# Myths of the Martial Arts: A Black Belt Is a Master



## seasoned (Mar 30, 2012)

*Black Belt Magazine From their face book page....
*Myths of the Martial Arts: A Black Belt Is a Master



> A first-degree black belt is an advanced beginner. The belt signifies his passage from the ranks of those who are still learning to the ranks of those who&#8217;ve learned how to learn. That&#8217;s a significant difference.
> 
> The transition from white belt to black belt has less... to do with techniques than with learning the methodology and procedures necessary to think like a martial artist. A black belt should be able to grasp the concepts on which the arts are based, which is far more important than his ability to perform any technique. There&#8217;s a saying about human survival: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish and you feed him for life. This is similar to the climb from colored belt to black belt: The black belt has learned how to learn and therefore becomes more proactive in his own education.
> 
> ...



Thoughts??


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 30, 2012)

seasoned said:


> *Black Belt Magazine From their face book page....
> *Myths of the Martial Arts: A Black Belt Is a Master
> 
> 
> ...



I fall into the first camp.  While I don't think a shodan must be super skilled, he should demonstrate crisp technique with noticeable power and he should have an inkling about efficiency and what he needs to work on to attain it.

If you line up a BB next to the color belt ranks and have them perform their basics, even laymen should be able to tell the difference.


----------



## pgsmith (Mar 30, 2012)

> Thoughts??


  I think anyone that tries to make blanket statements about rank such as this one is basically clueless about the greater martial arts community. Then again, I consider black belt magazine to be pretty much clueless itself, so I probably shouldn't have commented.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 30, 2012)

seasoned said:


> *Black Belt Magazine From their face book page....
> *Myths of the Martial Arts: A Black Belt Is a Master
> 
> Thoughts??



Based on my observations, yes and no, depending on the question.

In my dojo, I would certainly agree that there is a difference - a palpable one - between a Sho Dan and a San Dan.  And we do indeed refer to a San Dan as 'Sensei' and not a Ni Dan or a Sho Dan.  I feel it really is a good dividing point.  I mean, it's just obvious.  I can more or less hold my own with a Sho Dan in my dojo while sparring; they're better than me, but I get my licks in and I keep them on their toes.  I can in no way compete with any of our San Dans and above.  They can toy with me at their leisure, take me out anytime they decide the dance is over.  I have nothing in my tool box to use on them (yet).  I may throw a technique that they approve of, and they'll tell me so, but they still brush it away with incredible ease.

On the other hand, a San Dan in our dojo has ten years or more as a black belt.  That means that there are NO teenage San Dans, period.  Never.  We have a 30-year old Yon Dan who has been training since she was 13 in the same dojo, our Go Dan Senseis are all in their 40's and have been training for nearly 30 years, having started as kids.

I *do* see San Dans and above who are in their twenties here locally.  I would say that if we were comparing belt for belt, their San Dan is about what we'd call a Sho Dan.  But that doesn't mean they are not capable martial artists.  One person I know is very young, teaches in a different style than us, has an advanced belt that he would never have earned in our system, but he does turn out martial artists that compete very well well in local tournaments; he appears to be a capable teacher, so that kind of belies my own experience in my own dojo.

So that's why I waffle on my answer - it's yes and no.  Depends on the person.  Depends on the style.   Depends on what they're being trained for (self defense, tournament / sport, traditional MA values, etc).

I will also say that I have heard many discussions about the differences between black belts in terms of what kind of martial artist they are, and I have come to agree with it.

There are black belts that look fantastic.  All their kata are correct and lovely to look at.  Smooth, powerful, graceful, correctly done.  They do all their exercises very very well.  They may even spar well and perform extremely well at competitions.  However, it is all 'surface'.  And that's not a derogatory statement; it doesn't make them less of a martial artist or take away from their excellent abilities.  It does mean that they don't 'live in karate'.  Does that make any sense?

Several of our sensei say that those who 'live inside' karate are not necessarily the best performers, though they might be.  But they have something inside, some kind of a spark, that informs what they do and how they perform and how they carry themselves.  These are karatemen; dangerous people.  They have the karate mentality or spirit if you will; they are not sportsmen per se.  When they do kata, it may not be the cleanest you ever saw; but you can almost see their enemies falling before them.

And according to my senseis, this 'decision' is something that happens sometime after reaching Sho Dan status.  Everybody becomes one kind of martial artist or the other.  And it's not a good or bad thing, it's just a thing.

So if one defines 'expert' by having that 'karate inside' thing going on, then also yes, sometimes between Sho Dan and San Dan, it makes itself known and an 'expert' is born.


----------



## Jenna (Mar 30, 2012)

seasoned said:


> *Black Belt Magazine From their face book page....
> *Myths of the Martial Arts: A Black Belt Is a Master
> 
> 
> ...


