# A Reason Why Rank Might Be Important



## PhotonGuy (Jan 31, 2019)

Its been covered on here before that some people don't care about earning rank in the martial arts, if they train in a style that uses a ranking system, and I know that rank isn't everything but here is a reason why it might be important in some situations. Sometimes when you're discussing martial arts with somebody they might ask you at some point what your rank is, where you got it, ect. and if you're not at a high enough rank they might not take you seriously. Now when I talk about a "high enough rank" that's very subjective of course but I would say that if you've at least made first dan in a style you're going to be taken more seriously than if you haven't. Also, it would depend on where you earned your first dan rank and the standards you had to meet to get it. There are some schools where I wouldn't take a person seriously even if they got third or fourth dan there because they've got such low standards, but if its a good school with a good solid reputation than I would take a person who earned first dan there as I believe most in the martial arts community would. So that is just one reason why rank might be important to some people.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 1, 2019)

I believe the belt and grading systems were introduced by the Japanese, which was a heirachal society, My personal beliefs are they are great for setting goals and rewards for achievements, getting a 1st Dan the 1st real desire of most, beyond 1st Dan, IMHO the quality of one's technique should determine the grade, and of course other factors like years of service to the art, how many 1st Dans and beyond are produced from a teacher. But worring/judging about what grade others are, speaks more about human phycology, how do you fit in, are they better than me, are their techniques better than mine, which is one of the biggest mistakes, concentrating on everything else, instead of yourself.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

I don't think rank is terribly useful for getting respect from others. I know that's not exactly what you're saying, but it's much the same thing. People who don't understand the training and commitment of martial arts (or the specific arts you've practiced) might be convinced by a rank, but only out of ignorance.

I apply that same thinking, by the way, to instructors when we get together. At the dojo I'll be teaching at (starting this month), they haven't even asked my rank. I told them what I teach and a bit of my background, and that was good enough for them. Mostly, they wanted to get the feeling that I'm "their kind of people" - meaning we'd get along and have similar thoughts about the benefits of cross-training in other arts, etc.

I used to be very rank-conscious, because I trained in a school and association that were. Part of the reason I cut ranks from my system is that I wanted to not foster that same attitude. I had a Jujutsu student in from Germany for a few weeks who trained with us while she was here. I don't remember what her rank was - not sure I ever asked. I knew she had about 12 years of experience, starting as a young child, so I let her teach a couple of techniques to my students. Rank isn't as important as being able to bring some useful information to the table.


----------



## Headhunter (Feb 1, 2019)

Why would I care what people think of me? If people choose not to take me seriously based on rank that's up to them. You should take anyone who trains seriously whether they're white belt or black belt and you shouldn't look down on anyone because of a piece of fabric


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think rank is terribly useful for getting respect from others. I know that's not exactly what you're saying, but it's much the same thing. People who don't understand the training and commitment of martial arts (or the specific arts you've practiced) might be convinced by a rank, but only out of ignorance.
> 
> I apply that same thinking, by the way, to instructors when we get together. At the dojo I'll be teaching at (starting this month), they haven't even asked my rank. I told them what I teach and a bit of my background, and that was good enough for them. Mostly, they wanted to get the feeling that I'm "their kind of people" - meaning we'd get along and have similar thoughts about the benefits of cross-training in other arts, etc.
> 
> I used to be very rank-conscious, because I trained in a school and association that were. Part of the reason I cut ranks from my system is that I wanted to not foster that same attitude. I had a Jujutsu student in from Germany for a few weeks who trained with us while she was here. I don't remember what her rank was - not sure I ever asked. I knew she had about 12 years of experience, starting as a young child, so I let her teach a couple of techniques to my students. Rank isn't as important as being able to bring some useful information to the table.


I agree that it should not be the first question and not an automatic pass that someone is qualified or proficient. Belting is probably most important in schools of larger size where it is a visual aid to know what level of proficiency a person should be at. For example, in a class of thirty or more people with different levels of experience, and if you have a large curriculum it helps keep the class moving along at a good pace. I also agree that it is a very good goal setter. That doesn't mean using BB as a goal should be the journey, it is just the destination. It is what you do between white belt and black belt that makes you a Martial Artist, skilled and proficient in your style. Whether you use a belt to "grade" your progression has little to nothing with learning.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> you shouldn't look down on anyone because of a piece of fabric


Well, except for a camo belt. That's just nuts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I agree that it should not be the first question and not an automatic pass that someone is qualified or proficient. Belting is probably most important in schools of larger size where it is a visual aid to know what level of proficiency a person should be at. For example, in a class of thirty or more people with different levels of experience, and if you have a large curriculum it helps keep the class moving along at a good pace. I also agree that it is a very good goal setter. That doesn't mean using BB as a goal should be the journey, it is just the destination. It is what you do between white belt and black belt that makes you a Martial Artist, skilled and proficient in your style. Whether you use a belt to "grade" your progression has little to nothing with learning.


Agreed. And even in smaller groups, it's an easy visual reference for the instructor and other students. In my primary art, there's a progression through the Classical techniques that matches the rank, so I can walk in any school and know instantly what techniques each student is guaranteed to know (though they may know more than that).


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2019)

I am at a place (in my teaching life) where grade is imporant. Rank is not.

in my students world. they are told to wear any color belt they want. On their keigoki there is a velcro patch.

As they progress (showing acquisition and mastery) through the curriculum, the number changes.
I have re-ordered my TSD curriculum using western style education. 1st year. 2nd year. and so on.


I have told them its ok to wear a black belt. At our tradition, It simply means 1. You are committed to never giving up and persevering in learning the art.
2. You will master your fundamentals. (if a person doesnt abide these two precepts, you will be asked to remove it and wear another color)

While I have rejected the Kyu/Gup, Dan system because of rank hierarchy. I tell my students you are all equal as humans, a parent who has favorites is an unfair parent. I choose to foster a sharing and caring culture.

I do plan on issuing certification diplomas similar to high school and college sheepskins. whenever someone completes the curriculum.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> I am at a place (in my teaching life) where grade is imporant. Rank is not.
> 
> in my students world. they are told to wear any color belt they want. On their keigoki there is a velcro patch.
> 
> ...


So, what is the thing on the patch? Is it a number? What does the number mean?


----------



## pgsmith (Feb 1, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> you shouldn't look down on anyone



  I condensed your post to what I feel is the most important bit ...


----------



## skribs (Feb 1, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Its been covered on here before that some people don't care about earning rank in the martial arts, if they train in a style that uses a ranking system, and I know that rank isn't everything but here is a reason why it might be important in some situations. Sometimes when you're discussing martial arts with somebody they might ask you at some point what your rank is, where you got it, ect. and if you're not at a high enough rank they might not take you seriously. Now when I talk about a "high enough rank" that's very subjective of course but I would say that if you've at least made first dan in a style you're going to be taken more seriously than if you haven't. Also, it would depend on where you earned your first dan rank and the standards you had to meet to get it. There are some schools where I wouldn't take a person seriously even if they got third or fourth dan there because they've got such low standards, but if its a good school with a good solid reputation than I would take a person who earned first dan there as I believe most in the martial arts community would. So that is just one reason why rank might be important to some people.



I agree this can happen.  I don't see why it's important.  If someone else won't take you seriously just because you're not a certain rank, their opinion of you probably isn't worth your time.  (With obvious exceptions, such as if you're trying to make criticism about a black belt form and you're only a red belt).

It's been pointed out above the benefits of rank in a large school, with a curriculum designed around each belt.  Rank is important because it's how you learn new concepts and advance your knowledge.  But it's also important politically within your art.  In the KKW, I'll have more rights as far as teaching goes the higher the degree I am.  This is why I have my eyes set on earning 5th Dan and the rank and title of Master.  It's not because of my ego (ok, there's a little bit in there).  It's because I'll have the option to run my own school at that point.

I mean, I could always open my own school under my own art, but I think it carries a bigger weight if I've got that Master certification.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 1, 2019)

In the scenario you're describing, if the person is asking your rank (and especially when the context indicates they don't respect what you're saying) it's quite likely you're talking rubbish.
I talk to people about Taekwondo and martial arts in general here and in real life, and I very rarely get asked about rank. And when I do, it's not with the connotation of 'do you actually have any training at all?' as described in the OP.
The general public has only a vague idea what martial arts ranks indicate, and about the only thing most are likely to know is that white is lower than black. Martial artists aren't likely to ask because for the most part they can tell if you're talking nonsense.
Rank only matters for structure within an organization, when you get right down to it.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> title of Master.



I've openly stated that the only reason I promote was so I could make Mrs Dog call me Master. 



> I mean, I could always open my own school under my own art, but I think it carries a bigger weight if I've got that Master certification.



You could do so anyway, and just print a certification.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So, what is the thing on the patch? Is it a number? What does the number mean?



yes. a number.
0 beginning of semesters 1 and 2
1 completed 1 and 2, beginning 3 and 4
2 completed 3 and 4, beginning 4 and 5
and so on.

semester = approx 4.5 months @ 3x (1 hour per week) = 54 hours of curriculum... with about 15 to 20 percent redundancy for reinforcement.

A grade 2 should be able to instruct a grade 0.
ideally... anyone who is two grades higher should be able to teach what is two grades below.

Now, you may have an odd duck without the soft skills to be able to teach. but its not that hard to say
Do what you see me do. I will go very slowly.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2019)

.


----------



## skribs (Feb 1, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I've openly stated that the only reason I promote was so I could make Mrs Dog call me Master.
> 
> You could do so anyway, and just print a certification.



But I think that a certification from a global entity means more than a certification I made myself.  If I make it look like it came from them that's fraud and a-whole-nother problem.



Dirty Dog said:


> I've openly stated that the only reason I promote was so I could make Mrs Dog call me Master.



I started teaching shortly after my parents started taking class.

They had to call me "sir".
They had to bow to me.
I did not let it go to my head at all.

(The above paragraph contains 2 truths and a lie).


----------



## wab25 (Feb 1, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> 0 beginning of semesters 1 and 2
> 1 completed 1 and 2, beginning 3 and 4
> 2 completed 3 and 4, beginning 4 and 5
> and so on.
> ...


So... how is your patch hierarchy any different than the belt hierarchy? They seem to be doing the same thing.


----------



## skribs (Feb 1, 2019)

wab25 said:


> So... how is your patch hierarchy any different than the belt hierarchy? They seem to be doing the same thing.



Actually this seems to be solely based on time-in-grade, from what the post suggests.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> Actually this seems to be solely based on time-in-grade, from what the post suggests.



If so, then it's not going to fulfill the expectation that '2 should be able to teach 1' and if it's skill-based, then it is just the same as belt ranks.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2019)

wab25 said:


> So... how is your patch hierarchy any different than the belt hierarchy? They seem to be doing the same thing.



The belt hierarchy is asian.... originating at the Kodokan. it has a definite class system. 
with it comes a preloaded system of social hierarchy that is partly the sempai and cohai thing. and lining up by class rank.

in this western alternative.
there is no kyu/dan grade
there is no Mudansha
there is no Yudansha
there is no Kodansha

it is curriculum taught by semester units.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 1, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> The belt hierarchy is asian.... originating at the Kodokan.
> 
> in this western alternative.
> there is no kyu/dan grade
> ...



Sure there is, you've just changed the names. The function remains exactly the same.


----------



## wab25 (Feb 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> Actually this seems to be solely based on time-in-grade, from what the post suggests.





TSDTexan said:


> As they progress (showing acquisition and mastery) through the curriculum, the number changes.



Either way, he was objecting to the belt system... where time training and mastery of curriculum established a hierarchy, denoted by belt color. He replaced the belt color with a patch number, but established the same hierarchy... now denoted by number on a patch.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Sure there is, you've just changed the names. The function remains exactly the same.


nah. 5th dan generally comes with the term master.

there are no "masters" per se. or gms. etc. every one is a student. in this model.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 1, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> nah. 5th dan generally comes with the term master.
> 
> there are no "masters" per se. or gms. etc. every one is a student. in this model.



As is true of the traditional belt system. Seriously, all you're doing is changing the names.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I've openly stated that the only reason I promote was so I could make Mrs Dog call me Master.


Best reason I can think of. Too bad we don't use that as a title or honorific.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Best reason I can think of. Too bad we don't use that as a title or honorific.



I didn't say it worked, did I?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> yes. a number.
> 0 beginning of semesters 1 and 2
> 1 completed 1 and 2, beginning 3 and 4
> 2 completed 3 and 4, beginning 4 and 5
> ...


That sounds like a pretty similar system to most belt ranking I've seen, other than the recognition of being able to teach two levels below (which I rather like). How does it differ dramatically in your view?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> The belt hierarchy is asian.... originating at the Kodokan. it has a definite class system.
> with it comes a preloaded system of social hierarchy that is partly the sempai and cohai thing. and lining up by class rank.
> 
> in this western alternative.
> ...


Okay, so if a school uses belt color, but no Japanese terms, and doesn't line up in rank order, what's different? I'm genuinely curious about how you see this, so please don't take this as an attack.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 1, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Its been covered on here before that some people don't care about earning rank in the martial arts, if they train in a style that uses a ranking system, and I know that rank isn't everything but here is a reason why it might be important in some situations. Sometimes when you're discussing martial arts with somebody they might ask you at some point what your rank is, where you got it, ect. and if you're not at a high enough rank they might not take you seriously. Now when I talk about a "high enough rank" that's very subjective of course but I would say that if you've at least made first dan in a style you're going to be taken more seriously than if you haven't. Also, it would depend on where you earned your first dan rank and the standards you had to meet to get it. There are some schools where I wouldn't take a person seriously even if they got third or fourth dan there because they've got such low standards, but if its a good school with a good solid reputation than I would take a person who earned first dan there as I believe most in the martial arts community would. So that is just one reason why rank might be important to some people.



That whole concept seems a bit..disconnected...to me.

When I gain respect for someone's martial arts skill it's generally something like..

-that guy is FOLDING the bag with his right hook, and look how fast it is!

-Man, my ribs are bruised from holding the kick pad for this guy, those are some devastating kicks!

-buddy moves like a squirrel, I simply can not take him down!

Etc.

What color their wardrobe is never factors in.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> nah. 5th dan generally comes with the term master.
> 
> there are no "masters" per se. or gms. etc. every one is a student. in this model.


That's true in some systems, but not in all.

I use belt color ranks, but no dan/kyu (just don't see a use for the term "kyu", and only have one rank that could be "dan"). I made some of my changes for the same reason - I just don't think the color of a belt has much to do with the issues I saw.


