the style and has performed it in a testing environment before higher ranks. 

I also equate earning 1st Degree to graduating from high school. You have learned the basics, now it's time to go to college and do some serious studying."

If you've learned the curriculum by black belt, then there isn't anything post-black belt.  Yet there's a curriculum up to 8th degree, and you learn new techniques.  You're making 0 sense in this thread.


----------



## Balrog (May 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> This confuses me, because of what you wrote earlier in the thread:
> 
> "To me, a Black Belt indicates that the individual has learned the curriculum of the style and has performed it in a testing environment before higher ranks.
> 
> ...


I should have said 1st Degree Black Belts should know the entire colored belt curriculum.  Then as you continue along the journey, there's always something new to learn.  Which is the way it should be, because once you stop learning, you start stagnating.


----------



## JR 137 (May 23, 2019)

Balrog said:


> I should have said 1st Degree Black Belts should know the entire colored belt curriculum.  Then as you continue along the journey, there's always something new to learn.  Which is the way it should be, because once you stop learning, you start stagnating.


And if the curriculum did end at 1st dan, that doesn’t mean you’re not learning anything. What’s in a boxer’s “curriculum” after the initial several months? They’re not learning forms. There’s only so many ways to throw a punch. There’s only so many ways to block and duck. 

Yet interestingly enough they’re still learning for years and years after they learned the “curriculum.”


----------



## Flying Crane (May 23, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> And if the curriculum did end at 1st dan, that doesn’t mean you’re not learning anything. What’s in a boxer’s “curriculum” after the initial several months? They’re not learning forms. There’s only so many ways to throw a punch. There’s only so many ways to block and duck.
> 
> Yet interestingly enough they’re still learning for years and years after they learned the “curriculum.”


Lots of mileage on a small curriculum.
Having trained in a couple of systems with very large curricula (@Buka your favorite word again) I am becoming more of a fan.


----------



## skribs (May 23, 2019)

Balrog said:


> I should have said 1st Degree Black Belts should know the entire colored belt curriculum.  Then as you continue along the journey, there's always something new to learn.  Which is the way it should be, because once you stop learning, you start stagnating.



The purpose of this thread is to find out what should be in the colored belt vs. black belt curriculum.

Saying that a black belt should know the colored belt curriculum, is like defining the word with the word.


----------



## dvcochran (May 23, 2019)

Balrog said:


> I should have said 1st Degree Black Belts should know the entire colored belt curriculum.  Then as you continue along the journey, there's always something new to learn.  Which is the way it should be, because once you stop learning, you start stagnating.


Love your tagline.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 24, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> And if the curriculum did end at 1st dan, that doesn’t mean you’re not learning anything. What’s in a boxer’s “curriculum” after the initial several months? They’re not learning forms. There’s only so many ways to throw a punch. There’s only so many ways to block and duck.
> 
> Yet interestingly enough they’re still learning for years and years after they learned the “curriculum.”


Agreed. My formal curriculum actually does end at BB (no dan rankings). The NGAA curriculum isn't much different (a small amount at 1st dan, nothing after that), and I never ran out of stuff to learn and work on.


----------



## skribs (May 24, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. My formal curriculum actually does end at BB (no dan rankings). The NGAA curriculum isn't much different (a small amount at 1st dan, nothing after that), and I never ran out of stuff to learn and work on.



Where do you get stuff to work on now?


----------



## Flying Crane (May 24, 2019)

skribs said:


> Where do you get stuff to work on now?


I can’t speak for Gerry, but there is plenty to work on without needing to learn something new and formalized as part of the curriculum.  It seems to me that someone who has reached any level of black belt ought to be very capable of taking what they know and getting creative with it, coming up with new ways to practice it in context that is different from the formalized part of the education and training, and even develop some things on their own, applications, drills, etc..  A person at this level ought to be able to take control of his own practice and training, and ought to be able to improve and progress even if he never learns another piece of the formal curriculum.

In my opinion, any “advanced” material that exists at higher black belt level should be kind of unnecessary.  If it exists, and if you have learned it, it is useful stuff.  But, if you haven’t learned it or it does not exist in your system, then you are not really missing anything.  