I think the idea of a "master" is not a static concept as in mastery = having reached a benchmark.  I think these terms such as "master" should be provable outside the confines of a single school.  That title should be reserved for those in the highest percentiles of proficiency across the entirety of practitioners.  In which case, to answer the question, is a BB a master, I think it depends upon the others that are underneath that bell curve of proficiency.  If everyone within that distribution is unassailably proficient then it may take more than a BB to claim master status - in other words, claiming master status in the face of others that are exceedingly proficient may be foolish.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 30, 2012)

seasoned said:


> [U said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The article is problematic: essentially, the author's description of camp one mirrors his description of camp two.  Neither one is an expert in the art and the first description describes an advanced beginner (and I think 'martial moves' is a silly sounding phrase, particularly in an MA trade publication).

For example, I would say that a first dan  kendoist should at least have 'mastered' (in the sense of being proficient in) the *basic  gross motor skills* to perform _kendo_ techniques.  A first dan understands how the basic techniques are executed, can execute them all, and can tell you the finer points of their execution.  

I don't consider being 'expert' in basic gross motor skills to equate to being expert in anything, however, and consider such an 'expert' to be an advanced beginner, which is how a first dan kendoist is viewed in the art of kendo, and how I suspect that first dans are viewed in most arts.  

The second camp is described as '_an advanced beginner who is just beginning to grasp the concepts_.'  Grasping concepts is entirely different from and goes far beyond mastering basic gross motor skills.


----------



## Steve (Mar 30, 2012)

Depends upon the style.  In BJJ, I'd say a black belt is a master.  Does that mean a black belt in BJJ has nothing left to learn?  No.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 30, 2012)

Steve said:


> Depends upon the style.  In BJJ, I'd say a black belt is a master.  Does that mean a black belt in BJJ has nothing left to learn?  No.


Definitely.  If I'm not mistaken, a first dan in BJJ takes roughly a decade.  That is enough time to reach fourth dan and possibly be part way to fifth in most arts that have a kyu/dan system.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 30, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Definitely.  If I'm not mistaken, a first dan in BJJ takes roughly a decade.  That is enough time to reach fourth dan and possibly be part way to fifth in most arts that have a kyu/dan system.



Which systems are those out of curiosity?  4th dan in 10 years would be very aggressive if not impossible in virtually all the systems I'm familiar with.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 30, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> Which systems are those out of curiosity?  4th dan in 10 years would be very aggressive if not impossible in virtually all the systems I'm familiar with.


Based on conversations with people who train in other systems, the general rule of dan grades seems to be either one year per current dan, which will get you to fourth (and that is assuming four years to black belt) or one year per the next dan, in which case a decade will get you to third.  

Kendo, taekwondo, and hapkido to name three.  I'm pretty sure that Shotokan karate follows suit as well, but I could be wrong.  I'm don't have the time or inclination to find and provide links to the time in grade requirements of a large cross section of arts with a kyu/dan system, but most Korean styles from what I gather fall into the one year per current dan grade mold.  Non JMA and KMA traditionally don't use the kyu/dan system so far as I know, though I know that some are adopting it.  

My point is that ten years in most arts with a kyu/dan system will get you considerably further in rank progression than it will in BJJ.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 30, 2012)

"Master" is a title awarded at whatever rank a given system has decided should be called Master.

Mastery, on the other hand, is not a static point, or a rank. It's a fluid point. A black belt ought to have mastered some portion of the art, but will still be working on other areas. Futher, I think mastery encompasses not just performance, but understanding; in many ways, I think the physical performance of a particular technique may be less important than an understanding of the concepts behind that technique.

Imagine two people performing the same form. 
One is flexible and strong, and executes each move with near-flawless technique; their strikes are powerful and they can kick to the ceiling. But their understanding of the applications of those techniques, and their ability to break them down into steps and teach them is marginal.
The other doesn't have the physical abilities of the first, but can teach the techniques well, and can describe many ways in which each technique could be used outside of forms.

Which has achieved a higher degree of mastery?


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 30, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Kendo, taekwondo, and hapkido to name three.  I'm not going to go digging up links to the time in grade requirements of every art with a kyu/dan system, but most Korean styles from what I gather fall into the one year per current dan grade mold.  Non JMA and KMA traditionally don't use the kyu/dan system so far as I know, though I know that some are adopting it.



Ah.  Well, I think we established already in other threads that promotional requirements, including time in grade, vary widely in taekwondo and hapkido depending on organization and local nationality.  I don't know that I would say 'most' in this respect.  



Daniel Sullivan said:


> My point is that ten years in most arts with a kyu/dan system will get you considerably further in rank progression than it will in BJJ.


[/quote]

Probably true though BJJ seems to one of those arts where proof on the mat of one's skill is far more important than what belt one wears around the waist.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 30, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> Ah.  Well, I think we established already in other threads that promotional requirements, including time in grade, vary widely in taekwondo and hapkido depending on organization and local nationality.  I don't know that I would say 'most' in this respect.