----------



## skribs (Feb 1, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> The belt hierarchy is asian.... originating at the Kodokan. it has a definite class system.
> with it comes a preloaded system of social hierarchy that is partly the sempai and cohai thing. and lining up by class rank.
> 
> in this western alternative.
> ...



How does someone move from Grade 1 to Grade 2?  Is it purely time in grade, is it a test, is it a verification in-class that they're ready to move on?

My Taekwondo school has 12 keub ranks, and depending on how you want to look at it, so far we either have 3 dan ranks (except my Master who's a few dan ranks above me), or we have 8 dan+gup ranks (because there's intermediate levels between degrees).So let's say 20 ranks.

Now, we don't have "kyu".  We don't have "Mudansha".  Because this is a Korean school.  But what's to separate me being "Rank 20" and me being "3rd dan"?  Names and groups.  

The differences between our two systems are the names, and the specific rules applied to each.  In yours:

You rank up at the end of a semester
You can teach 2 ranks below
In ours:

You rank up if you take and pass our bi-monthly tests
You can assist starting at 1st keub, or start teaching at 1st dan
It's the implementation that's different, but both are a rank system.


----------



## skribs (Feb 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That's true in some systems, but not in all.
> 
> I use belt color ranks, but no dan/kyu (just don't see a use for the term "kyu", and only have one rank that could be "dan"). I made some of my changes for the same reason - I just don't think the color of a belt has much to do with the issues I saw.



But you do have "kyu" ranks!  (Just count backward from dan rank).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> But you do have "kyu" ranks!  (Just count backward from dan rank).


Correct. My point was that the only difference is I don't use the terms. There's no "shodan" - just "black belt". As you point out in your previous post, the difference is just terminology.


----------



## skribs (Feb 1, 2019)

Martial D said:


> That whole concept seems a bit..disconnected...to me.
> 
> When I gain respect for someone's martial arts skill it's generally something like..
> 
> ...



So how does someone impress you on the forums?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> So how does someone impress you on the forums?


Post count. I'm sure that's it. I'm VERY impressive.


----------



## skribs (Feb 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Post count. I'm sure that's it. I'm VERY impressive.



I was going to try and throw out a different metric but you've got me beat on every metric I was going to suggest.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 1, 2019)

Martial D said:


> That whole concept seems a bit..disconnected...to me.
> 
> When I gain respect for someone's martial arts skill it's generally something like..
> 
> ...


That is provided you see the person in action. You might meet a martial artist and not see them in action.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 1, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> I am at a place (in my teaching life) where grade is imporant. Rank is not.
> 
> in my students world. they are told to wear any color belt they want. On their keigoki there is a velcro patch.
> 
> ...


So in your school rank is shown not by belt but by patch. Every school has their own system of showing rank, some schools show it with belt color some show it by other means such as patches.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> I agree this can happen.  I don't see why it's important.  If someone else won't take you seriously just because you're not a certain rank, their opinion of you probably isn't worth your time.  (With obvious exceptions, such as if you're trying to make criticism about a black belt form and you're only a red belt).
> 
> It's been pointed out above the benefits of rank in a large school, with a curriculum designed around each belt.  Rank is important because it's how you learn new concepts and advance your knowledge.  But it's also important politically within your art.  In the KKW, I'll have more rights as far as teaching goes the higher the degree I am.  This is why I have my eyes set on earning 5th Dan and the rank and title of Master.  It's not because of my ego (ok, there's a little bit in there).  It's because I'll have the option to run my own school at that point.
> 
> I mean, I could always open my own school under my own art, but I think it carries a bigger weight if I've got that Master certification.


Well somebody might consider you more of an authority figure on an art if you're 1st Dan and above rather than if you're below 1st Dan. That is provided you're talking about a system that has a 1st Dan and you're in a situation where you're not going to show off your skill.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That sounds like a pretty similar system to most belt ranking I've seen, other than the recognition of being able to teach two levels below (which I rather like). How does it differ dramatically in your view?



No goal of a "blackbelt" which i have seen way too many drop out soon as they hit shodan.

Also no political belts post 4th.

it just eschews the idea of the blackbelt and all that goes with it.

There never was a 1 to 1 correspondence between dan/kyu and elementary, middle school, high school, associate, batchelor, masters, phd.

Two different modalities.

I have chosen to break the curriculum down with the western approach.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> So in your school rank is shown not by belt but by patch. Every school has their own system of showing rank, some schools show it with belt color some show it by other means such as patches.



grade not rank. rank has hierarchy built into it. its a military term. and a vestige of Japanese Karate and Judo (from a karate viewpoint)


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> How does someone move from Grade 1 to Grade 2?  Is it purely time in grade, is it a test, is it a verification in-class that they're ready to move on?
> 
> My Taekwondo school has 12 keub ranks, and depending on how you want to look at it, so far we either have 3 dan ranks (except my Master who's a few dan ranks above me), or we have 8 dan+gup ranks (because there's intermediate levels between degrees).So let's say 20 ranks.
> 
> ...



progress through grade is a function of completing that curriculum and demonstrating that it is understood well enough to teach it. 
sure you can have formal testing. but with a really small student body... the instructor has eyes on each student and knows where they are at in the curriculum.


----------



## skribs (Feb 1, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> grade not rank. rank has hierarchy built into it. its a military term. and a vestige of Japanese Karate and Judo (from a karate viewpoint)



And you have a hierarchy.  A grade 2 can't teach a grade 4.


----------



## skribs (Feb 1, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> progress through grade is a function of completing that curriculum and demonstrating that it is understood well enough to teach it.
> sure you can have formal testing. but with a really small student body... the instructor has eyes on each student and knows where they are at in the curriculum.



That makes more sense.  But it still feels like a belt system with different names and symbols.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> So how does someone impress you on the forums?


As a rule, they don't.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> And you have a hierarchy.  A grade 2 can't teach a grade 4.


not in the sense that a high school student and a college student see each other as co equals... one simply is further along the same path.

hiearchy.... one has higher status than another. pecking order.
non hierarchy... everyone is of equal status.

runners in a marathon... handing batons... the race itself is the destination... there is no finishline... life long journey. Everyone is a runner. everyone is equal. No status or rank for having more laps completed.

no competition... except with yourself to improve your own laptimes... form.. etc.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 1, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> That is provided you see the person in action. You might meet a martial artist and not see them in action.



Indeed.  And if that same person tells me they have a black belt, nothing changes. There are a ton of 'black belts' with next to 0 practical fighting ability.


----------



## skribs (Feb 1, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> not in the sense that a high school student and a college student see each other as co equals... one simply is further along the same path.
> 
> hiearchy.... one has higher status than another. pecking order.
> non hierarchy... everyone is of equal status.



If I went to your school, is there anyone I'd be required to follow their directions?


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> If I went to your school, is there anyone I'd be required to follow their directions?


 Whoever is running the class, and whoever you "ask" to help you, that is qualified.


----------



## skribs (Feb 1, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> Whoever is running the class, and whoever you "ask" to help you, that is qualified.



What happens if I don't follow their directions?


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2019)

One of the reasons there is so much soldier culture and rank based heirachy in japanese karate is because of the efforts of Kentsū Yabu. When you get right down to it... He set the standards and others followed suit.
Its a bit more then just the kyu dan rank issue.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> What happens if I don't follow their directions?


Well... word would get around that when you ask for help.. you really don't want it. It would reduce the number of people willing to share with you. Of course, if you don't want to follow directions of the class instructor, you would go to the principal's office... where a paddle awaits.

or just a polite talking to. 

If shenanigans were to continue... class instruction would cease to be an option. Leaving private lessons or behavior modification (self reform) as the remaining means of progressing.

There are no Orders being barked (rank). everything is an ask (equity)
This is based upon agreed mutual respect.


----------



## skribs (Feb 1, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> Well... word would get around that when you ask for help.. you really don't want it. It would reduce the number of people willing to share with you. Of course, if you don't want to follow directions of the class instructor, you would go to the principal's office... where a paddle awaits.
> 
> or just a polite talking to.
> If shenanigans were to continue... class instruction would cease to be an option. Leaving private lessons or behavior modification (self reform) as the remaining means of progressing.



It seems to me that if I am supposed to listen to the people who are a higher rank than me, and if there is a "principal"...that there is a hierarchy in your system.


----------



## pgsmith (Feb 1, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> That is provided you see the person in action. You might meet a martial artist and not see them in action.


  Seeing someone in action is not necessary to evaluate how long they've been training and thus their knowledge level. It is fairly simple to converse with someone and figure out how experienced they are based on their responses and understanding.

  You'll understand this better later on in your martial arts journey.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 1, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> Well... word would get around that when you ask for help.. you really don't want it. It would reduce the number of people willing to share with you. Of course, if you don't want to follow directions of the class instructor, you would go to the principal's office... where a paddle awaits.
> 
> or just a polite talking to.
> 
> ...



So in other words... you have a rank hierarchy.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> It seems to me that if I am supposed to listen to the people who are a higher rank than me, and if there is a "principal"...that there is a hierarchy in your system.



I think you are missing the nuance in the distinction.
Perhaps you don't see the difference between grade and rank.

When i was in the high school cafeteria the students more or less treated each other as equals freshman or senior year. The administration didn't enforce privileges and restrictions and responsibilities upon the student body to create a culture of heirachy.

Compare to the military. An officer is to be saluted at all times... for an NCO or other enlisted serviceman to fail to salute could result in a court martial. 

There is a big distinction.. and you find a lot of in the TMAs rank is like that.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> So in other words... you have a rank hierarchy.


No. you dont have a lot of seniors telling juniors what to do (rank). A junior ask the liberty to ask qualified people for help. 

Its a heirachy of competence vs a hierarchy of mere tradition and rank. You can get rank and be incompetent. Thats what politics often is about in kodansha level stuff.

Leave your org... join mine... i will give you your next dan. JC Shin stole a teacher from someone, in exchange for his next dan rank. It happens far too often.

Their are always going to be heirachies. But there are different types of heirachy and culture.

Itosu backwards... we didnt have the military culture rank type heirachy. It was heirachy of competance.


----------



## skribs (Feb 1, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> I think you are missing the nuance in the distinction.
> Perhaps you don't see the difference between grade and rank.
> 
> When i was in the high school cafeteria the students more or less treated each other as equals freshman or senior year. The administration didn't enforce privileges and restrictions and responsibilities upon the student body to create a culture of heirachy.
> ...



I was never in a situation in high school where the Freshmen were taught by the Seniors, or where they had to follow the instructions of the Seniors.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 1, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> I think you are missing the nuance in the distinction.
> Perhaps you don't see the difference between grade and rank.
> 
> When i was in the high school cafeteria the students more or less treated each other as equals freshman or senior year. The administration didn't enforce privileges and restrictions and responsibilities upon the student body to create a culture of heirachy.
> ...


It sounds like you’re talking about the culture found in some schools where higher ranked individuals are expected to be treated not just as possessing a greater degree of expertise in whatever the art is, but a more general authority over lower ranked students. (At its most innocuous, this might mean extra bowing to higher ranked individuals or addressing them with certain titles. At its worst, this might be a cult where lower ranks are expected to provide service to higher ranks outside the school.)

I’ve read about this sort of thing, but to be honest I’ve almost never experienced it in person -even in arts with belt ranks.


----------



## wab25 (Feb 1, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> I think you are missing the nuance in the distinction.
> Perhaps you don't see the difference between grade and rank.
> 
> When i was in the high school cafeteria the students more or less treated each other as equals freshman or senior year. The administration didn't enforce privileges and restrictions and responsibilities upon the student body to create a culture of heirachy.
> ...


I think you are confusing the Kyu / Dan rank system, with the traditions of some Karate and TKD schools. The Kyu / Dan rank system is simply a system of breaking up the curriculum into sections, to be learned in an order. The number of the section you are on happens to be the color of the belt. For some reason, some Karate and TKD schools have decided to pretend to be in the military, and associate the belt to some sort of position of power that continues outside the training hall.

However, Danzan Ryu, Aikido, Daito Ryu Aikijujitsu, Judo, Kendo, and many other arts do not do this. Your belt denotes what parts of the curriculum you have studied and what you are working on now. No one barks orders. Everyone works together. After class, the belts come off and all hang out together. No saluting, sirring, or senseiing on or off the mat. (ok, they may sensei the instructor on the mat, if the student chooses to) I note that BJJ has been able to pick up and use the Kyu / Dan rank system in this non-militarized fashion as well. I have never understood why some Karate and TKD schools have this need to imitate the military... but, they seem to enjoy it.

You could get the same effect, by simply de-militarizing your school. At that point, belt color and patch number become literally the same thing. They become the same thing that the belts are in most arts, outside of Karate and TKD.

NOTE: I have edited this post to denote that some Karate and TKD schools do this, but not all. Thanks Dog, for the clarification.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 1, 2019)

wab25 said:


> I think you are confusing the Kyu / Dan rank system, with the traditions of Karate and TKD. The Kyu / Dan rank system is simply a system of breaking up the curriculum into sections, to be learned in an order. The number of the section you are on happens to be the color of the belt. For some reason, Karate and TKD have decided to pretend to be in the military, and associate the belt to some sort of position of power that continues outside the training hall.



Ummm... no. We do not.


----------



## wab25 (Feb 1, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I’ve read about this sort of thing, but to be honest I’ve almost never experienced it in person -even in arts with belt ranks.


Most Shotokan schools I have seen are like this. You always address Sensei as "Sensei" no matter where you are. "Sensei" is always the authority, no matter where you are or what you are doing. In class, Sensei barks orders:

Sensei: Line up!
Class: Hai Sensei!
Sensei: Step down in front stance, left side forward!
Class: Hai Sensei!
Sensei: Step forward, lunge punch, to my count!
Class: Hai Sensei!
Sensei: Ichi!
Sensei: Ni!
...


----------



## wab25 (Feb 1, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Ummm... no. We do not.


Would that be more of a school thing then? Or an organization thing? Of the three different TKD places I have trained in, two were like this... the one that wasn't gave me a long explanation as to why they were not like that, before they ever let me on the mat. It was my understanding that TDK was like this in general. But, I could be wrong here. Is that not the norm for most TKD schools?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 1, 2019)

wab25 said:


> Would that be more of a school thing then? Or an organization thing? Of the three different TKD places I have trained in, two were like this... the one that wasn't gave me a long explanation as to why they were not like that, before they ever let me on the mat. It was my understanding that TDK was like this in general. But, I could be wrong here. Is that not the norm for most TKD schools?



I don't think it's reasonable to make any sweeping general statement about something that includes a few million people.

I will say that I've trained in quite a few different schools with three different orgs and it's certainly not been the norm.