Once you reach black belt, in my opinion, you should be able to take control of your own training.  There should not be anything that you now “need” to learn.  Learning continues for a lifetime, but you should have received an education that gives you the tools to learn as you go and not necessary to be in a formal instruction environment.

It’s kind of like if you earned a degree in English Literature, you have the education to read and critically consider pretty much anything.  You don’t need to be in a classroom setting to appreciate the next thing you read.


----------



## CB Jones (May 24, 2019)

In my sons style...you learn all the techniques by 1st Dan.  After that, it is about striving to better understand and apply those techniques.


----------



## Buka (May 24, 2019)

^^ Same in American Karate as well.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 24, 2019)

skribs said:


> Where do you get stuff to work on now?


There are three main ways I figure out what I want to work on:

I look at what I know how to do and ask if it's really any good. Some of it I just need to improve on. Some of it, I need to explore and figure out if it's really useful, and I'll put real time into that. If it isn't directly applicable (can't really be expected to be used in a fight), I figure out if it's useful as a drill. If it doesn't fit either use, it needs work or it needs to go. 
Cross-training. A couple of years ago I spent time taking private lessons in FMA (actually, a blend of FMA and Jujitsu), and I continue to work on some of the fundamentals I picked up there, either for my own use, or to build parts into what I teach.
I look for interesting material in videos. I have enough grappling experience that I can take a video of all but the most technical grappling moves, and work out what the principles are that are involved. Then I can work on that.
But really, I don't spend most of my time working on material for me, these days. I'm mostly happy with what I know for my own use right now., so I just need stuff to tinker with. Most of my exploration and experimenting is to improve what I teach to others - and how I teach it. I'll probably hit a point sometime when I'll go back to focusing more on my own stuff. I suspect that'll come if I manage to get my body to hold together so I can get into a competition or two.


----------



## Buka (May 24, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> In my sons style...you learn all the techniques by 1st Dan.  After that, it is about striving to better understand and apply those techniques.



Fortunately it doesn't take long applying and understanding those techniques. Just a couple dozen dog leap years. Part time a little longer.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (May 24, 2019)

skribs said:


> Where do you get stuff to work on now?


My foundation in striking comes from boxing and Muay Thai. You can learn the official "curricula" of both arts in a few weeks. Then you can spend decades learning how to master that small catalog of techniques.

My grappling foundation comes from BJJ. In BJJ, there are always new techniques available to learn because the BJJ research laboratories are always coming up with new moves. You can pick those up from your training partners, from seminars, from instructional videos, from watching and analyzing innovative competitors, or from experimenting on your own. It's kind of fun learning new material that way, but I get the greatest satisfaction from learning how to improve some fundamental technique that I've been doing for 20 years. I learn how to do that from … my training partners, from seminars, from instructional videos, from watching and analyzing innovative competitors, or from experimenting on my own.


----------



## Balrog (May 27, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Yet interestingly enough they’re still learning for years and years after they learned the “curriculum.”


Of course.  Once you stop learning, you stagnate and die.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (May 29, 2019)

Learning the curriculum up to black belt is one thing.   Understanding how and when to use them is completely another.  The longer you do something, given that the practice is as close to perfect as we can get, the better you should be able to do it over time.   We've often joked about how interesting it would be if people showed up to a seminar without their belts.  Would the higher grades still be recognizable from the beginners and/or intermediates ?  If they aren't, then perhaps one needs to look at what and how things are being taught in their school.


----------



## skribs (May 29, 2019)

Yokozuna514 said:


> Learning the curriculum up to black belt is one thing.   Understanding how and when to use them is completely another.  The longer you do something, given that the practice is as close to perfect as we can get, the better you should be able to do it over time.   We've often joked about how interesting it would be if people showed up to a seminar without their belts.  Would the higher grades still be recognizable from the beginners and/or intermediates ?  If they aren't, then perhaps one needs to look at what and how things are being taught in their school.



In our sparring club we wear our Taekwondo pants, a "Sparring Club" t-shirt, and no belt.  Instructors wear their black belt over the t-shirt, but black belt students in the class do not.