It has been established already in other threads that promotional requirements for first degree vary widely in taekwondo (hapkido really hasn't been discussed to that great a degree) depending on organization and local nationality.  From what I have seen and from what others indicate, time in grade for dan promotions is far less varied and_ generally_ follows one of the two tracks that I had mentioned.  



dancingalone said:


> Probably true though BJJ seems to one of those arts where proof on the mat of one's skill is far more important than what belt one wears around the waist.


I suspect that in BJJ, what is worn around one's waist has greater correlation to one's skill on the mat.  I know that in judo, promotion is tied to some extent to competition.  Perhaps Steve could clarify that with regards to BJJ.


----------



## Instructor (Mar 30, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Based on conversations with people who train in other systems, the general rule of dan grades seems to be either one year per current dan, which will get you to fourth (and that is assuming four years to black belt) or one year per the next dan, in which case a decade will get you to third.
> 
> Kendo, taekwondo, and hapkido to name three. I'm pretty sure that Shotokan karate follows suit as well, but I could be wrong. I'm don't have the time or inclination to find and provide links to the time in grade requirements of a large cross section of arts with a kyu/dan system, but most Korean styles from what I gather fall into the one year per current dan grade mold. Non JMA and KMA traditionally don't use the kyu/dan system so far as I know, though I know that some are adopting it.
> 
> My point is that ten years in most arts with a kyu/dan system will get you considerably further in rank progression than it will in BJJ.



I've been doing Hapkido for 20 years and I am just now getting ready to test for 2nd Dan .  That's mostly my fault though.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 30, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> Mastery, on the other hand, is not a static point, or a rank. It's a fluid point. A black belt ought to have mastered some portion of the art, but will still be working on other areas. Futher, I think mastery encompasses not just performance, but understanding; in many ways, I think the physical performance of a particular technique may be less important than an understanding of the concepts behind that technique.
> 
> Imagine two people performing the same form.
> One is flexible and strong, and executes each move with near-flawless technique; their strikes are powerful and they can kick to the ceiling. But their understanding of the applications of those techniques, and their ability to break them down into steps and teach them is marginal.
> ...



A good question.  To be fair though, have you ever met someone you would in your heart of hearts really call a master who didn't have physical skill himself?  Even if it was only in the past?  Is someone who is a good to great teacher a 'master' if he never attained a high level of skill himself?  I'd be interested in what your thoughts are on this.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 30, 2012)

Instructor said:


> I've been doing Hapkido for 20 years and I am just now getting ready to test for 2nd Dan .  That's mostly my fault though.


Same with me in taekwondo; I hold a higher 'dojang dan' but will be testing for my formal KKW 2nd dan later this year.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 30, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> It has been established already in other threads that promotional requirements for first degree vary widely in taekwondo (hapkido really hasn't been discussed to that great a degree) depending on organization and local nationality.  From what I have seen and from what others indicate, time in grade for dan promotions is far less varied and_ generally_ follows one of the two tracks that I had mentioned.



Without nitpicking I hope, I think even if I agree with the above paragraph, your statement about 10 years being  'enough time to reach fourth dan and possibly be part way to fifth in most arts that have a kyu/dan system'  is too far reaching.  Unless we redefine most to mean kendo, TKD, and hapkido solely.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> I suspect that in BJJ, what is worn around one's waist has greater correlation to one's skill on the mat.  I know that in judo, promotion is tied to some extent to competition.  Perhaps Steve could clarify that with regards to BJJ.



It can be tied into competition.  It's easier and quicker to be promoted through that route, but people who don't compete can still advance (at least in the USJF - I imagine the other orgs work similarly), though their time-in-grade requirements are longer.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 30, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> A good question.  To be fair though, have you ever met someone you would in your heart of hearts really call a master who didn't have physical skill himself?  Even if it was only in the past?  Is someone who is a good to great teacher a 'master' if he never attained a high level of skill himself?  I'd be interested in what your thoughts are on this.



Honestly, I don't know. 

I'll use myself as an example. I did start training young, but I also had a greater than 20 year period when I did no training. I started again when I was 47. I'll never have the flexibility or physical abilities of someone my age who had trained continuously since childhood. I do think I have a solid grasp of application, and I think I'm getting good at breaking things down in different ways to explain them to different students.

Can I hope to achieve some degree of mastery? Maybe, but again, I don't really know. Fortunately, that isn't my goal.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 30, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> Without nitpicking I hope, I think even if I agree with the above paragraph, your statement about 10 years being  'enough time to reach fourth dan and possibly be part way to fifth in most arts that have a kyu/dan system'  is too far reaching.  Unless we redefine most to mean kendo, TKD, and hapkido solely.


Nope.  I did do some checking, and Shotokan seems to follow that pattern as well.  Is there a main aikido federation?  If so, would you mind posting their time in grade requirements?  I'll repeat: _based on conversations with practitioners of other systems_.....  Take it for what it is: a post in an internet conversation, not a scholarly work; I think you got my general point.  



dancingalone said:


> It can be tied into competition.  It's easier and quicker to be promoted through that route, but people who don't compete can still advance (at least in the USJF - I imagine the other orgs work similarly), though their time-in-grade requirements are longer.