I don't think the Xenforo software here includes the ability to do polls, so this will be informal.
Is there anyone here who is training at a school that does this?

Here's how it works in our school (which is typical of my personal experience).
Whoever is in charge calls for the class to start, and people line up. Probably while chit chatting with each other in the process.
Instructor: OK, let's start with basic form 1. Go.
Instructor: Basic form 2. If you don't know that form yet, stay on Basic 1. Go.
[...]

If someone insisted on yelling "Yes Sabunim" every time one of us spoke, we'd tell them to knock it off.

And if someone referred to me as Master outside the dojang, I'd sure tell them to knock it off. My name is Mark.

Except Mrs Dog, of course. I'm still trying to convince her that she needs to call me Master at home, and at work.


----------



## wab25 (Feb 1, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't think it's reasonable to make any sweeping general statement about something that includes a few million people.
> 
> I will say that I've trained in quite a few different schools with three different orgs and it's certainly not been the norm.
> 
> ...


I wanted to click the "Thanks" icon... but couldn't find it... So you got a "Like" instead. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. I will modify my previous post to say "some karate and TKD schools." As I have not been to all of them, and my assumption proved wrong. 

Of coarse this does go to show that the belt system can be (and I think, most frequently is) used, simply as an indicator of which parts of the curriculum you have studied so far. And that the military rank thing is not part of the belt system, but an additional tradition, whether by school, organization or art.

As a side note, the two "militarized TKD schools" I went two had the class responding "Yes Sir!" to each command.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 1, 2019)

wab25 said:


> Of coarse this does go to show that the belt system can be (and I think, most frequently is) used, simply as an indicator of which parts of the curriculum you have studied so far.



That is certainly how we use it, at least for the most part.
The only thing it really does in our system is indicate how high you can promote others.


----------



## wab25 (Feb 1, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> That is certainly how we use it, at least for the most part.
> The only thing it really does in our system is indicate how high you can promote others.


In our organization, we do actually use the belts a little more. Danzan Ryu has lots of throws, that get progressively higher and more dependent on uke to know how to take the fall. Our organization has a fairly uniform definition for minimum requirements for each rank. What this means is that I can go to any Danzan Ryu school in our organization and randori with all the students. Seeing their belt color, tells me what throws and falls they have trained. When working with the lower belts, I know what throws to limit myself to when doing randori and which throws I need to use extra control with, so as not to break a student by throwing him in a way that he has not been prepared for. And the higher ranking students do the same for me. (or at least they tell me they do... )

This all works great when there is uniformity in the curriculum for each rank. So far, we are doing well.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 1, 2019)

wab25 said:


> In our organization, we do actually use the belts a little more. Danzan Ryu has lots of throws, that get progressively higher and more dependent on uke to know how to take the fall. Our organization has a fairly uniform definition for minimum requirements for each rank. What this means is that I can go to any Danzan Ryu school in our organization and randori with all the students. Seeing their belt color, tells me what throws and falls they have trained. When working with the lower belts, I know what throws to limit myself to when doing randori and which throws I need to use extra control with, so as not to break a student by throwing him in a way that he has not been prepared for. And the higher ranking students do the same for me. (or at least they tell me they do... )
> 
> This all works great when there is uniformity in the curriculum for each rank. So far, we are doing well.



Is that any different from when you said: 





> simply as an indicator of which parts of the curriculum you have studied so far.


 Because I admit I'm not seeing the difference. Other than using more words.


----------



## wab25 (Feb 1, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Because I admit I'm not seeing the difference. Other than using more words.


Was it more words = more rank or more posts = more rank... One thing for sure, after a good workout I *am *more rank than most people...

When going to a school that does point sparring, or light contact sparring... I can use any technique I want, that I can control. It does not matter if the white belt I am sparring with has trained or even seen a jump spinning reverse hook kick. But, as long as I can control it, to hit an allowed target with the agreed upon level of contact, its fair game... and no one should be in danger of injury. However, when throwing someone with Daki Kubi, if you want them to get back up again, its important that they have the proper training to take that fall. 

So technically, its the same thing. I just wanted to point out that sometimes, knowing what parts of the curriculum the other guy has trained, can have safety implications as well.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 1, 2019)

Or school has a culture of encouraging people to achieve things. You walk away with the belt. You walk away with the new job. Or ten kilos lighter or whatever you have set as goal for yourself. 

Good work. Be proud of that. 

Belts are an achievement of years of blood sweat and tears. They are important.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 1, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Or school has a culture of encouraging people to achieve things. You walk away with the belt. You walk away with the new job. Or ten kilos lighter or whatever you have set as goal for yourself.
> 
> Good work. Be proud of that.
> 
> Belts are an achievement of years of blood sweat and tears. They are important.


Unless they aren't. There's more than a few FasTrack/online school/mail-order/mcdojo black belts out there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> No goal of a "blackbelt" which i have seen way too many drop out soon as they hit shodan.


That's valid point. "Black belt" has become an endpoint in some people's minds. I think that may be less a "thing" than it once was (when there was the common mythology surrounding a black belt), but it surely still exists.



> Also no political belts post 4th.


Or post 2nd (in my former association). But that goes away if you just ditch the political/honorary (I'm assuming you're referring to those) belts. There are no ranks beyond "black belt" in my system, simply because there were no significant technical requirements beyond shodan in my old association - so I just ditched everything beyond that point.



> it just eschews the idea of the blackbelt and all that goes with it.


We already touched on that, and I agree, though I also think there are reasonable approaches to changing that without ditching the belt ranks. Quitting at 1st dan wasn't seen much in the NGAA when I was a member, probably because anyone who would have quit at that point probably quit before then (it took most folks 7+ years).



> There never was a 1 to 1 correspondence between dan/kyu and elementary, middle school, high school, associate, batchelor, masters, phd.
> 
> Two different modalities.
> 
> I have chosen to break the curriculum down with the western approach.


I'm not sure what that has to do with it, but that's probably just me missing your point. I don't have an issue with shifting things to what seems a better match to the culture where they're taught. Seems a reasonable approach.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Unless they aren't. There's more than a few FasTrack/online school/mail-order/mcdojo black belts out there.


Yeah, but they're the minority by far, in my experience.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> grade not rank. rank has hierarchy built into it. its a military term. and a vestige of Japanese Karate and Judo (from a karate viewpoint)


That may be splitting hairs. I still use the term "rank", though I've done away with the whole idea of "he outranks you" (which was very prevalent within the NGAA, in my experience). But I take your meaning, and there's a point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> And you have a hierarchy.  A grade 2 can't teach a grade 4.


That is a bit of a hierarchy, but not in the restrictive sense I've seen in some TMA schools, where there's (in my opinion) too much attention paid to the color the other guy is wearing. I was taught (though I didn't learn) not to ever correct someone of higher rank. I think that's harmful to all involved.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2019)

wab25 said:


> Most Shotokan schools I have seen are like this. You always address Sensei as "Sensei" no matter where you are. "Sensei" is always the authority, no matter where you are or what you are doing. In class, Sensei barks orders:
> 
> Sensei: Line up!
> Class: Hai Sensei!
> ...



Well, I was trying to avoid calling out specific brands of karate... You have done the favor for me. Shotokan could be an exemplar of this. But it is certainly not exclusive to Shotokan.

"Is There FEAR, in THIS Dojo?"
[Class in unison]:
"NO SENSEI!!!"






While it is a movie, Tang Soo Do had a number of influences upon its creation. The Cobra Kai maybe hyperbolic in nature... but it wasn't too far off from a number of dojang and dojo that I have seen and heard about.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Unless they aren't. There's more than a few FasTrack/online school/mail-order/mcdojo black belts out there.


sad but true.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That may be splitting hairs. I still use the term "rank", though I've done away with the whole idea of "he outranks you" (which was very prevalent within the NGAA, in my experience). But I take your meaning, and there's a point.


 Thank you... i was wondering if was alone in seeing a distinction. I already had enough evidence to doubt my own sanity.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That's valid point. "Black belt" has become an endpoint in some people's minds. I think that may be less a "thing" than it once was (when there was the common mythology surrounding a black belt), but it surely still exists.
> 
> 
> Or post 2nd (in my former association). But that goes away if you just ditch the political/honorary (I'm assuming you're referring to those) belts. There are no ranks beyond "black belt" in my system, simply because there were no significant technical requirements beyond shodan in my old association - so I just ditched everything beyond that point.
> ...



On the first point. there was an Okinawan phrase
... which escapes me right this moment. But in English it comes across as "Dan Collector", in reference to somebody who has jumped styles a few times, right after obtaining shodan. It was seen more often as something westerners seemed to do.

The fact that there was a phrase for it, surprised me at the moment. But upon reflection I totally get it.

As for the last point, my methods have always been under critical self review. Is there a beter way to do something?
If so, how can I implement it?

In the last five or so years, I did a lot of soul searching, while also looking back in time, at karate about the time Itosu brought it out into the public.

When karate was by todays standards more karate jitsu then karatedo. More primitive in a sense. Not a quest to make yourself a better person, but a regimen for phisical health, and unarmed self defense against a relatively low skilled assailant.

The kata wasnt pretty or flashy like the jka tournament stuff of today. It had a rough around the edges... but could cripple and maim someone flavor.

The bunkai was deep. It was more about the practical. Karate for better or worse changed greatly when it went to Japan. In oh so many ways.

The more got into the work of Patrick McCarthy and other researcher the more I felt a need to revert some practices, and methods.

As time went on, I realized I didnt have to do it the way I always did. So I took everything apart. Looking back, what changed? Why did it change? Are these changes neccessary?

I rebuilt and tried to remain faithful to what was originally Te, and was was additions were added by the Koreans and the Japanese, that were useful.

And then adopt a western scholastic mode.
Prior to Itosu Karate was an bujitsu artesian enterprise.
Post Japan exportation... Dojos taught karate more like an assembly line factory.

We have a DO.. a blueprint, a way... a method. We teach this way, no deviation.

To promote health, make you a better citizen, and a good recruit.

A lot of this is cultural. Japan even to this day is very very big on "Do".

Post war... karate in japan saw a sea change in "budo" emphasis. Less jitsu... more do. Primarily, because of the Allied Forces GHQ edicts that led to the purges at the DNBK... and the supression of Japanese martial arts schools.

This is the flavor of most GI Serviceman karate that came back to the US.

My question is what would karate in Hawaii have been like if Choki Motobu had been allowed into the country before WW2? Instead of being denied entry to to having questionable character. His streetfighter background was known well enough to get him barred.

What would that dojo have for us today?
Certainly not the kick punch kick kata and point fighting that is of questionable value (imho)


----------



## drop bear (Feb 1, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Unless they aren't. There's more than a few FasTrack/online school/mail-order/mcdojo black belts out there.



If they made rank important. Then you wouldn't get that as much.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2019)

drop bear said:


> If they made rank important. Then you wouldn't get that as much.




Making dough is their "Do"... but if you do put your trust in their fufu, when comes a real fight... you will fight like doo doo.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 1, 2019)

wab25 said:


> Most Shotokan schools I have seen are like this. You always address Sensei as "Sensei" no matter where you are. "Sensei" is always the authority, no matter where you are or what you are doing. In class, Sensei barks orders:
> 
> Sensei: Line up!
> Class: Hai Sensei!
> ...


Some people look at this as barking orders. Others don’t.

We do pretty similar in my dojo/organization. It isn’t barking orders. I look at it the same way a coach would have his/her team line up and go through a drill or skills practice. Replace a start/stop whistle with a count.

People call their coach “coach” off the field. Is sensei much different?  Honestly, if I saw my teacher or any of the other instructors outside the dojo, it would be weird calling them their names. Calling my teacher Don instead of Shuseki Shihan wouldn’t cross my mind. It would be like a name change to me. Furthermore, our organization has the policy that you address people by their title, in and out of the dojo, unless they’ve asked you specifically not to. Some are on a power trip with it, 99% aren’t. Only one person in the entire organization introduced themself to me by a title rather than their name. Why? I was greeting a bunch of people from the organization visiting our dojo from out of town. After the 4th person I asked if they had a title, the fifth person in a row I greeted said “Sensei Joe” while obviously feeling a bit silly, but doing it solely to avoid the 2 part introduction.

It’s all a point of view. What some consider barking orders, I consider the same thing as when I played sports. What some view as a power trip, I view as a different way of showing respect. I don’t view a bow as anything fundamentally different than a handshake. I don’t view “sensei” as anything different than “coach.” 

It must be said that we don’t say “master” in English. We say it in Japanese. I’d feel quite funny addressing anyone as master. Somehow shihan doesn’t bother me one bit. Odd and doesn’t make sense, but it is what it is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

drop bear said:


> If they made rank important. Then you wouldn't get that as much.


Do you mean in the way it matters within BJJ, for instance? Not as a "you gotta have it" important. but an "if you wear it, you better be up to it" important?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Some people look at this as barking orders. Others don’t.
> 
> We do pretty similar in my dojo/organization. It isn’t barking orders. I look at it the same way a coach would have his/her team line up and go through a drill or skills practice. Replace a start/stop whistle with a count.
> 
> ...


I'll even go a step further. I don't like being called "Mr. Seymour", even by vendors and service industry staff. I'm just "Gerry". But in the dojo, it feels weird to be "Gerry". I'm just really used to calling and being called by last names and honorifics (sensei and shihan). I use first names with folks below brown belt, because that's what we always did (except my first NGA instructor, who always used last names back then).

Now, I tell all my students I'm just "Gerry" outside the school. It doesn't always work. It didn't with me, from my instructor, either.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, but they're the minority by far, in my experience.


I suppose that depends on where you set your bar.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 1, 2019)

drop bear said:


> If they made rank important. Then you wouldn't get that as much.


Ya, but who's 'they'? I mean, in TMA schools rank seems to be pretty important across the board. In many cases this is because there is no measuring stick taken to practical ability. If you have a natural pecking order what's the point of setting up an artificial one based on how well you can do solo choreography or break particle board and paving stones or (insert criteria that is anything but actually testing your skill against a resisting human being..ie the only criteria that actually matters)


----------



## Jaeimseu (Feb 1, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Some people look at this as barking orders. Others don’t.
> 
> We do pretty similar in my dojo/organization. It isn’t barking orders. I look at it the same way a coach would have his/her team line up and go through a drill or skills practice. Replace a start/stop whistle with a count.
> 
> ...



As an athletics coach as well as an MA instructor, I agree that it’s very similar. In most cases, a hierarchy is established, even if it’s done organically. In sports it might be A team or B team, 1st string or 2nd string. 