----------



## Gwai Lo Dan (Jun 22, 2019)

Forums >  Korean Martial Arts Talk > Tae-Kwon-Do >
*What should a TKD Black Belt know?*

I am of the opinion that a BB should know what is useful for sport, useful for self defence, and what is just art. Too often I think BB's think that the arty parts are good for self defence.

Example....I always felt that the rear-leg hook kick (turning to the front) was not particularly useful, since it is slower AND less powerful than the turning kick.

I asked a professional MT / MMA fighter (and 4th dan in 4th dan ITF TKD) why he used a rear-leg hook kick in round 1 of a fight , when it seemed too slow/weak to be worth the effort compared to a turning kick.

He said something like, "Oh that's just showing off. I'm being paid to entertain the crowd.  I want to make people want to see me fight again."


----------



## skribs (Jun 23, 2019)

Gwai Lo Dan said:


> Forums >  Korean Martial Arts Talk > Tae-Kwon-Do >
> *What should a TKD Black Belt know?*
> 
> I am of the opinion that a BB should know what is useful for sport, useful for self defence, and what is just art. Too often I think BB's think that the arty parts are good for self defence.
> ...



I use it when people are expecting a roundhouse kick and put their guard on that side.


----------



## Gwai Lo Dan (Jun 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> I use it when people are expecting a roundhouse kick and put their guard on that side.


Yup...I was sparring as a colour belt (WTF TKD ruleset) against a 3rd dan and my first thought as the foot passed me was "what....he totally missed" then it came back down at about 45 degree angle. I learnt my lesson! Still, the kick IMO is more about _practice_ (or art) than _practical_.


----------



## dvcochran (Jun 23, 2019)

Gwai Lo Dan said:


> Yup...I was sparring as a colour belt (WTF TKD ruleset) against a 3rd dan and my first thought as the foot passed me was "what....he totally missed" then it came back down at about 45 degree angle. I learnt my lesson! Still, the kick IMO is more about _practice_ (or art) than _practical_.


I have to disagree with it being an "art" kick. In the ebb and flow of sparring where you are both moving together it has value. If you can catch your opponent stepping back into a closed stance relative to your position, coming forward with a rear leg hook kick is a decently high % kick. It should be to their ear from the back side of what becomes their front shoulder (you are kicking over their shoulder from their backside). If you are not very flexible it is harder to make them work because most people cannot create the reach. The leg geometry for a rear leg hook and front leg hook  is slightly different. On a front leg hook you are already standing closed off to your opponent so the body alignment is more linear and flexibility is less of an issue. On a rear leg hook the upper body may not rotate as much as the lower body but you still have to create the reach to be effective so flexibility is paramount. You sparring description sounds like a good example of this. It sounds like their roundhouse and rear leg hook use very similar body motion.
The less you show with body posturing during sparring the more options you create.


----------



## Gwai Lo Dan (Jun 29, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I have to disagree with it being an "art" kick. In the ebb and flow of sparring where you are both moving together it has value. If you can catch your opponent stepping back into a closed stance relative to your position, coming forward with a rear leg hook kick is a decently high % kick. It should be to their ear from the back side of what becomes their front shoulder (you are kicking over their shoulder from their backside). If you are not very flexible it is harder to make them work because most people cannot create the reach. The leg geometry for a rear leg hook and front leg hook  is slightly different. On a front leg hook you are already standing closed off to your opponent so the body alignment is more linear and flexibility is less of an issue. On a rear leg hook the upper body may not rotate as much as the lower body but you still have to create the reach to be effective so flexibility is paramount. You sparring description sounds like a good example of this. It sounds like their roundhouse and rear leg hook use very similar body motion.
> The less you show with body posturing during sparring the more options you create.


I can see your point in WTF rules sparring.I don't practice WTF sparring so for me it's an art kick.  The fellow I mentioned had done a rear leg hook kick in a MT fight, and so I had asked why.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 12, 2019)

skribs said:


> I use it when people are expecting a roundhouse kick and put their guard on that side.