I don't know.  Perhaps judo and BJJ practitioners can weigh it.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 30, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> Honestly, I don't know.
> 
> I'll use myself as an example. I did start training young, but I also had a greater than 20 year period when I did no training. I started again when I was 47. I'll never have the flexibility or physical abilities of someone my age who had trained continuously since childhood. I do think I have a solid grasp of application, and I think I'm getting good at breaking things down in different ways to explain them to different students.
> 
> Can I hope to achieve some degree of mastery? Maybe, but again, I don't really know. Fortunately, that isn't my goal.



People often use the example of Cus Amato and Mike Tyson to illustrate the case of where someone might be a great teacher yet was never a high level practitioner himself.  I'd say that makes Amato a great boxing coach, but not a great boxer, nor would I call him a 'master' in my own personal parlance.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 30, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> People often use the example of Cus Amato and Mike Tyson to illustrate the case of where someone might be a great teacher yet was never a high level practitioner himself.  I'd say that makes Amato a great boxing coach, but not a great boxer, nor would I call him a 'master' in my own personal parlance.



So to your way of thinking, mastery requires both physical and intellectual excellence. Would you say true mastery is weighted more towards one or the other? Or does it require the highest levels of skill at both performance and teaching?


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 30, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Nope.  I did do some checking, and Shotokan seems to follow that pattern as well.



There is a published guideline for the JKA which would lead you to believe that.  This is another one of those what is in the book and then what is there in real life situations.  JKA-certified instructors vary on what they require in their own dojo, and indeed those are MINIMUM guidelines that represent a very aggressive promotion path.  Anecdotally, I believe most take longer than 10 years, certainly the people I know did,



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Is there a main aikido federation?  If so, would you mind posting their time in grade requirements?  I'll repeat: _based on conversations with practitioners of other systems_.....  Take it for what it is: a post in an internet conversation, not a scholarly work; I think you got my general point.



I am a member of the USAF which is aligned with the Aikikai, headed by the Ueshiba family.  These are the USAF requirements.

6th kyu  - 20 practice days
5th kyu -  40 practice days after 6th kyu
4th kyu -  80 practice days after 5th kyu
3rd kyu -  100 practice days after 4th kyu
2nd kyu - 200 practice days after 3rd kyu
1st kyu -  300 practice days after 2nd kyu
1st dan -  300 practice days after 1st kyu
2nd dan - 600 practice days after 1st dan - not less than 2 years after shodan 
3rd dan -  700 practice days after 2nd dan - not less than 3 years after nidan

These are officially recorded dojo attendance days.  If I attended 2 different sessions in the same day, I'd still only get credit for one day.  Also considering that most aikido dojo are not open 365 days a year you can see the difficulty in meeting those TIG requirements.  Add to that the generally high standards in aikido where you are invited to test when you know the techniques rather than just ticking off the time....Well, I don't personally know anyone within my band of aikido training experience to my knowledge who made yondan very quickly.  



Daniel Sullivan said:


> I'll repeat: _based on conversations with practitioners of other systems_..... Take it for what it is: a post in an internet conversation, not a scholarly work; I think you got my general point.


I understand this is a stray internet conversation.  Nonetheless, I don't think the statement was necessarily accurate so I wanted to speak up.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 30, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> So to your way of thinking, mastery requires both physical and intellectual excellence. Would you say true mastery is weighted more towards one or the other? Or does it require the highest levels of skill at both performance and teaching?



I lean towards the physical side if you're making me pick.  Of course it depends on the art, but I believe all this intellectual and spiritual quest stuff is a recent development.  I am certain there were tremendous martial artists before the likes of Itosu and Funakoshi began to ponder the usages of Te in creating people of sound body and good character.


----------



## rframe (Mar 30, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Nope.  I did do some checking, and Shotokan seems to follow that pattern as well.



Just to provide some more examples:

In our Shotokan association we have a systematic grading system and promotion is primarily competency based, this typically results in 5 years for Shodan for a fairly committed student.

An additional 2 years for 2nd degree.
3rd takes an additional 3-5 years.
While 4th takes an additional 4-6 years from your 3rd dan.

5th may take another 10 years and is the first considered a "master" level.

A few examples I can think of in our school:  5th dan with 26 years, 2 dan with 17 years, 2 dan with 10 years, 1st dan with 7 years


According to WKF homologated dan requirements, 4th requires a minimum of 11 years experience and being over 30 years old, while 5th requires a minimum of 16 years.


----------



## Champ-Pain (Mar 30, 2012)

The following thought is only my opinion...