I used to be weirded out by being called master, as well. But if it’s the commonly accepted term, why should it feel weird? Especially since the term master, at least in tkd, doesn’t really mean anything other than teacher. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Ya, but who's 'they'? I mean, in TMA schools rank seems to be pretty important across the board. In many cases this is because there is no measuring stick taken to practical ability. If you have a natural pecking order what's the point of setting up an artificial one based on how well you can do solo choreography or break particle board and paving stones or (insert criteria that is anything but actually testing your skill against a resisting human being..ie the only criteria that actually matters)


You're imposing your priorities on others, as *the* priorities. There are reasons people value those things. There's no reason a rank has to be separate from what you're talking about (it basically isn't in BJJ), nor any reason why it has to be what you're talking about.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 2, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Ya, but who's 'they'? I mean, in TMA schools rank seems to be pretty important across the board. In many cases this is because there is no measuring stick taken to practical ability. If you have a natural pecking order what's the point of setting up an artificial one based on how well you can do solo choreography or break particle board and paving stones or (insert criteria that is anything but actually testing your skill against a resisting human being..ie the only criteria that actually matters)


 
that is a very broad brushstroke your painting with.
Judo is a tma. it requires testing your skill against a resistant opponent. So does Gongkwon Yusul... which is a tma. and there are many others.

Depending on the org or federation... TKD has mandatory sparring. As does Kyokushin Karate.... another TMA.  Also lets not forget Muy Boran TMA, Muy Thai TMA.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 2, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> that is a very broad brushstroke your painting with.
> Judo is a tma. it requires testing your skill against a resistant opponent. So does Gongkwon Yusul... which is a tma. and there are many others.
> 
> Depending on the org or federation... TKD has mandatory sparring. As does Kyokushin Karate.... another TMA.  Also lets not forget Muy Boran TMA, Muy Thai TMA.


That's why I wrote 'in many cases' and not 'in all cases'


----------



## Martial D (Feb 2, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You're imposing your priorities on others, as *the* priorities. There are reasons people value those things. There's no reason a rank has to be separate from what you're talking about (it basically isn't in BJJ), nor any reason why it has to be what you're talking about.



Imposing my priorities on others? That a martial art should be functional?

What happened to you man, you used to be much more rational.


----------



## Bruce7 (Feb 2, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Its been covered on here before that some people don't care about earning rank in the martial arts, if they train in a style that uses a ranking system, and I know that rank isn't everything but here is a reason why it might be important in some situations. Sometimes when you're discussing martial arts with somebody they might ask you at some point what your rank is, where you got it, ect. and if you're not at a high enough rank they might not take you seriously. Now when I talk about a "high enough rank" that's very subjective of course but I would say that if you've at least made first dan in a style you're going to be taken more seriously than if you haven't. Also, it would depend on where you earned your first dan rank and the standards you had to meet to get it. There are some schools where I wouldn't take a person seriously even if they got third or fourth dan there because they've got such low standards, but if its a good school with a good solid reputation than I would take a person who earned first dan there as I believe most in the martial arts community would. So that is just one reason why rank might be important to some people.



I agree with what you are saying.
But I never ask someone what their belt is. I ask how many years have you train and in what style, and probably who was your teacher.
The only black belt I ever want was from Jack Hwang.  Having said that I enjoy my Kung Fu and Aikido system best,  because their was only black belts and white belts. We judge each other by skill and knowledge. *When I was young going into a taekwodo school with a white belt and showing up the black belts caused problems. *That is why I did not like the belt system.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Imposing my priorities on others? That a martial art should be functional?
> 
> What happened to you man, you used to be much more rational.


That it has to be about fighting ability. Not everyone is actually seeking that. Some folks are just looking for fun and exercise, or a sport, and it won't really matter to them whether what they are doing would be useful for actual fighting or not. If someone is looking for those things, and they get those things, they're doing fine regardless of how you and I might react to that same training.

EDIT for clarification: It's not about whether it's functional or not...but about what it's functional for.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 3, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That it has to be about fighting ability. Not everyone is actually seeking that. Some folks are just looking for fun and exercise, or a sport, and it won't really matter to them whether what they are doing would be useful for actual fighting or not. If someone is looking for those things, and they get those things, they're doing fine regardless of how you and I might react to that same training.
> 
> EDIT for clarification: It's not about whether it's functional or not...but about what it's functional for.



Ya, I used to think like that. These days it just sounds like excuse making to me. It's always the same ones that say it's for fun and exercise one moment that are talking 'too deadly for the cage' the next.

Not all of course, but enough.

To me it's no different than keeping a car around that doesn't run because you enjoy waxing the thing.

Sure, why not, but that's not what a car was meant for.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 3, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That it has to be about fighting ability. Not everyone is actually seeking that. Some folks are just looking for fun and exercise, or a sport, and it won't really matter to them whether what they are doing would be useful for actual fighting or not. If someone is looking for those things, and they get those things, they're doing fine regardless of how you and I might react to that same training.
> 
> EDIT for clarification: It's not about whether it's functional or not...but about what it's functional for.



Yeah tentatively. The issue is that if there is a constant philosophical push to support this idea of no standards other than happiness.

Then you are placing yourself in with the worst examples.

And then when say people are quite simply doing any old thing you don't  have any position to either condemn them or separate yourself.

Ok. More condensed. The way you defend your brand. Destroys your brand.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 3, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Except Mrs Dog, of course. I'm still trying to convince her that she needs to call me Master at home, and at work.


Something tells me you'll end up in the dirty dog house...


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 3, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Some people look at this as barking orders. Others don’t.
> 
> We do pretty similar in my dojo/organization. It isn’t barking orders. I look at it the same way a coach would have his/her team line up and go through a drill or skills practice. Replace a start/stop whistle with a count.
> 
> ...


Something about this reminded me: A coach doesn't have to be more knowledgeable than you for you to consider them your coach. I know a lot about physical fitness, and what's effective for me in that regard. I could improve myself just as well without a physical trainer as I could with one (right now I'm doing so with @Tony Dismukes 's help). But if I required someone for that motivation, I would treat them with respect...they would be helping me even if I intellectually knew exactly what I needed. The second they asked for respect though, they would lose it, no matter how much physical training education they had. I feel like the same concept would apply for me with martial arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 3, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Ya, I used to think like that. These days it just sounds like excuse making to me. It's always the same ones that say it's for fun and exercise one moment that are talking 'too deadly for the cage' the next.
> 
> Not all of course, but enough.
> 
> ...


I can't agree that it's the same people saying "only exercise" and "too deadly". The latter is usually from folks whose intent is self-defense. (And they are far overstating the issue, obviously.)

We have members here on MT who have said more than once they just do it for the fun, and some just for the competition, with no concern for whether it is more useful for self-defense than any other form of exercise. I don't have a problem with that (though I used to, so you and I are apparently balancing the universe).

To take the car analogy, to me it's more like someone saying a car simply doesn't have enough power, and the owner saying, "Well, I never really push it very hard, anyway. It gets me where I want and is comfortable. That's all that really matters to me." There's no reason to own Dirty Dog's 'Vette with 4.16E5 horsepower if you're only ever going to take lazy drives at the posted speed limit unless you just really love the car. There are cars that are much more comfortable for that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 3, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Yeah tentatively. The issue is that if there is a constant philosophical push to support this idea of no standards other than happiness.
> 
> Then you are placing yourself in with the worst examples.
> 
> ...



For those who don't actually care about fighting ability, I don't think it does destroy their brand. If someone's intention is to train specifically for WT(F) competition, because they think it looks like a bunch of fun and they like the competitive element, then why should they train somewhere that's going to try to teach them to do something different? If someone just wants to learn to do floor gymnastics, still ring is a distraction from what they want to do.

So, yeah, in some cases it's really only about what the participants want from it. It used to drive me nuts (and still makes me itch) to see what I consider bad martial arts. But if the people aren't being told it's effective for some other purpose and aren't being taught things that will harm their body (bad technique that exposes joints to RSI, for instance), then really, why should I get any say in the matter?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 3, 2019)

Martial D said:


> To me it's no different than keeping a car around that doesn't run because you enjoy waxing the thing.
> 
> Sure, why not, but that's not what a car was meant for.



There are plenty of car collectors who would vehemently disagree with you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 3, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> There are plenty of car collectors who would vehemently disagree with you.


And while I can't see myself ever owning a car just for looking at (I'd always want to be able to drive it), a car that looks nice but doesn't run fits their needs if that's all they want it for. It feels like it's stretching the analogy a bit (since the car presumably wasn't made that way), but it makes the point.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 3, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> And while I can't see myself ever owning a car just for looking at (I'd always want to be able to drive it), a car that looks nice but doesn't run fits their needs if that's all they want it for. It feels like it's stretching the analogy a bit (since the car presumably wasn't made that way), but it makes the point.



I drive mine, too. But that's me.
Go find the owner of the one and only High Impact Vitamin C Hemi Cuda Convertible build in 1970 and tell him he should be driving it. Don't be surprised  if his response isn't friendly.
There is only one 1983 Corvette in the world. Go find it and try to drive it. Wear a vest though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 3, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I drive mine, too. But that's me.
> Go find the owner of the one and only High Impact Vitamin C Hemi Cuda Convertible build in 1970 and tell him he should be driving it. Don't be surprised  if his response isn't friendly.
> There is only one 1983 Corvette in the world. Go find it and try to drive it. Wear a vest though.


Agreed. And this is where the analogy actually stops being stretched. I wouldn't buy either of those cars (assuming I had enough money to comfortably do so), because they simply wouldn't meet my need. But they work for those folks, even though "work" isn't the same thing to them it would be to me.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 3, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I drive mine, too. But that's me.
> Go find the owner of the one and only High Impact Vitamin C Hemi Cuda Convertible build in 1970 and tell him he should be driving it. Don't be surprised  if his response isn't friendly.
> There is only one 1983 Corvette in the world. Go find it and try to drive it. Wear a vest though.



I guarantee that car runs. In fact, I've never met anyone that collected cars that would be satisfied with a non running vehicle.

If anything collectors spend more time and love maintaining the functionality of their vehicles.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 3, 2019)

Martial D said:


> I guarantee that car runs. In fact, I've never met anyone that collected cars that would be satisfied with a non running vehicle.
> 
> If anything collectors spend more time and love maintaining the functionality of their vehicles.



Speaking only of the Corvette (because I don't know where the 'Cuda is) I will say you can guarantee that it could be *made* to run. But I'm quite sure it will *not* run without a little work. Because it's in the National Corvette Museum, and has been for quite some time. Seals and such break down faster when the car is not used. So the cars in this environment are 'clean' in the sense that they have no fluids in them. No functioning battery. So at the least, it would need new seals, plugs, wires, a battery, and all the fluids replaced before it could be made to run. It would probably need new rubber, since there's a really really good chance that the original rubber from 1983 is dry rotted beyond the point of safety. Same thing applies to things like brake lines and fuel lines.
You can also pull an awful lot of cars out of a junkyard, do exactly the same thing, and make them run. There's a show called Roadkill that routinely does just that. So in many ways, some  of the rarest collector cars are functionally the same as a junkyard car.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 3, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> No goal of a "blackbelt" which i have seen way too many drop out soon as they hit shodan.


Once you make Shodan you're just getting started.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 3, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> grade not rank. rank has hierarchy built into it. its a military term. and a vestige of Japanese Karate and Judo (from a karate viewpoint)


Rank, grade, level, whatever you want to call it. Although I see why you might want to call it grade instead of rank for the reasons you mention.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 3, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Indeed.  And if that same person tells me they have a black belt, nothing changes. There are a ton of 'black belts' with next to 0 practical fighting ability.


That depends where they got their black belt. A black belt in BJJ you would probably want to take seriously.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 3, 2019)

pgsmith said:


> Seeing someone in action is not necessary to evaluate how long they've been training and thus their knowledge level. It is fairly simple to converse with someone and figure out how experienced they are based on their responses and understanding.
> 
> You'll understand this better later on in your martial arts journey.


Nevertheless somebody might ask you first about your rank and style, before they get into detailed conversation with you about the arts. Not everybody might ask you that first but some people will.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 3, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> No. you dont have a lot of seniors telling juniors what to do (rank). A junior ask the liberty to ask qualified people for help.
> 
> Its a heirachy of competence vs a hierarchy of mere tradition and rank. You can get rank and be incompetent. Thats what politics often is about in kodansha level stuff.
> 
> ...


All martial arts schools have a hierarchy even those that don't use ranks or grades. I once had a friend who trained in a chinese style where you started on day one with a uniform and a red belt. Your belt color did not change and your uniform did not change. You started with a red belt and you finished with a red belt. There were no patches or anything to denote any kind of rank or grade. But there was a hierarchy. There was the hierarchy of instructor-student. So all martial arts schools do have a hierarchy, if nothing else the instructor-student hierarchy.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 3, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Or school has a culture of encouraging people to achieve things. You walk away with the belt. You walk away with the new job. Or ten kilos lighter or whatever you have set as goal for yourself.
> 
> Good work. Be proud of that.
> 
> Belts are an achievement of years of blood sweat and tears. They are important.


That's a good way to run a martial arts school if you ask me. And that's why its important for an instructor to know a student's goals.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 3, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Unless they aren't. There's more than a few FasTrack/online school/mail-order/mcdojo black belts out there.


That's why when asking about what rank or grade you've earned lots of people will also ask where and how you got it.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 3, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> Well, I was trying to avoid calling out specific brands of karate... You have done the favor for me. Shotokan could be an exemplar of this. But it is certainly not exclusive to Shotokan.
> 
> "Is There FEAR, in THIS Dojo?"
> [Class in unison]:
> ...


John Kreese is an excellent example of why martial arts classes should not be run like the military.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 3, 2019)

Bruce7 said:


> *When I was young going into a taekwodo school with a white belt and showing up the black belts caused problems.*


In BJJ that's called sandbagging and its frowned upon.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 3, 2019)

Martial D said:


> To me it's no different than keeping a car around that doesn't run because you enjoy waxing the thing.


Maybe you want to get good at blocking, the same reason why you might enjoy sanding decks and painting fences and houses.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 3, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> And while I can't see myself ever owning a car just for looking at (I'd always want to be able to drive it), a car that looks nice but doesn't run fits their needs if that's all they want it for. It feels like it's stretching the analogy a bit (since the car presumably wasn't made that way), but it makes the point.


Well there are some people who collect guns and never fire them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 3, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Well there are some people who collect guns and never fire them.