Agree. A lot has to do with the setup. Lull your opponent into thinking you are throwing another roundhouse kick by doing several consecutive roundhouse kicks. Using the same body/leg/chamber motion, changing the trajectory of the kick at the last second to the other side of the head can be quite a surprise for your opponent. It is a slower kick for many people, especially those who are not very flexible. 

We have a man at one school who was in the Olympic circuit for several years. He is insanely flexible. It is very hard to predict where his rear leg kicks are going to end up because he can do so much of the kick without turning his upper body until very late in the kick.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Aug 12, 2019)

While I am not a TKD guy and can't speak in regards to poomsae or curricula, I do have some thoughts on black belt and beyond.  By 1st degree black, the student should have all basics at an "excellent" level, except perhaps the most recently acquired difficult moves which should be "very good."  Sparring should show flexibility in putting together effective combinations.  Forms should be executed with good flow, confidence, power, speed and solid stances.  Student should know basic practical applications of all the moves in the forms, as well as a basic understanding of TKD's history and philosophy.

Beyond 1st degree, I hope the dojang has more to teach!  I see 1st as a Bachelor's degree, with a Master's and PhD to come in higher ranks.  For higher degrees, basics should now be done more naturally, with little effort.  Hand, foot, body and breathing should be in very good synch with each other.  Understanding the forms should be extended to variations of the basic applications with the student taking an active part in exploring further possibilities of the set techniques.  Sparring should exhibit a good grasp of tactics and strategy, such as Scrib's roundhouse set up for the hook kick, and be skilled in evasion and countering.  Hopefully, the spiritual side is more deeply studied.

From what I've seen of TKD, which admittedly is not extensive, after 1st degree it could use some infusion of variety of technique such as sweeps, locks and takedowns, etc. as in Hapkido, as would flow naturally from current TKD technique.  Maybe a weapon?  There should be lots to learn after 1st degree.


----------



## pdg (Aug 12, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> Student should know basic practical applications of all the moves in the forms, as well as a basic understanding of TKD's history and philosophy.





isshinryuronin said:


> I see 1st as a Bachelor's degree, with a Master's and PhD to come in higher ranks.



I see those statements as slightly at odds with each other...

From a tkd perspective, I would view the requirements for 1st degree BB as more akin to GCSEs (high school diploma?), with the basic outline in the first section I quoted as a minimum (along with the other stuff you mentioned in the same paragraph).

Your BA would be more like around 2nd-3rd, MA 4th-5th or so and PhD 6th+.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 12, 2019)

pdg said:


> I see those statements as slightly at odds with each other...
> 
> From a tkd perspective, I would view the requirements for 1st degree BB as more akin to GCSEs (high school diploma?), with the basic outline in the first section I quoted as a minimum (along with the other stuff you mentioned in the same paragraph).
> 
> Your BA would be more like around 2nd-3rd, MA 4th-5th or so and PhD 6th+.



I was going to post that 1st Dan in most TKD systems is comparable to an Associates degree. I have had this conversation several times. I don't think that comparing a BB to an academic degree is really fair because an academic degree is purely a mental education. As @isshinryuronin said, learning in the MA's is a generous amount of physical and mental learning so it is ok that it takes longer to fully digest.


----------



## pdg (Aug 12, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I was going to post that 1st Dan in most TKD systems is comparable to an Associates degree. I have had this conversation several times. I don't think that comparing a BB to an academic degree is really fair because an academic degree is purely a mental education. As @isshinryuronin said, learning in the MA's is a generous amount of physical and mental learning so it is ok that it takes longer to fully digest.



I didn't initiate the comparison, I merely shifted the lines to where I see them.

We don't really have associate degrees here, so I had to look up what they actually are - from 30 seconds on Google I come to the conclusion that they are very roughly equivalent to what we would term A levels - above GCSE (secondary/high school) and below BA degrees.