Some lower dans have superior skills than some higher ones. I know some 5th and even 6th dan that have never won more than a few matches in competition but their knowledge of the art they practice is great. I also know some very good competitors who hold a 1st or 2nd dan in the art they train in and are superior fighters than most who are ranked higher than themselves, but know relatively little about the history and traditions of their particular art. Now, as far as being a "Master" - I save that particular title for slave owners and I refuse to call anybody by such. I prefer Sensei, Sabomnim or Sifu. Sir is also good.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 30, 2012)

As others have said, rank and mastery are really two different, possibly unrelated, things.  Rank reflects your social position within an organization or group.  Mastery is indicative of and assess skill and understanding of a thing.  Rank may be reflective of a degree of mastery, or it may be a reflection of service to the organization.  Rank can even be awarded in advance of skill development to serve the purposes of the organization.  

Black belt and degrees of black belt as assessment and measures of skill are especially tricky.  It's hard to define "skill" or "understanding" across different arts in the first place; is it knowing 10 kata/forms, or 9 punches, or 91 kicks, or being able to beat 10 people?  Is it one year or 12 years of training?  Is it 100 classes or ten thousand?  Is it being able to respond with the patterns -- or transcend them, and use the principles to freely respond?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 30, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> I am a member of the USAF which is aligned with the Aikikai, headed by the Ueshiba family.  These are the USAF requirements.
> 
> 6th kyu  - 20 practice days
> 5th kyu -  40 practice days after 6th kyu
> ...


The way that I'm reading what you wrote, it looks like about four years to shodan plus a minimum of five to sandan.

Thank you for posting this, by the way.



rframe said:


> Just to provide some more examples:
> 
> In our Shotokan association we have a systematic grading system and  promotion is primarily competency based, this typically results in 5  years for Shodan for a fairly committed student.
> 
> ...


So based on what you've written, your  school would be a minimum of about eight years to sandan and about  twelve years to yondan, with eleven for the WKF homologated dan  requirements.

So if you have rougly a ten to twelve year minimum,  you're fourth or third and partway to fourth (presuming minimum  times).  And barely a first in BJJ if the ten year number is accurate  (so far, no BJJ folks have chimed in to say that it isn't, and at least  one read my initial post).  

So yes, I'd say that a shodan in BJJ  is probably much closer to 'expert' than it is in any of the other arts  that have been mentioned so far.  

So Dancingalone, do you have any comment on my initial multiple paragraph post that was focused on the OP, or were you only concerned with an off the cuff comment that I made to Steve?


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 30, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> The way that I'm reading what you wrote, it looks like about four years to shodan plus a minimum of five to sandan.



I suppose a person CAN make it to shodan in that period of time if they attend a dojo that is open Mon-Sat and they are diligent about training.  Few do whether do to lack of training opportunities or personal circumstances.  In other words, it's very much incorrect to read those minimum requirements and then conclude that it takes 4 years to make shodan in aikido.  I'd say around 6-7 years is a closer guesstimate for most in my experience.  Same deal when you look at karate requirements, particularly those that haven't been infected by the McDojo syndrome.  The minimum time requirements are more for exceptional people rather than the rank-and-file.




Daniel Sullivan said:


> So Dancingalone, do you have any comment on the rest of my initial post that was focused on the OP, or were you only concerned with the one off the cuff comment that I made to Steve?  Or did you not even read it?



I did read it.  It falls in line with what you've stated on previous occasions on what you feel a 1st dan means.  I have nothing to comment further there that I haven't stated before.

Sorry if I've offended you by pointing out that people within kyu/dan based systems in my experience take considerably longer than 10 years to attain yondan.  I didn't do so with that intention - more to present a counterview for anyone else reading.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 30, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> I did read it.  It falls in line with what you've stated on previous occasions on what you feel a 1st dan means.  I have nothing to comment further there that I haven't stated before.


Then you missed the major point of my comment about the article, which is that the author ties being expert strictly to mastery of gross motor skills and the advanced beginner to lack of initiation with regards to conceptual knowledge.  

It doesn't matter what my opinion is about what a first dan means: the author's statement doesn't make sense.  The 'expert in basic gross motor skills of martial moves' may have shallow conceptual knowledge.  The 'advanced beginner who is only just beginning to understand concepts of the art' may be an excellent technician.  So using the one to denote an expert and the other to denote an advanced beginner is ridiculous.



dancingalone said:


> Sorry if I've offended you by pointing out that people within kyu/dan based systems in my experience take considerably longer than 10 years to attain yondan.  I didn't do so with that intention - more to present a counterview for anyone else reading.


No offense was taken; others' comments and statement that I have read and/or heard over the years regarding time in grade in various arts led me to my comment to Steve.  If it isn't your experience, it isn't your experience.

However, it surprises me that, in presenting a counterpoint, you hadn't commented on this quote from the article: 

_Most of the traditional instructors I know maintain that a person  becomes a true expert by the time he reaches third degree, which is for  many arts the point at which a person can begin teaching_.  

Do you think that third dan equates to a true (presuming that he means 'actual') expert?


----------



## Steve (Mar 30, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> The way that I'm reading what you wrote, it looks like about four years to shodan plus a minimum of five to sandan.
> 
> Thank you for posting this, by the way.
> 
> ...