I happen to have one of that nature. It's from the Spanish-American war (I think), and belonged to my Great-Grandfather (though I don't think he was the original user if it was from the Spanish-American war - he wasn't that old). It's a cool old gun. I doubt I could get ammo for it without having someone custom-load some.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 3, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Do you mean in the way it matters within BJJ, for instance? Not as a "you gotta have it" important. but an "if you wear it, you better be up to it" important?



Yeah.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 3, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> For those who don't actually care about fighting ability, I don't think it does destroy their brand. If someone's intention is to train specifically for WT(F) competition, because they think it looks like a bunch of fun and they like the competitive element, then why should they train somewhere that's going to try to teach them to do something different? If someone just wants to learn to do floor gymnastics, still ring is a distraction from what they want to do.
> 
> So, yeah, in some cases it's really only about what the participants want from it. It used to drive me nuts (and still makes me itch) to see what I consider bad martial arts. But if the people aren't being told it's effective for some other purpose and aren't being taught things that will harm their body (bad technique that exposes joints to RSI, for instance), then really, why should I get any say in the matter?



Where people are trying to make money and deliver skills though. And where they have no clue. 

We have created the vehicle for them to do that in our acceptance of everything being basically equivalent. 

All systems are equal. Rank doesn't matter. Everyone gets a medal.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 3, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Yeah.


In that case, I agree. I think it's a good idea (for programs that aim to teach for competition or for self-defense) if the rank (at least early on) means something observable about your ability. I won't award a rank to someone just because they can do the techniques I test for - they need to be able to handle sparring and such at a reasonable level. Barring outside training and extremes of personal aggression, I'd expect one of my green belts (third belt) to be able to "beat" one of my yellow belts (first belt) on a regular basis in sparring/rolling. Due to size differences, there might be some discrepancies in adjacent ranks, but not across two ranks (again, barring those exceptional cases).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 3, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Where people are trying to make money and deliver skills though. And where they have no clue.
> 
> We have created the vehicle for them to do that in our acceptance of everything being basically equivalent.
> 
> All systems are equal. Rank doesn't matter. Everyone gets a medal.


I'm not sure there's a solution to that, DB. It's not up to me or you or anyone to dictate what MA must be. We could try to redefine MA so the term requires fighting ability at some level, but that doesn't guarantee anyone else uses that definition. Personally, I'm okay with "martial arts" meaning a wide range of things. I look for what I want, and expect others want to do the same.

I don't think it's all equivalent, but it's all in the same category. And rank never has meant anything more (except in the expectations of the uninformed) than what a given group designates it to mean. Rank really doesn't matter, unless it matters to the individual.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 3, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure there's a solution to that, DB. It's not up to me or you or anyone to dictate what MA must be. We could try to redefine MA so the term requires fighting ability at some level, but that doesn't guarantee anyone else uses that definition. Personally, I'm okay with "martial arts" meaning a wide range of things. I look for what I want, and expect others want to do the same.
> 
> I don't think it's all equivalent, but it's all in the same category. And rank never has meant anything more (except in the expectations of the uninformed) than what a given group designates it to mean. Rank really doesn't matter, unless it matters to the individual.



Hold ourselves to a higher critical standard. 

So that there is a separation between what a system that is doing its job and a system that doesn't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 3, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Hold ourselves to a higher critical standard.
> 
> So that there is a separation between what a system that is doing its job and a system that doesn't.


Okay, but if the job it’s being used for isn’t combat training, then it might be doing its job, but not the job you (or I or any other individual) hold yourself to the standard for. Am I making sense?


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 3, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> All martial arts schools have a hierarchy even those that don't use ranks or grades. I once had a friend who trained in a chinese style where you started on day one with a uniform and a red belt. Your belt color did not change and your uniform did not change. You started with a red belt and you finished with a red belt. There were no patches or anything to denote any kind of rank or grade. But there was a hierarchy. There was the hierarchy of instructor-student. So all martial arts schools do have a hierarchy, if nothing else the instructor-student hierarchy.



the dichotomy isnt that heirachy exists. Its the nature of the heirachy. Herachy of competance vs cultural conformity based in rank status... who has been there longest or what belt is around your waist.

Okinawan martial arts didn't have that until Mainland Imperial Japan (DNBK) had pretty much imposed some dictates. And those changes made their way back to Okinawa. 

Prior to that Okinawan martial arts were quite similar to belt less CMA like you spoke about.
CMA was held in high regard in Okinawa.

You had a school master, older "uncles" outside the kwoon, Elder brothers... and younger brothers.

There was a measure of heirachy, but it bore little to none of the Military-esque culture and the kyu-dan system that came to be.

Like i was saying before it was like artesian bujitsu in comparison to assembly line factory production Do schools.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 4, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Barring outside training and extremes of personal aggression, I'd expect one of my green belts (third belt) to be able to "beat" one of my yellow belts (first belt) on a regular basis in sparring/rolling.


So yellow belt is your first belt, do you not have the white belt in your system? In most systems that do have belts the white belt is the first belt.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 4, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> So yellow belt is your first belt, do you not have the white belt in your system? In most systems that do have belts the white belt is the first belt.


Yellow is the fist one that is earned. I should have been clearer.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 4, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Yellow is the fist one that is earned. I should have been clearer.


I some schools make the students earn their white belt. My previous one wouldn’t give it to you until you memorized the first line of the student creed. Others require learning a few techniques. Stuff like that. 

The way I figure, you earn it just by having the guts to show up and give it a try.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 5, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> I some schools make the students earn their white belt. My previous one wouldn’t give it to you until you memorized the first line of the student creed. Others require learning a few techniques. Stuff like that.
> 
> The way I figure, you earn it just by having the guts to show up and give it a try.


That's actually why I refer to yellow as "the first belt" - I had considered not putting folks in uniform immediately, letting them earn their white belt (there's a "foundation" test that happens quite early in the white belt material). So I used to refer to white as "the first belt [earned]", and just decided not to go that route.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 5, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That's actually why I refer to yellow as "the first belt" - I had considered not putting folks in uniform immediately, letting them earn their white belt (there's a "foundation" test that happens quite early in the white belt material). So I used to refer to white as "the first belt [earned]", and just decided not to go that route.



That's how we do it. White belt is earned, by learning the first basic form. Don't even need to do it all that well, just get through it.
Takes most people a month or so. The idea is to give them a chance to try things out without spending money on a uniform.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 5, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> That's how we do it. White belt is earned, by learning the first basic form. Don't even need to do it all that well, just get through it.
> Takes most people a month or so. The idea is to give them a chance to try things out without spending money on a uniform.


That was my original thought. I don't remember why I ditched it, actually. I've always allowed folks to train in plain clothes or a uniform from previous training until they have a uniform (I don't keep more than one or two on hand). I might revisit the idea of putting them in uniform after the foundation (a minimum of 10 classes, unless they have prior training).


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 5, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> That's how we do it. White belt is earned, by learning the first basic form. Don't even need to do it all that well, just get through it.
> Takes most people a month or so. The idea is to give them a chance to try things out without spending money on a uniform.


I understand and agree with it in your setting. My niece had a similar experience. There was a community program that taught Shotokan for free, funded by the city’s rec department or something like that. 

Kids had to “earn” their uniform and white belt by demonstrating Taikyoku 1 kata and a few basic hand techniques and kicks. The uniforms were free. It was honestly so they didn’t give away 500 uniforms on the first day. They’d typically have 50 kids after a month or two, and less than that by the end of the program (it was a school year long program). It saved the taxpayers money.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 5, 2019)

With all this talk about uniforms and belts and whether or not students even start with a white belt, I saw this case of really unusual rank progression. The school had about 15 students or so but only two of them had uniforms and they were both white belts. The rest of the students just trained in street clothes. Then, when they had their first tournament, all of the students were all of a sudden black belts. At the tournament, all the students had black uniforms with black belts including the vast majority who didn't even have uniforms to begin with.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 5, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> With all this talk about uniforms and belts and whether or not students even start with a white belt, I saw this case of really unusual rank progression. The school had about 15 students or so but only two of them had uniforms and they were both white belts. The rest of the students just trained in street clothes. Then, when they had their first tournament, all of the students were all of a sudden black belts. At the tournament, all the students had black uniforms with black belts including the vast majority who didn't even have uniforms to begin with.


Were they any good?


----------



## lklawson (Feb 6, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> I believe the belt and grading systems were introduced by the Japanese,


Ranks and gradings in the study of martial arts were introduced as early as the 16th Century or earlier by the Europeans.  In particular the English introduced the Company of Masters which both graded and licensed martial arts students and instructors along a system similar to the Guild system with ranks of Scholar, Free Scholar, Provost, and Maister with a minimum of 7 years between each grading event, called "Playing the Prize" and included a demonstration of skill against all challengers, unarmed and with weapons.

Even in modern Fencing there is still a testing and grading system which well predates Funakoshi and Kano.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 6, 2019)

lklawson said:


> Ranks and gradings in the study of martial arts were introduced as early as the 16th Century or earlier by the Europeans.  In particular the English introduced the Company of Masters which both graded and licensed martial arts students and instructors along a system similar to the Guild system with ranks of Scholar, Free Scholar, Provost, and Maister with a minimum of 7 years between each grading event, called "Playing the Prize" and included a demonstration of skill against all challengers, unarmed and with weapons.
> 
> Even in modern Fencing there is still a testing and grading system which well predates Funakoshi and Kano.
> 
> ...



Yep. This is true.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 6, 2019)

lklawson said:


> Ranks and gradings in the study of martial arts were introduced as early as the 16th Century or earlier by the Europeans.  In particular the English introduced the Company of Masters which both graded and licensed martial arts students and instructors along a system similar to the Guild system with ranks of Scholar, Free Scholar, Provost, and Maister with a minimum of 7 years between each grading event, called "Playing the Prize" and included a demonstration of skill against all challengers, unarmed and with weapons.
> 
> Even in modern Fencing there is still a testing and grading system which well predates Funakoshi and Kano.
> 
> ...


Pretty sure the Koreans had it before them


----------



## lklawson (Feb 7, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Pretty sure the Koreans had it before them




Maybe.  Humans love to have ranks and gradings.  I think that it's coded on the DNA.  We simply MUST have some sort of pecking order.  <sigh>

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 8, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Were they any good?


Yes some of them were on screen but this was a YouTube series and not real life.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 8, 2019)

lklawson said:


> Maybe.  Humans love to have ranks and gradings.  I think that it's coded on the DNA.  We simply MUST have some sort of pecking order.  <sigh>
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Well we do. Whether or not we have formal ranks or grades we always have a pecking order of some sort.


----------



## Steve (Feb 9, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, but if the job it’s being used for isn’t combat training, then it might be doing its job, but not the job you (or I or any other individual) hold yourself to the standard for. Am I making sense?


Does tae bo have belt ranks?  Does it need them?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 9, 2019)

Steve said:


> Does tae bo have belt ranks?  Does it need them?


It doesn't need them, but it could have them. If I tried doing a fitness workout class, I'd want to know what my instructors experience is, not in MA but in fitness. A lot of people don't seem to care, but that's cause they're sheeple


----------



## Steve (Feb 9, 2019)

If there is purpose in ranks, and they are based on tangible, measurable performance that is grounded in application, this entire discussion is unthinkable.   Welders, Carpenters, iron workers, electricians... There is no question whether you are an apprentice, a journeyman, or a master,

In a military unit, there is no philosophical question about why rank exists, whether it is Asian or not.


----------



## Steve (Feb 9, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> It doesn't need them, but it could have them. If I tried doing a fitness workout class, I'd want to know what my instructors experience is, not in MA but in fitness. A lot of people don't seem to care, but that's cause they're sheeple


Sure, and they would be just as meaningful as belts in ninjutsu.

Regarding what your jnstructor's experience is... Do you ask them for their resume now?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 9, 2019)

Steve said:


> Sure, and they would be just as meaningful as belts in ninjutsu.
> 
> Regarding what your jnstructor's experience is... Do you ask them for their resume now?


For MA, sort of. I don't make it an official thing, but when I was looking for a new school, I'd ask them about the history of the style, and pepper in questions about who taught them and how long they've been training, and if they cross-trained. Surprisingly, once I started asking the people I talked to just kinda kept going, and I knew their entire MA history without having to ask. The few that were guarded, I didn't care to go back to.

I'd imagine if I was looking for someone for fitness, I would either need 
A: a recommendation from someone I know has spent a lot of time focusing on fitness
B: a recommendation from someone I saw go from zero to hero fitness-wise
C: information from them on where they learned to be a fitness instructor, and how long they've been doing it.

That probably sounds like BS, but if I was going to go to someone to help me with my fitness, I would absolutely want to know I could trust them with it.


----------



## Steve (Feb 9, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> For MA, sort of. I don't make it an official thing, but when I was looking for a new school, I'd ask them about the history of the style, and pepper in questions about who taught them and how long they've been training, and if they cross-trained. Surprisingly, once I started asking the people I talked to just kinda kept going, and I knew their entire MA history without having to ask. The few that were guarded, I didn't care to go back to.
> 
> I'd imagine if I was looking for someone for fitness, I would either need
> A: a recommendation from someone I know has spent a lot of time focusing on fitness
> ...


Well, I'm not sure why you train ma, but presuming that being able to fight is part of that, I am skeptical that you got a or b.  Possible, but unlikely.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 9, 2019)

Steve said:


> Well, I'm not sure why you train ma, but presuming that being able to fight is part of that, I am skeptical that you got a or b.  Possible, but unlikely.


Those were for fitness, not fighting. 

You're right I didn't get A or B. I do know my instructor's instructor in both BJJ and kali though, his rank in both, and how long he has trained in each. Not sure about for muay thai, but I don't train that so I don't care. Admittedly, I took his word on both, but considering his teachers have come down (up?) for seminars, I'm pretty sure he's not lying.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 9, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Those were for fitness, not fighting.
> 
> You're right I didn't get A or B. I do know my instructor's instructor in both BJJ and kali though, his rank in both, and how long he has trained in each. Not sure about for muay thai, but I don't train that so I don't care. Admittedly, I took his word on both, but considering his teachers have come down (up?) for seminars, I'm pretty sure he's not lying.


Forgot to say-the reason I specified this is that I would expect everyone to do something similar. Either go by personal reference, or their credentials (either competition credentials, or who they were trained from, and the validity of their ranks). How they teach is also important, but the background info is important too, again, assuming no personal references.


----------



## Steve (Feb 10, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Those were for fitness, not fighting.
> 
> You're right I didn't get A or B. I do know my instructor's instructor in both BJJ and kali though, his rank in both, and how long he has trained in each. Not sure about for muay thai, but I don't train that so I don't care. Admittedly, I took his word on both, but considering his teachers have come down (up?) for seminars, I'm pretty sure he's not lying.