If I've interpreted that correctly then yes, I'm happy to shift my generalisation to that level while keeping the subsequent higher stages about the same - given that my generalisation isn't something I'd ever argue about because as you rightly said a direct comparison is pointless anyway.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 13, 2019)

pdg said:


> I didn't initiate the comparison, I merely shifted the lines to where I see them.
> 
> We don't really have associate degrees here, so I had to look up what they actually are - from 30 seconds on Google I come to the conclusion that they are very roughly equivalent to what we would term A levels - above GCSE (secondary/high school) and below BA degrees.
> 
> If I've interpreted that correctly then yes, I'm happy to shift my generalisation to that level while keeping the subsequent higher stages about the same - given that my generalisation isn't something I'd ever argue about because as you rightly said a direct comparison is pointless anyway.


In the US:
High school - 12 years starting at 5-6 years old
Associate degree - Two years post education completed. About 60 credit hours.
Technical or Trade degrees are very common (and very needed) in the US. They include training to learn fields such as HVAC, plumbing, residential/commercial electrical, etc... Usually one to two years. 
Bachelor degree - 4-5 years. Often an Associates degree is acquired in a similar field, such as a math associates accomplished when getting an engineering Bachelors. 
Masters degree - 18 months to 3 years. Accurately named IMHO. The student masters the subject above and beyond the cursory details. 
Phd - not real sure how long they take. Always felt they are mostly something else to hang on the wall. It is similar to a certification.  A doctor of general medicine for example. They are required to perform certain jobs. 

I have two masters degrees, both in engineering. I felt that was the level needed to get the learning needed to do my work so I stopped there.

I have been training in MA, primarily TKD for over 37 years and still feel there are things to learn/improve. Helping a students mindset as they are nearing 1st Dan can be a challenge. I can usually tell who is so totally stoked about getting the belt they may see it as an ending and make extra effort to help them see beyond. 
Martial arts can and should be a life long venture. The acquisition of BB is too often hung out there as the carrot that people chase. When they get the carrot they feel they are done and quit. Not at all the thinking in TMA. It is one of those subjects instructors must be diligent and sometimes delicate with when talking to students.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2019)

pdg said:


> I didn't initiate the comparison, I merely shifted the lines to where I see them.
> 
> We don't really have associate degrees here, so I had to look up what they actually are - from 30 seconds on Google I come to the conclusion that they are very roughly equivalent to what we would term A levels - above GCSE (secondary/high school) and below BA degrees.
> 
> If I've interpreted that correctly then yes, I'm happy to shift my generalisation to that level while keeping the subsequent higher stages about the same - given that my generalisation isn't something I'd ever argue about because as you rightly said a direct comparison is pointless anyway.


That answers a question that's been roaming around in my head for some time about A levels, from reading novels set in the UK. Thanks.


----------



## pdg (Aug 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That answers a question that's been roaming around in my head for some time about A levels, from reading novels set in the UK. Thanks.





dvcochran said:


> In the US:
> High school - 12 years starting at 5-6 years old
> Associate degree - Two years post education completed. About 60 credit hours.
> Technical or Trade degrees are very common (and very needed) in the US.



The most common we have now is:

Primary school - 4-5 up to about 10-11

At this point there is the option to take an exam called "11+" which a pass qualifies entry to grammar school (a fail or not taking means comprehensive or other name).

Then you change school into:

Secondary school, either grammar or comp. - 10-11 up to about 16. This leads up to taking the GCSE exams (general certificate of secondary education) in certain compulsory and additional optional subjects, usually 3-11 subjects.

Next for 16-18 year olds, and still in compulsory education (now, compulsory education finished at 16 when I was younger) comes A levels in subjects of the student's choice, the results of these provide 'points' for entry into university if desired (or transfer to apprenticeship or other training scheme instead of A levels). A levels can usually be taken in the same setting as secondary education, but some don't provide any or all facilities so another transfer is also an option, either to another school or college (UK college is not the same as I understand the US college - US college = UK university).

After post secondary school or college is university, for degree level subjects.

As far as I'm aware, we don't really have the equivalent of a trade degree - unless a completed apprenticeship counts as such, but it's still not considered equal to an actual degree (very roughly, usually, apprenticeship = hands on trade work, degree = more academic).


Still used sometimes is the older system of first-middle-upper schools followed by college and then university, but that's rapidly becoming extremely uncommon.


----------