I'd say 8 to 12 years for black belt is still very much the norm.  Some go faster.  Others go slower.  

While there are exceptions, the technical rules are a minimum of 2 years between blue and purple, 1 1/2 years between purple and brown, and 1 year between brown and black.

I'm a purple belt and have been training for 5 1/2 years.    

Regarding competition, you don't have to compete to earn rank.  Some schools emphasize competition more than others, but it's an important component in all legit BJJ schools.  Those who compete will have more opportunity to demonstrate technical ability, but it's not necessarily going to mean quicker promotions.  That depends upon the players involved as well as the coach.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 30, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Then you missed the major point of my comment about the article, which is that the author ties being expert strictly to mastery of gross motor skills and the advanced beginner to lack of initiation with regards to conceptual knowledge.
> 
> It doesn't matter what my opinion is about what a first dan means: the author's statement doesn't make sense.  *The 'expert in basic gross motor skills of martial moves' may have shallow conceptual knowledge.  The 'advanced beginner who is only just beginning to understand concepts of the art' may be an excellent technician.  So using the one to denote an expert and the other to denote an advanced beginner is ridiculous.*



I didn't read the author''s words that way.  He's simply describing two competing interpretations of what a shodan is.  1) The shodan is someone that is physically skilled in the basics or 2) The shodan is an advanced beginner who has been exposed to the foundations of his art and he is just starting to understand the principles that will later make him an expert if mastered.

That seems like a reasonable enough encapsulation of the BB = expert or not argument discussed frequently here on MT.


----------



## Steve (Mar 30, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> I didn't read the author''s words that way.  He's simply describing two competing interpretations of what a shodan is.  1) The shodan is someone that is physically skilled in the basics or 2) The shodan is an advanced beginner who has been exposed to the foundations of his art and he is just starting to understand the principles that will later make him an expert if mastered.
> 
> That seems like a reasonable enough encapsulation of the BB = expert or not argument discussed frequently here on MT.


for what it's worth, I would say that "someone who is physically skilled in the basics" equates to an experienced blue belt or possibly a purple belt in BJJ.  For most, this would be about 3 to 5 years.  As I said, I've been at it for 5 1/2 years and I'd have no problem saying I'm an advanced beginner.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 30, 2012)

Steve said:


> for what it's worth, I would say that "someone who is physically skilled in the basics" equates to an experienced blue belt or possibly a purple belt in BJJ.  For most, this would be about 3 to 5 years.  As I said, I've been at it for 5 1/2 years and I'd have no problem saying I'm an advanced beginner.



I must say I like that approach.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 30, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> However, it surprises me that, in presenting a counterpoint, you hadn't commented on this quote from the article:
> 
> _Most of the traditional instructors I know maintain that a person  becomes a true expert by the time he reaches third degree, which is for  many arts the point at which a person can begin teaching_.
> 
> Do you think that third dan equates to a true (presuming that he means 'actual') expert?



Just noticed this addition.  I'd say the answer depends on how you define 'expert' and obviously this depends in great deal on the system we are discussing.

Speaking generically, I think an expert should be know the entirety of his system and he should have one or more aspects in which he displays exceptional quality or skill in.  Whether that comes at 3rd dan or not is entirely up to how the system's curriculum is structured.  I think Mr. Weiss and Mr. Spiller have written that in ITF Taekwon-Do 7th dan is considered master level because that is when the entirety of the system is learned.  Upon reflection that actually is quite logical if we isolate the discussion to only the actual study of TKD and do not consider political or honorary appointments or the too frequent reality that rank does not match skill.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 30, 2012)

Since the question was asked, I'd thought I'd confirm that a) time to first degree black belt* in BJJ is probably around 10 years on the average and b) promotion from white up through black is primarily based on mat ability. You get your purple belt when you start dominating the other blue belts and hanging in there with many of the purple belts. You get your brown belt when you start dominating the other purple belts and hanging in there with the brown belts, etc.

A caveat to the above is that most instructors aren't going to promote too far based on athletic ability alone. If you dominate other students at your rank level just by virtue of being stronger and in better shape than everybody else, that won't necessarily get you promoted if you don't have the technique to go along with your athleticism.

Some people do go through the ranks faster based on natural ability and the amount of work they put in. If you train 2 classes per day, 5 days per week, you'll progress a lot faster than someone who shows up for 3 classes per week. 

The converse is true as well. I've been training BJJ for more than 10 calendar years, but once you subtract all the time I've spent out of the gym due to injuries, illnesses, and budget problems my total time in the art is more like 7 years. I'm almost 48 years old and naturally non-athletic. I got my purple belt last year and that was the right time for me. I can roll evenly with the other purple belts in the gym and dominate the blue belts, even though most of them are 20 years younger than I am. Purple belt is a long way from "mastery", but I can honestly say that my BJJ purple belt represents much more hard work and earned ability than both of my black belts from a couple of previous arts put together (Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu and an eclectic kickboxing system, if anyone's curious - nothing very impressive, I know.)