Why is fitness different from fighting?  Lest we get too literal, I mean in the context of vetting an expert who can teach an actual skill.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 10, 2019)

Steve said:


> Why is fitness different from fighting?


It's not, that's why I compared them. I just specified that because I don't currently go to a trainer to help with fitness. So I didn't end up going with A or B for fitness or fighting. I went with C for fighting, and nothing for fitness.


----------



## Steve (Feb 10, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> It's not, that's why I compared them. I just specified that because I don't currently go to a trainer to help with fitness. So I didn't end up going with A or B for fitness or fighting. I went with C for fighting, and nothing for fitness.


But you were the one who expressed the vetting standard for one that is different from another.   I'm asking why that is.  I didn't post a and b.  You did.  Why is that?  For argument's sake?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 10, 2019)

Steve said:


> But you were the one who expressed the vetting standard for one that is different from another.   I'm asking why that is.  I didn't post a and b.  You did.  Why is that?  For argument's sake?


I thought you were making the suggesting that they are different, with your statement about tae bo. So I was explaining how my vetting process for both of them would be the same, by explaining what the vetting process was. I think stuff just got lost in translation...probably because I should have gone to bed a couple hours ago.


----------



## Steve (Feb 10, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> I thought you were making the suggesting that they are different, with your statement about tae bo. So I was explaining how my vetting process for both of them would be the same, by explaining what the vetting process was. I think stuff just got lost in translation...probably because I should have gone to bed a couple hours ago.


I'm suggesting that when we boil things down, we simply expect that our instructor is competent.   How might we know this?  When the ranks are associated with objective performance, it's pretty easy.  

If fitness is the goal, we look for people who are fit.  But if fighting is the goal....


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 10, 2019)

Steve said:


> I'm suggesting that when we boil things down, we simply expect that our instructor is competent.   How might we know this?  When the ranks are associated with objective performance, it's pretty easy.
> 
> If fitness is the goal, we look for people who are fit.  But if fighting is the goal....


For me at least, I look for two things with both. Are they fit/can the fight, and can they teach it. That's the reason for my list. If I see the evidence that they can teach it, from someone they taught, then I'm good with going to them. Or if they can prove they actually learned it properly (physical trainer course, or from a competent martial artist/style), then I'm good since they won't teach me anything bad, at least. I'm not just going to ask any jacked dude to become my trainer, and I'm not asking any street-fighter to teach me.

But I agree. They need to be fit (for fitness)/be able to fight (for MA), otherwise I don't want to learn from them.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 10, 2019)

Steve said:


> I'm suggesting that when we boil things down, we simply expect that our instructor is competent.   How might we know this?  When the ranks are associated with objective performance, it's pretty easy.
> 
> If fitness is the goal, we look for people who are fit.  But if fighting is the goal....





kempodisciple said:


> For me at least, I look for two things with both. Are they fit/can the fight, and can they teach it. That's the reason for my list. If I see the evidence that they can teach it, from someone they taught, then I'm good with going to them. Or if they can prove they actually learned it properly (physical trainer course, or from a competent martial artist/style), then I'm good since they won't teach me anything bad, at least. I'm not just going to ask any jacked dude to become my trainer, and I'm not asking any street-fighter to teach me.
> 
> But I agree. They need to be fit (for fitness)/be able to fight (for MA), otherwise I don't want to learn from them.



I just read over these, and can't tell if I'm being overly nitpicky right now. Going to look it over in the morning to see.


----------



## Steve (Feb 10, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> For me at least, I look for two things with both. Are they fit/can the fight, and can they teach it. That's the reason for my list. If I see the evidence that they can teach it, from someone they taught, then I'm good with going to them. Or if they can prove they actually learned it properly (physical trainer course, or from a competent martial artist/style), then I'm good since they won't teach me anything bad, at least. I'm not just going to ask any jacked dude to become my trainer, and I'm not asking any street-fighter to teach me.
> 
> But I agree. They need to be fit (for fitness)/be able to fight (for MA), otherwise I don't want to learn from them.


Can they teach?  That is a retrospective determination.   Can they fight... How might a budding martial artist judge this?


----------



## Steve (Feb 10, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> I just read over these, and can't tell if I'm being overly nitpicky right now. Going to look it over in the morning to see.


Could be either or both of us.  I'm watching guy Ritchie's Sherlock and enjoying a well deserved bourbon after long day of scraping snow for several neighbors.  Not to mention hurling my neighbor's kids far too fast down the street on sleds.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 10, 2019)

Steve said:


> Does tae bo have belt ranks?  Does it need them?


I don't know the answer to the first, but I'd imagine not. And I don't think any MA really needs belts - they are useful, but not necessary.

I'm not sure where you're going with that pair of questions, though, Steve.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 10, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> It doesn't need them, but it could have them. If I tried doing a fitness workout class, I'd want to know what my instructors experience is, not in MA but in fitness. A lot of people don't seem to care, but that's cause they're sheeple


As with MA, I rarely need to ask. I watch a class, and can tell if I like the instructor's approach or not. I've seen very experienced (and very popular) instructors who did a good job of demonstrating the fundamentals, but who changed routines too often and didn't do a good job with beginners (many changes of motion, so slow physical learners like me find themselves always trying to figure out what they're supposed to be doing). I've seen new instructors who were a bit less organized, but who did a great job making sure people were learning to do the movements well and safely. I'm thinking of two, specifically, and both had similar paper qualifications (other than time spent teaching). Each of those instructors will draw a different student, and I think we'd find similar differences in MA training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 10, 2019)

Steve said:


> If there is purpose in ranks, and they are based on tangible, measurable performance that is grounded in application, this entire discussion is unthinkable.   Welders, Carpenters, iron workers, electricians... There is no question whether you are an apprentice, a journeyman, or a master,
> 
> In a military unit, there is no philosophical question about why rank exists, whether it is Asian or not.


The point I was making earlier is "application" in what sense? If I were to teach NGA as a moving meditation, fitness method, etc. (in other words, not really concerned with whether there was fighting application or not), then I might test based on fluidity and precision of the movements, only. And I could grade based on that. Maybe later I'd grade also based on understanding of the mechanics. Those ranks would have a specific meaning, and not one you could necessarily tell from the outside (someone in a middle rank or higher could probably spot those things without the belt).

Then we get back to the question of what rank is meant to be about, within any given system. Judo used to allow ranking entirely by competition. Last I looked, I think they'd changed that so it wasn't possible to rank up quickly by simply going to several competitions and winning. Why? Because being able to beat a Judoka in a competition doesn't mean you should have rank in Judo, unless the rank is _only_ about skill in that competition format. If it's meant to denote skill in Judo (meaning, the techniques and principles as taught in the art), then someone should have to train in the art to get that rank. If I could go to a BJJ school and consistently out-grapple the brown belts (I probably couldn't), that wouldn't make me a BJJ brown belt. It would make me their equivalent in grappling, but there'd be no reason I can think of for me to have that (or any other) rank in BJJ, except as some sort of honorary thing (which is cool, but not the same as a training rank).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 10, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> For MA, sort of. I don't make it an official thing, but when I was looking for a new school, I'd ask them about the history of the style, and pepper in questions about who taught them and how long they've been training, and if they cross-trained. Surprisingly, once I started asking the people I talked to just kinda kept going, and I knew their entire MA history without having to ask. The few that were guarded, I didn't care to go back to.


That last sentence is more important to me. How they answer me is more important than what they actually tell me. The names they throw out are unlikely to be meaningful (unless it includes one of the handful of senior instructors I know anything about in any given art), and their time training only matters up to a point. But the more they seem to be hedging, or the more they seem to be bragging (like a Kempo guy I was talking to this week here in NC who couldn't stop bragging about how tough he was back in the day and how many fights he used to get into just to "practice"), the less I'm interested.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 10, 2019)

Steve said:


> Why is fitness different from fighting?  Lest we get too literal, I mean in the context of vetting an expert who can teach an actual skill.


I'd have a hard time finding someone to fit his A to ask in this area (geographically speaking), and I know nobody in the area who would fit B. I think it's easier to find those regarding fitness - B is often observable in fitness.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 10, 2019)

Steve said:


> I'm suggesting that when we boil things down, we simply expect that our instructor is competent.   How might we know this?  When the ranks are associated with objective performance, it's pretty easy.
> 
> If fitness is the goal, we look for people who are fit.  But if fighting is the goal....


This is part of the reason I recommend people looking at a school should pay attention to middle and upper ranks, as much as beginners. You're looking for skill developed among students. If people regularly compete, then go watch some compete (or look for trophies and such at the school). It's also why I often suggest they find a friend who has some MA experience to go with them, as a newbie often can't tell what level of skill they're looking at, and whether there's too much cooperation going on.


----------



## Steve (Feb 10, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> This is part of the reason I recommend people looking at a school should pay attention to middle and upper ranks, as much as beginners. You're looking for skill developed among students. If people regularly compete, then go watch some compete (or look for trophies and such at the school). It's also why I often suggest they find a friend who has some MA experience to go with them, as a newbie often can't tell what level of skill they're looking at, and whether there's too much cooperation going on.


You're mixing things up a little.  The fault in the logic here is that you're assessing competence in a completely different area.  If competition is your goal, the line is direct.  At best, though, it's like going to a butcher to find a good cook.  I mean, if they're a really good butcher, surely they are Michelin star quality chefs.  Right? Maybe... Maybe not. 

The other major flaw is that, as a beginner, you aren't competent to assess skill, and frankly, you're friend probably isn't either.  So, you go in and it looks impressive.  People generally look and act like what you'd expect based on whatever preconception you have of martial arts.


----------



## Steve (Feb 10, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That last sentence is more important to me. How they answer me is more important than what they actually tell me. The names they throw out are unlikely to be meaningful (unless it includes one of the handful of senior instructors I know anything about in any given art), and their time training only matters up to a point. But the more they seem to be hedging, or the more they seem to be bragging (like a Kempo guy I was talking to this week here in NC who couldn't stop bragging about how tough he was back in the day and how many fights he used to get into just to "practice"), the less I'm interested.


So, what I read in your post above is that character matters more to you than competence.  That's fair, if you know going in that you might be hiring an honest fool, or a skilled salesperson, or a zealot.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 10, 2019)

Steve said:


> You're mixing things up a little.  The fault in the logic here is that you're assessing competence in a completely different area.  If competition is your goal, the line is direct.  At best, though, it's like going to a butcher to find a good cook.  I mean, if they're a really good butcher, surely they are Michelin star quality chefs.  Right? Maybe... Maybe not.


I don't get the analogy. I said people should look at the quality of the students to assess the instructor's ability as an instructor. What does that have to do with the chef/butcher analogy?



> The other major flaw is that, as a beginner, you aren't competent to assess skill, and frankly, you're friend probably isn't either.  So, you go in and it looks impressive.  People generally look and act like what you'd expect based on whatever preconception you have of martial arts.


Not a flaw in logic, at all. I said a beginner isn't equipped to make the assessment. As for the friend, it depends upon the friend. When I go in, I start by looking for skill at what they're doing, then look at what they're doing to see what skills it requires. I've seen some really high skill levels at Aikido dojos, but at exercises that don't necessarily correlate to application against a resisting opponent (I'd consider it similar to if I went to boxing gym and saw great bag work and shadowboxing - I still haven't seen how they handle the chaos and resistance). So, if I'm in the role of that friend, I'll share both parts of that observation, if they're looking for defensive/fighting application (if they aren't, and just want to learn Aikido for the sake of fun, I'll focus on the skill within the exercises).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 10, 2019)

Steve said:


> So, what I read in your post above is that character matters more to you than competence.  That's fair, if you know going in that you might be hiring an honest fool, or a skilled salesperson, or a zealot.


I can assess the competence more easily by watching than by asking questions, unless it's a competition-oriented art or instructor (though, even then, I'm as interested in how they answer as what they answer - a shady-sounding bragging makes me less likely to believe their claims). In the discussion, I'm looking for someone I feel comfortable with, and who isn't apparently trying to hide something.


----------



## Steve (Feb 10, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I don't get the analogy. I said people should look at the quality of the students to assess the instructor's ability as an instructor. What does that have to do with the chef/butcher analogy?


it has to do with what you are assessing vs what you think you are assessing.  If you think you are assessing a competent self defense instructor, and are actually assessing competent MA instruction, you are set up very well to be duped.  


> Not a flaw in logic, at all. I said a beginner isn't equipped to make the assessment. As for the friend, it depends upon the friend. When I go in, I start by looking for skill at what they're doing, then look at what they're doing to see what skills it requires. I've seen some really high skill levels at Aikido dojos, but at exercises that don't necessarily correlate to application against a resisting opponent (I'd consider it similar to if I went to boxing gym and saw great bag work and shadowboxing - I still haven't seen how they handle the chaos and resistance). So, if I'm in the role of that friend, I'll share both parts of that observation, if they're looking for defensive/fighting application (if they aren't, and just want to learn Aikido for the sake of fun, I'll focus on the skill within the exercises).


That you would offer defensive or fighting advise at all is a good example of my point.   If I wanted to assess the caliber of aikido I'm looking at, you'd be my first choice for insight.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 10, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I don't get the analogy. I said people should look at the quality of the students to assess the instructor's ability as an instructor. What does that have to do with the chef/butcher analogy?
> 
> 
> Not a flaw in logic, at all. I said a beginner isn't equipped to make the assessment. As for the friend, it depends upon the friend. When I go in, I start by looking for skill at what they're doing, then look at what they're doing to see what skills it requires. I've seen some really high skill levels at Aikido dojos, but at exercises that don't necessarily correlate to application against a resisting opponent (I'd consider it similar to if I went to boxing gym and saw great bag work and shadowboxing - I still haven't seen how they handle the chaos and resistance). So, if I'm in the role of that friend, I'll share both parts of that observation, if they're looking for defensive/fighting application (if they aren't, and just want to learn Aikido for the sake of fun, I'll focus on the skill within the exercises).


Here’s a wrench in assessing a group’s skill level when evaluating a teacher: how do you know where they started compared to when you visit?

Let’s say you watch a group and think they’re not very good. What if they’re a million times better than they were when they started?

Let’s say you see a group and are very impressed by the students’ abilities. How do you know if they were really good athletes coming in and look great despite what the teacher’s teaching rather than because of his teaching?

Different arts will have varying degrees of this. The more athletic the art, such as TKD’s jumping, flying and spinning kicks, the more it becomes an issue.

This was somewhat of a concern when I was shopping around. Part of what made me realize it was my teacher was there was a good cross-section of students and ranks. Some you could tell were naturally athletic, and others it seemed like this was the first physical thing they’ve ever done.