*I don't know of anyone in BJJ who uses the Japanese "dan" terminology. The Brazilians would call it a "faxia preta" and the Americans just say "black belt".


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 30, 2012)

Regarding timelines...

In the American Bando Association, it's a minimum of 5 years training to test for the First Level of Achievement (black belt).  After that, it's 3 years between each ranking (minimum) until the Sixth Level, after which it's 10 years.  So, to reach Third Level, you're looking at a minimum of 11 years.  Functionally, most seem to average around 7 years for First Level, adding 2 years or so to the total time.  Again, not everyone tests "on schedule."  For example, I chose for several years not to test, in what was really a "cut off my nose to spite my face" bit of a move.


----------



## seasoned (Mar 30, 2012)

Champ-Pain said:


> The following thought is only my opinion...
> 
> Some lower dans have superior skills than some higher ones. I know some 5th and even 6th dan that have never won more than a few matches in competition but their knowledge of the art they practice is great. I also know some very good competitors who hold a 1st or 2nd dan in the art they train in and are superior fighters than most who are ranked higher than themselves, but know relatively little about the history and traditions of their particular art. Now, as far as being a "Master" - I save that particular title for slave owners and I refuse to call anybody by such. I prefer Sensei, Sabomnim or Sifu. Sir is also good.


Good point, I also feel the same pertaining to any given art. To Master the art is two fold, consisting of technique and extensive knowledge of that art.......... I would also add that age requirement is a must, combining technique, knowledge, wisdom and maturity.


----------



## puunui (Mar 30, 2012)

Steve said:


> for what it's worth, I would say that "someone who is physically skilled in the basics" equates to an experienced blue belt or possibly a purple belt in BJJ.  For most, this would be about 3 to 5 years.  As I said, I've been at it for 5 1/2 years and I'd have no problem saying I'm an advanced beginner.



My next door neighbor is a Relson black belt. He took 16 years to get to black, although he did take some time off in the middle somewhere. We were having discussions about belt ranks and I told him that a comparison of taekwondo and jiujitsu ranks came out to roughly (but not exactly) that BJJ blue belt = tkd 1st dan, BJJ purple belt = tkd 2nd dan, BJJ brown belt = tkd 3rd dan, and a BJJ black belt = a tkd 4th dan. Roughly, not exactly. I don't know if the pattern holds true for the higher dan ranks.


----------



## Steve (Mar 30, 2012)

puunui said:


> My next door neighbor is a Relson black belt. He took 16 years to get to black, although he did take some time off in the middle somewhere. We were having discussions about belt ranks and I told him that a comparison of taekwondo and jiujitsu ranks came out to roughly (but not exactly) that BJJ blue belt = tkd 1st dan, BJJ purple belt = tkd 2nd dan, BJJ brown belt = tkd 3rd dan, and a BJJ black belt = a tkd 4th dan. Roughly, not exactly. I don't know if the pattern holds true for the higher dan ranks.


Hey, side note, one of the guys I train with (sherriff's deputy) started with Relson Gracie in Hawaii.  He got to blue belt there, I believe, then moved to Washington.  He's a brown belt now.


----------



## puunui (Mar 30, 2012)

I don't know about the correlation between master and belt rank, but to me, generally speaking, what people generally conceive of being a "master" is in my opinion, someone who has enough understanding that they can continue their journey primarily on their own. That doesn't mean this person can isolate himself or no longer needs a teacher or mentor, but rather, this level of practitioner requires the freedom to explore his/her own path, rather than follow someone's elses. Sort of like when you move out of your parents' home and build your own home.


----------



## seasoned (Mar 30, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> I think anyone that tries to make blanket statements about rank such as this one is basically clueless about the greater martial arts community. Then again, *I consider black belt magazine to be pretty much clueless *itself, so I probably shouldn't have commented.


I still have BB magazines going back to the late 70s. I still thumb though them on occasion, with some of the articles still interesting.


----------



## seasoned (Mar 30, 2012)

Jenna said:


> I think the idea of a "master" is not a static concept as in mastery = having reached a benchmark.  I think these terms such as "master" should be provable outside the confines of a single school.  That title should be reserved for those in the highest percentiles of proficiency across the entirety of practitioners.  In which case, to answer the question, is a BB a master, I think it depends upon the others that are underneath that bell curve of proficiency.  If everyone within that distribution is unassailably proficient then it may take more than a BB to claim master status - *in other words, claiming master status in the face of others that are exceedingly proficient may be foolish.*


Jenna, in you're opinion, how would this equate to an individual that trained most of their life, but was in their 60s or 70s. As a comparison, that person would not be able to physically do what he could when they were younger, but would now possess a greater knowledge and understanding.


----------



## Buka (Mar 30, 2012)

I think the title of this thread is the truest statement of all.


----------



## Steve (Mar 30, 2012)

Buka said:


> I think the title of this thread is the truest statement of all.