Someone with no MA experience will walk in and look at students and think the teacher must be great or the teacher must suck. The better way of assessing a prospective teacher’s abilities is watching the type of feedback he/she’s giving, and what they’re correcting and not correcting. But if you don’t know what needs correction, then you’re back to square one.

I like my teacher’s teaching style. He gives minimal instruction (but enough) and has students learn through repetition. They get more comfortable, then he starts addressing things to improve on. They get better, be gives a few more things. Some explain the hell out of something and try to correct every minute detail right off the bat; IMO that gets people thinking too much about it and getting into their own heads. Both ways can work, but I prefer to be shown how to do, let me do enough times to get comfortable, then start getting into the details.

One of the things that stuck out most was when I watched him teach a student a new kata. It was “follow me” with a simple “turn left 90 degrees, X stance Y technique;” “step forward Z stance A technique”...

He didn’t correct much. He didn’t keep harping on the stance depth, where the eyes were looking, chambered hand was, etc. It was memorize the moves and order, then work on the details. I’ve seen people do quite the opposite. He knows all those details are going to looks like crap until the student gets comfortable with the memorization part; no sense in fighting it. There’s plenty of time to polish it afterwards.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 10, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Its been covered on here before that some people don't care about earning rank in the martial arts, if they train in a style that uses a ranking system, and I know that rank isn't everything but here is a reason why it might be important in some situations. Sometimes when you're discussing martial arts with somebody they might ask you at some point what your rank is, where you got it, ect. and if you're not at a high enough rank they might not take you seriously. Now when I talk about a "high enough rank" that's very subjective of course but I would say that if you've at least made first dan in a style you're going to be taken more seriously than if you haven't. Also, it would depend on where you earned your first dan rank and the standards you had to meet to get it. There are some schools where I wouldn't take a person seriously even if they got third or fourth dan there because they've got such low standards, but if its a good school with a good solid reputation than I would take a person who earned first dan there as I believe most in the martial arts community would. So that is just one reason why rank might be important to some people.



For more informed MA's like the people on this forum I would propose the opposite. There are WAY too many people out there claiming to be high ranking when it turns out to be either a certificate from a paper mill or they are self proclaimed. So when I see/hear of the 30 year old 8th Dan I get suspicious. If you look at Martial Arts as an institution, and you want it to mean something, standards must be upheld. I know rank has no meaning in some styles but for most it does. McDojo's can taint the sample but overall there are many credible reasons  schools/systems use a ranking structure. I get that "getting your black belt" it is an often used marketing tool that is not always properly used, but if the curriculum is of a high standard why is it any different from getting a Bachelor's degree? 
For certain, aligning your knowledge with your experience is going to be all over the map. Just the differences in communication skills will make a big difference. In this regard, some 1st/2nd Dan's will "sound" more knowledgeable than some of much higher rank. It is like teaching, not everyone is good at it; no matter how much education or experience they have.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 10, 2019)

Steve said:


> it has to do with what you are assessing vs what you think you are assessing.  If you think you are assessing a competent self defense instructor, and are actually assessing competent MA instruction, you are set up very well to be duped.
> 
> That you would offer defensive or fighting advise at all is a good example of my point.   If I wanted to assess the caliber of aikido I'm looking at, you'd be my first choice for insight.



The language helps. A person who has experience and has analyzed that will discuss that experience in a different manner. Hard to describe in words but I have noticed this when competition guys discuss SD.

The language changes.

So say you get taught a move generally you get told how to hit that move, who has the best examples and the risks and rewards.

Let's pick something obscure like a Russian wrist snap.
https://www.flowrestling.org/video/6164275-behind-the-dirt-russian-wrist-snap

Then you move to self defence and suddenly it is this happens in a street fight and if you do that you will die.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 10, 2019)

Steve said:


> it has to do with what you are assessing vs what you think you are assessing.  If you think you are assessing a competent self defense instructor, and are actually assessing competent MA instruction, you are set up very well to be duped.


Depends what you're looking for in SD instruction. If I'm just looking for effective physical defenses (basically fighting ability), then that's what I'm looking for in the students. If I'm looking for more than that (instruction in the non-physical aspects), then I'd need a longer talk with the instructor.



> That you would offer defensive or fighting advise at all is a good example of my point.   If I wanted to assess the caliber of aikido I'm looking at, you'd be my first choice for insight.


Yeah. Snipe on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 10, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Here’s a wrench in assessing a group’s skill level when evaluating a teacher: how do you know where they started compared to when you visit?
> 
> Let’s say you watch a group and think they’re not very good. What if they’re a million times better than they were when they started?
> 
> ...


What you're referring to is their teaching style. That's an important aspect (at least to some folks) in finding "fit" - different teaching styles work better for different people. But I don't know that you can reliably tell what results a teacher gets by their teaching style/approach. Given enough students, it's reasonable to assume they're more or less average (unless the instructor is screening you for ability before you join, then you might determine he's starting with above-average folks). It would be hard for me to imagine that a given instructor - assuming they teach to the general public - has a class full of below-average (athletically speaking) people. There might be a few, and I always try to mentally exclude both high and low outliers when observing, because those aren't usually the result of the instructor's ability (or lack thereof).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 10, 2019)

drop bear said:


> The language helps. A person who has experience and has analyzed that will discuss that experience in a different manner. Hard to describe in words but I have noticed this when competition guys discuss SD.
> 
> The language changes.
> 
> ...


I agree, except that it's not all self-defense folks who do that. There are plenty that do, though.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 10, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I agree, except that it's not all self-defense folks who do that. There are plenty that do, though.



It is kind of how you can tell the difference between a guy who knows what he is on about and a guy who doesn't.

Without having to have spent 20 years bashing people.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 10, 2019)

drop bear said:


> It is kind of how you can tell the difference between a guy who knows what he is on about and a guy who doesn't.
> 
> Without having to have spent 20 years bashing people.


It makes me itch when SD instructors talk about moves that will instantly stop a fight, certainly break (things like the kick to the knee), etc. And some also have students STOP when they mess up - I've heard them say "You're dead - try again". It goes back to the discussion going on in another thread about stabs.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 10, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> For more informed MA's like the people on this forum I would propose the opposite. There are WAY too many people out there claiming to be high ranking when it turns out to be either a certificate from a paper mill or they are self proclaimed. So when I see/hear of the 30 year old 8th Dan I get suspicious. If you look at Martial Arts as an institution, and you want it to mean something, standards must be upheld. I know rank has no meaning in some styles but for most it does. McDojo's can taint the sample but overall there are many credible reasons  schools/systems use a ranking structure. I get that "getting your black belt" it is an often used marketing tool that is not always properly used, but if the curriculum is of a high standard why is it any different from getting a Bachelor's degree?
> For certain, aligning your knowledge with your experience is going to be all over the map. Just the differences in communication skills will make a big difference. In this regard, some 1st/2nd Dan's will "sound" more knowledgeable than some of much higher rank. It is like teaching, not everyone is good at it; no matter how much education or experience they have.


Then again, when you have 12 year old 3rd and 4th dans, is 35 really too young to be a 7th or 8th dan when they’ve been training consistently since they were 4? People defend kids with black belts, yet criticize a 30 something with a 7th or 8th dan. That’s what you eventually get when you start giving these kids high ranks and titles. 

I’ve said it a million times: give the kids a gray belt. An 6 year old black belt is as asinine as a 12 year old 4th dan. A 12 year old 4th dan is just as asinine as a 30 something 7th or 8th dan. If you’re ok with an 8 year old black belt, you shouldn’t have issues with a young-ish adult high ranking black belt. It’s just a continuation. 

I don’t think a black belt is something sacred or holy. Not by a long shot. But it should mean something. Putting it around a little kid’s waist pretty much says it’s not worth anything. While I don’t like that we have junior black belts in my organization, at least it’s impossible for them to get to any advanced degree before they’re older. It’s just they way minimum age for different programs and junior black belt are set up. Somewhere between 10-12 is the minimum age for junior bb. By the time they’d be ready to test for a higher level, they’d be in the adult program and learning the stuff the adults do that the juniors don’t. For reference, junior bb material is somewhere between 3rd and 2nd kyu. They don’t know the adult full syllabus of either of those two ranks, but know some parts of each. That’s what I’ve seen anyway. We’ve only had 2 kids test for junior bb since I’ve been there, which is 4 years this month. Both kids had been training for about 8 years before they tested; average adult time to 1st dan is 5-6 years.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 10, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> It makes me itch when SD instructors talk about moves that will instantly stop a fight, certainly break (things like the kick to the knee), etc. And some also have students STOP when they mess up - I've heard them say "You're dead - try again". It goes back to the discussion going on in another thread about stabs.



Yeah I missed the whole stab thread drama. I had a guy at work who came to us complaining he had been beaten up. 

I had a look and saw some holes in his t shirt and it wound up he had a sucking chest wound. 

And apparently he had been walking around for ten minutes. 

Now having said that he wasn't in good shape by the time the ambulance got there. 

Where as for me I need a sit down if I cut my finger.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 11, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Yeah I missed the whole stab thread drama. I had a guy at work who came to us complaining he had been beaten up.
> 
> I had a look and saw some holes in his t shirt and it wound up he had a sucking chest wound.
> 
> ...


Yep, that's what I was getting at. And yeah, if he cuts my finger with his knife, he'll have no trouble stabbing me, because I'll be holding the cut finger with my other hand as if it's trying to fall off, even if he just barely grazes me.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 11, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Yeah I missed the whole stab thread drama. I had a guy at work who came to us complaining he had been beaten up.
> 
> I had a look and saw some holes in his t shirt and it wound up he had a sucking chest wound.
> 
> ...


I don’t know why this is, but every time I cut my finger or do crush-type stuff to them, I fell dizzy and sick to my stomach. Anywhere else, and I’m fine. 

I cut my finger pretty good on a broken pipe I was trying to fix a few days ago. I thought I was going to throw up. Blood and stuff doesn’t bother me. I’ve seen bones sticking out of people’s skin and I’ve always been fine. I get nosebleeds all the time and they’ve never bothered me. Somehow when it’s my fingers, all that goes out the window. Weird.


----------



## Steve (Feb 11, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I can assess the competence more easily by watching than by asking questions, unless it's a competition-oriented art or instructor (though, even then, I'm as interested in how they answer as what they answer - a shady-sounding bragging makes me less likely to believe their claims). In the discussion, I'm looking for someone I feel comfortable with, and who isn't apparently trying to hide something.


Your confidence is part of the trap that allows incompetent instructors to continue plying their trade and bilking folks out of their money.


gpseymour said:


> Depends what you're looking for in SD instruction. If I'm just looking for effective physical defenses (basically fighting ability), then that's what I'm looking for in the students. If I'm looking for more than that (instruction in the non-physical aspects), then I'd need a longer talk with the instructor.
> 
> 
> Yeah. Snipe on.


Not a snipe.  At least not intended to be.  You have a blind spot.  Its really that simple.  When you offer advice.   Expert advice, no less, on self defense, you are part of the problem.  When you sayyou'reent comfortable, it indicates that this is intentional.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 11, 2019)

Steve said:


> Your confidence is part of the trap that allows incompetent instructors to continue plying their trade and bilking folks out of their money.


So, your assertion is that talk is better evidence of their competence than seeing them in motion. Interesting place to stand, Steve.



> Not a snipe.  At least not intended to be.  You have a blind spot.  Its really that simple.  When you offer advice.   Expert advice, no less, on self defense, you are part of the problem.  When you sayyou'reent comfortable, it indicates that this is intentional.


No, you just keep assuming you know inside my head and what I'm capable (and incapable) of. As for your assertion that it's intentional, that's just plain insulting - and apparently meant to be so. I think we can wrap this discussion up now.


----------



## Steve (Feb 11, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So, your assertion is that talk is better evidence of their competence than seeing them in motion. Interesting place to stand, Steve.


I don't think I said that at all.  I don't see how one is better than the other, if you don't actually understand the subject.  



> No, you just keep assuming you know inside my head and what I'm capable (and incapable) of. As for your assertion that it's intentional, that's just plain insulting - and apparently meant to be so. I think we can wrap this discussion up now.


I only know what you've shared.  And I'm not trying to insult you.  I would never offer to go with a friend to offer my expert opinion on aikido, or present myself as an authority on that subject, even though I have more academic knowledge than a lay person by virtue of the many discussions I've read here and my own intellectual curiosity.   I've never trained aikido.  But this is exactly what you do in many areas.  Not just you, but you're the most vocal about it.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 11, 2019)

Steve said:


> Your confidence is part of the trap that allows incompetent instructors to continue plying their trade and bilking folks out of their money.
> 
> Not a snipe.  At least not intended to be.  You have a blind spot.  Its really that simple.  When you offer advice.   Expert advice, no less, on self defense, you are part of the problem.  When you sayyou'reent comfortable, it indicates that this is intentional.



By defending the brand they destroy the brand. 

Because martial arts is set up to be assessed in such an obscure manner. It becomes very hard to judge real from fake. 

So if I can say it works on the street. I allow anyone to say the same claim.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 11, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Yeah I missed the whole stab thread drama. I had a guy at work who came to us complaining he had been beaten up.
> 
> I had a look and saw some holes in his t shirt and it wound up he had a sucking chest wound.
> 
> ...


Was he juiced up?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 11, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Was he juiced up?



Nah. Probably just a heap of adrenaline from the beating he took.


----------



## Steve (Feb 11, 2019)

drop bear said:


> By defending the brand they destroy the brand.
> 
> Because martial arts is set up to be assessed in such an obscure manner. It becomes very hard to judge real from fake.
> 
> So if I can say it works on the street. I allow anyone to say the same claim.


Sales 101.  Here's what I think is the real issue.  People become so used to equating A with B that they become unwitting agents of the deception.  A guy wants some self defense.  He's watched TV and seen the movies.  He thinks, "I should train in Martial Arts.  I've always wanted to be a samurai, and if I get my black belt, I will be really cool."  He's no dummy, so he says to himself, "Self, I should talk to my friend, Frank.  He's a black belt in something.  Maybe he can point me to a good school."  Frank, who has no practical experience in anything other than training Aikido in his dojo, says, "Sure.  I'll help you.  There are some things you should look for in a good school."  Then Frank parrots everything he's ever been taught or told about self defense and good schools.  And the guy believes every word of it, without question, because Frank is credible.  He's trustworthy, and Frank truly believes he's being helpful.  But Frank really doesn't have the experience to tell good information from bad.  He is just trusting his sources, whom he believes are credible and trustworthy.  It's a circle jerk, really.  A lot of well meaning folks passing along information that may or may not be complete bunk.  

And yes, I know the response.  "But Steve.  You can't read my mind."  I disagree.  I would never knowingly hire a trainer for a management course who has never managed staff.  And close doesn't always translate.  I would never hire a tennis coach to teach me to play table tennis, even though both involve hitting a small ball with a paddle or racket over a net.  And I wouldn't expect a tennis pro to help me find a good table tennis coach.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 11, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> I don’t think a black belt is something sacred or holy. Not by a long shot. But it should mean something.


No a black belt is not sacred and holy but as you put it, it definitely means something. If you had to earn it that is. In the world of martial arts they say a black belt is not a master or even an expert, although that would depend on how you got it and the standards you had to meet to get it, but I would say its just the beginning. Once you make black belt the real training and the real learning begins. That's why I believe it is important to get your first black belt provided that your main style is a style that has a ranking system with a black belt. That way when you make black belt, you take your training to the next level, the next level being that you start to learn the real stuff.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 11, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> The belt hierarchy is asian.... originating at the Kodokan. it has a definite class system.
> with it comes a preloaded system of social hierarchy that is partly the sempai and cohai thing. and lining up by class rank.
> 
> in this western alternative.
> ...



I find the concept interesting, but maybe in need of polishing.  In a loose paraphrase of @skribs and @Dirty Dog, your rank system and the "Asian" rank system both look like a rose and so smell like a rose.  They seem to be attempting to accomplish many of the same things.

Feel free to disagree.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 11, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> No a black belt is not sacred and holy but as you put it, it definitely means something. If you had to earn it that is. In the world of martial arts they say a black belt is not a master or even an expert, although that would depend on how you got it and the standards you had to meet to get it, but I would say its just the beginning. Once you make black belt the real training and the real learning begins. That's why I believe it is important to get your first black belt provided that your main style is a style that has a ranking system with a black belt. That way when you make black belt, you take your training to the next level, the next level being that you start to learn the real stuff.


I view shodan as being proficient in the basics. You know them and can use them at a functional level. You can use them effectively under a few different situations. When you’re sparring and or fighting, you can use what you’ve been taught. Not at a mastery of the techniques level, but a holding your own level.

Beyond that is being able to use those techniques under more and more circumstances and they’re progressively more effective. 

All IMO.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 11, 2019)

.


----------



## skribs (Feb 11, 2019)

oftheherd1 said:


> I find the concept interesting, but maybe in need of polishing.  In a loose paraphrase of @skribs and @Dirty Dog, your rank system and the "Asian" rank system both look like a rose and so smell like a rose.  They seem to be attempting to accomplish many of the same things.
> 
> Feel free to disagree.



I am anosmic.  Therefore I don't think anything smells like anything.


----------



## Steve (Feb 12, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> I view shodan as being proficient in the basics. You know them and can use them at a functional level. You can use them effectively under a few different situations. When you’re sparring and or fighting, you can use what you’ve been taught. Not at a mastery of the techniques level, but a holding your own level.
> 
> Beyond that is being able to use those techniques under more and more circumstances and they’re progressively more effective.
> 
> All IMO.


That's a blue belt in bjj, or possibly a purple belt.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 12, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> I view shodan as being proficient in the basics. You know them and can use them at a functional level. You can use them effectively under a few different situations. When you’re sparring and or fighting, you can use what you’ve been taught. Not at a mastery of the techniques level, but a holding your own level.
> 
> Beyond that is being able to use those techniques under more and more circumstances and they’re progressively more effective.
> 
> All IMO.


Exactly. That's why I view it as all the more important to at least get a first degree black belt in my primary martial art, provided my primary martial art has a black belt. If you're not going to be a master at least be proficient in the basics and at least be able to hold your own.

Of course if you do want to go on to become a master you have to get to that level where you're proficient and can hold your own first.

Then after making 1st dan, you go beyond and learn to use your techniques under more circumstances and make them more effective, that is how you go to the next level.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 12, 2019)

Steve said:


> That's a blue belt in bjj, or possibly a purple belt.


Generally speaking, a purple belt in bjj is considered equivalent to the average black belt in most other styles.


----------



## Steve (Feb 12, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Generally speaking, a purple belt in bjj is considered equivalent to the average black belt in most other styles.


Based in Jr's definition, that would be a blue belt in many schools.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 12, 2019)

Steve said:


> Based in Jr's definition, that would be a blue belt in many schools.


Agreed. From what I'm familiar with, I'd say somewhere in BJJ Blue is equivalent to the earlier structure of Black in many styles (a couple of years, solid fundamentals). For styles with longer paths (like mainline NGA and similar paths), I'd say somewhere closer to late BJJ Purple, or maybe even BJJ Brown.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 12, 2019)

Steve said:


> Based in Jr's definition, that would be a blue belt in many schools.


I guess where it gets tricky would be what’s the definition of proficient. And holding your own against who. 

If you’re fighting or sparring against someone and you’re not using what you’ve been taught, it’s easy enough to say you’re not proficient. If the student is actually using it and you can clearly see the person has training, is that proficient? What level of effectiveness is the line between on their way and proficient? And then effective against who; an untrained person? A novice? Expert? Those will all be looked at differently by each evaluator. One person’s “good enough” is another person’s “not quite there yet” and another’s unquestionably yes or no. 

I look at being proficient as using what you’re taught and being able to spar/roll with people a decent amount better than you without being completely embarrassed. Striking is a bit easier for me - take a 1st Dan candidate and have them spar with a 2nd, 3rd or even 4th dan. Are they going into the fetal position and turning their back out of fear or are they standing their ground? Are they throwing everything out the window and going on pure untrained instinct, or are they throwing what they were taught? Are they making the higher rank work or are they a moving punching bag? Is there any strategy? 

My last test was for 1st kyu. At the end I had to spar with a 6th dan, a 4th dan, two 3rd dans, and a 1st dan. I went down the line for 2 minutes each person. I went through the line twice. I did the things I mentioned above. No one gave me any free shots, and I didn’t give anyone one either. I’m not delusional and think they went all out on me and hit me every time they could, but certainly didn’t carry me and make me look better for the hell of it.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 20, 2019)

I can tell you i wish people did technical ranks and then actual sport ranks more and keep the two separate.    So you know who is quite good at fighting  and who is quite knowledgeable in the technical side of things.

I dont think dividing your ranking into those two is common though.


----------



## pgsmith (Feb 20, 2019)

This is the Japanese view of shodan (first degree black belt) as espoused by a number of senior level Japanese martial arts instructors that I have discussed this with in the past. Shodan indicates that a proponent has learned the basics of the art, and can now begin learning the underlying and more advanced principles. Prior to that, he is a beginner and is trying to just to learn the basics.
  Some arts take longer than others to learn the basics. There are a few that have very simple basics and so it is very easy to attain shodan. This is why a black belt only has meaning *within the school or organization that granted it*. People outside the organization generally don't understand what the basics entail, and so have no real idea of any black belt's knowledge or proficiency.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 20, 2019)

Rat said:


> I can tell you i wish people did technical ranks and then actual sport ranks more and keep the two separate.    So you know who is quite good at fighting  and who is quite knowledgeable in the technical side of things.
> 
> I dont think dividing your ranking into those two is common though.


I considered doing something along those lines (though not with a specific sport focus, but the same idea), and just never came up with a good way to handle it. It just seemed more effort than it was worth.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 20, 2019)

pgsmith said:


> This is the Japanese view of shodan (first degree black belt) as espoused by a number of senior level Japanese martial arts instructors that I have discussed this with in the past. Shodan indicates that a proponent has learned the basics of the art, and can now begin learning the underlying and more advanced principles. Prior to that, he is a beginner and is trying to just to learn the basics.
> Some arts take longer than others to learn the basics. There are a few that have very simple basics and so it is very easy to attain shodan. This is why a black belt only has meaning *within the school or organization that granted it*. People outside the organization generally don't understand what the basics entail, and so have no real idea of any black belt's knowledge or proficiency.


While I agree, even that view isn't universal. Within the NGAA, Shodan is assumed to be much further along than that (it's the first "instructor" rank). Of course, in BJJ, they've clearly decided someone who has just gotten the basics isn't going to be a BB.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Mar 7, 2019)

Boy, this is a popular topic!  And so many different opinions.  Quite a mess (not meant derogatorily) to wade thru.
This just reflects the current state of affairs with so many schools with varying standards.  The head instructor sets the standards within his dojo (or association head if applicable).  One dojo's typical green belt may be equal to another's brown belt, or may be equal to another's yellow.  I strive for the former.

It also reflects that belts have different meanings and importance to different people, just like MA in general.  For some its a sport, or exercise, self-defense or a lifestyle.  Each of us sees belts from our own point of view.  For me, belt rank is: 1. a recognition from your sensei of your progress and dedication, a sign of respect to the student and so something to be valued.  This encourages us to further efforts.  2.  within a dojo, a student knows who to ask for help.  3.  And most importantly for a kids class, it helps them line up in less than ten minutes.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Mar 7, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> On the first point. there was an Okinawan phrase
> ... which escapes me right this moment. But in English it comes across as "Dan Collector", in reference to somebody who has jumped styles a few times, right after obtaining shodan. It was seen more often as something westerners seemed to do.
> 
> The fact that there was a phrase for it, surprised me at the moment. But upon reflection I totally get it.
> ...





TSDTexan said:


> On the first point. there was an Okinawan phrase
> ... which escapes me right this moment. But in English it comes across as "Dan Collector", in reference to somebody who has jumped styles a few times, right after obtaining shodan. It was seen more often as something westerners seemed to do.
> 
> The fact that there was a phrase for it, surprised me at the moment. But upon reflection I totally get it.
> ...



_                    Trying to quote and expand on TSDTexan.
_
Great analysis of pre-1920's/1930's Okinawan karate (_toudi_) evolution.  Talking about belts, they didn't even have Gi's then.  Luckily, karate resisted being all combined into a single entity like Judo as part of the Japanization, and we're still Ronin at heart, although we are civilized enough to wear Gi's and colored belts.

I'm working on getting back to "the way karate used to be" utilizing seizing, grappling, leg attacks and other moves that were original (pre-Itosu) bunkai.  Also bringing back some of the old training methods including body-hardening (_kote-kitai) _and conditioning. 

Would love to see Motobu in action outside a Shuri cathouse.


----------



## KenpoMaster805 (Apr 21, 2019)

It dont matter what belt ythey should take it seriously


----------



## Hanshi (Apr 21, 2019)

Rank is important but often indicates nothing about knowledge and abilities.  If one trains in a specific style, there are things one learns and this is notated by a belt.  I'm sometimes asked about my rank and can see my answer doesn't mean much.  But when I get to the part where I mentioned when I started or the number of years I've put in, it gets a reaction.  I've seen too many 11 year old godans to count rank as definitive.


----------



## TSDTexan (Apr 24, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> _                    Trying to quote and expand on TSDTexan.
> _
> Great analysis of pre-1920's/1930's Okinawan karate (_toudi_) evolution.  Talking about belts, they didn't even have Gi's then.  Luckily, karate resisted being all combined into a single entity like Judo as part of the Japanization, and we're still Ronin at heart, although we are civilized enough to wear Gi's and colored belts.
> 
> ...


Circa 1930 ish Karate class at the Shuri Elementary School. Chojun Miyagi is teaching.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 25, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> Circa 1930 ish Karate class at the Shuri Elementary School. Chojun Miyagi is teaching.
> View attachment 22197


The lack of uniformity of clothes reminds me of something I read in an Aikido book, perhaps Tohei's. Early Aikido classes didn't have a bunch of black hakama - students often "borrowed" their grandfather's good silk hakama, so the dojo was full of color.


----------



## Buka (Apr 25, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> The lack of uniformity of clothes reminds me of something I read in an Aikido book, perhaps Tohei's. Early Aikido classes didn't have a bunch of black hakama - students often "borrowed" their grandfather's good silk hakama, so the dojo was full of color.



I love reading stories like this. Love picturing it in my mind, too.


----------



## JR 137 (Apr 25, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> Circa 1930 ish Karate class at the Shuri Elementary School. Chojun Miyagi is teaching.
> View attachment 22197


Where’s Miyagi in that pic? It’s got a “Where’s Waldo?” vibe going for me.


----------



## TSDTexan (Apr 25, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Where’s Miyagi in that pic? It’s got a “Where’s Waldo?” vibe going for me.


Good question. I have repeatedly asked it myself. Yet I am told that he is definitely in it.
???????
what gives.... you tell me brah.


----------



## JR 137 (Apr 25, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> Good question. I have repeatedly asked it myself. Yet I am told that he is definitely in it.
> ???????
> what gives.... you tell me brah.


I think I found him!!! I think I found Waldo!!!

See the guy all the way on the left in white? There’s a gap between him and the next guy. Look at the guy in white’s fist that’s up. Right at that level and right against the fist is a guy in the background that blends into the rocks. Zoom in on it. It’s either Miyagi or a ghost! Can’t really tell 

Somehow I see it now and can’t not see him. Like a picture that everyone tells you looks like something else, yet you can’t see until all of a sudden it’s clear as day and you wonder why you didn’t see it sooner.


----------



## JR 137 (Apr 25, 2019)

Speaking of pictures of Chojun Miyagi...

Everything I read said this one picture was the only known picture of Chojun Miyagi.



The other day I somehow unintentionally came across a Chojun Miyagi Facebook page. And I don’t have Facebook. There’s quite a few pics of him. And the page was created in 2009. And I guess today would’ve been his birthday. And he says Osu. I thought Okinawans hate that word? 
Chojun Miyagi


----------



## Headhunter (Apr 27, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Where’s Miyagi in that pic? It’s got a “Where’s Waldo?” vibe going for me.


Probably getting one of his students to wax his car or paint his house....sorry couldn't resist lol


----------



## JR 137 (Apr 27, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Probably getting one of his students to wax his car or paint his house....sorry couldn't resist lol


Yeah... he’s just outside the pic, teaching “sand da floor.”


----------



## Brandon Miller (Jul 11, 2019)

One thing I love about Sambo is that we have no ranks. We all wear either a red belt or a blue belt depending on which color set Kurtka, shoes and shorts you’re wearing. In competition their are no skill level divisions only age divisions. You could show up to a competition as a beginner and draw a Sambo world champion as your first opponent. Competition results speak for itself more so to speak. Although the only rank in sambo comes from the Russian Federation, Master of Sport or International Master of Sport or what contributions you bring to the sport as a coach. You get these ranks in Russia purely off competition results. I love it.


----------