But that's really not true for all styles.  Is it?

Another thing for the group.  Do you guys think that this myth is encouraged or discouraged by most styles?


----------



## Buka (Mar 30, 2012)

Steve said:


> But that's really not true for all styles.  Is it?
> 
> Another thing for the group.  Do you guys think that this myth is encouraged or discouraged by most styles?



I meant the "myth' part.  I believe that to be true, that a black belt being a Master, is myth.
I think that myth is encouraged by some schools (not necessary styles) and discouraged by others.

I also think that a person who reaches black belt in BJJ has a far greater likelihood of becoming a true master in martial arts than a person who reaches black belt in Karate. And, I think a person who reaches black belt in Karate has a far greater likelihood of being CALLED a master than a person who reaches black belt in BJJ.


----------



## Steve (Mar 30, 2012)

Buka said:


> I meant the "myth' part.  I believe that to be true, that a black belt being a Master, is myth.
> I think that myth is encouraged by some schools (not necessary styles) and discouraged by others.
> 
> I also think that a person who reaches black belt in BJJ has a far greater likelihood of becoming a true master in martial arts than a person who reaches black belt in Karate. And, I think a person who reaches black belt in Karate has a far greater likelihood of being CALLED a master than a person who reaches black belt in BJJ.



Yeah.  Okay.  I guess I can't argue with any of that!


----------



## Haakon (Mar 30, 2012)

Steve said:


> But that's really not true for all styles.  Is it?
> 
> Another thing for the group.  Do you guys think that this myth is encouraged or discouraged by most styles?



If the myth is a 1st dan is a master I think most styles try to discourage that myth and that it is continued mainly by people outside the martial arts who are ignorant of what "black belt" means. I think there are some people within the martial arts community who try to push the myth to sell their schools, but I think (I hope) they're in the minority.


----------



## puunui (Mar 30, 2012)

Haakon said:


> If the myth is a 1st dan is a master I think most styles try to discourage that myth and that it is continued mainly by people outside the martial arts who are ignorant of what "black belt" means. I think there are some people within the martial arts community who try to push the myth to sell their schools, but I think (I hope) they're in the minority.



The Kukkiwon tries to deal with the mystique and aura of a "master" by calling all practitioners 1st-5th Poom/Dan as "master" and 6th-9th Dan as grandmaster. That way, the terminology gets demystified.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 31, 2012)

puunui said:


> The Kukkiwon tries to deal with the mystique and aura of a "master" by calling all practitioners 1st-5th Poom/Dan as "master" and 6th-9th Dan as grandmaster. That way, the terminology gets demystified.



But to the general public, this perpetuates the myth that a 1st Dan is a master.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 1, 2012)

Haakon said:


> If the myth is a 1st dan is a master I think most styles try to discourage that myth and that it is continued mainly by people outside the martial arts who are ignorant of what "black belt" means. I think there are some people within the martial arts community who try to push the myth to sell their schools, but I think (I hope) they're in the minority.


I would agree that there is monetary gain to be had by some schools to capitalize on this master title early on. But, I too feel that they *are *in the minority, but, they sure do fill their dojo's up in many cases.
This whole title thing just adds to the watering down of the martial arts, and in many ways dilutes the arts even more.


----------



## puunui (Apr 1, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> But to the general public, this perpetuates the myth that a 1st Dan is a master.



I guess that is one way of looking at it. I know when this information first came out, a lot of "master" level practitioners got really upset because they felt that the term was cheapened by calling 1st dans "master". But I notice a lot of those same people who complained about 1st dan masters had no problem calling themselves "grandmaster" if they had 6th dan. Generally in taekwondo at least, master was 5th dan (some say 4th) and grandmaster was 8th dan.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 2, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> But to the general public, this perpetuates the myth that a 1st Dan is a master.


How important is the perception of the general public to what we do?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 2, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> How important is the perception of the general public to what we do?



I'm not sure, but I'd say it's middling important. I'd rather have new students who actually want to train, rather than those who think they're going to catch bullets in their teeth.



Sent from my iPhone using TapaTalk.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 2, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> I'm not sure, but I'd say it's middling important. I'd rather have new students who actually want to train, rather than those who think they're going to catch bullets in their teeth.


I think that you'll always have people who have unrealistic expectations about what is taught in the martial arts and there will always be people who want to have their little tyke test for a black belt.  I sometimes think that the latter are a way of curing the former.  

Certainly, five year old black belts definitely have a demystifying effect.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 2, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I think that you'll always have people who have unrealistic expectations about what is taught in the martial arts and there will always be people who want to have their little tyke test for a black belt.  I sometimes think that the latter are a way of curing the former.
> 
> Certainly, five year old black belts definitely have a demystifying effect.



Absolutely agree that there will always be people with silly notions.  That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to try and minimize how many of them there are. 


Sent from my iPhone using TapaTalk.


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 2, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I think that you'll always have people who have unrealistic expectations about what is taught in the martial arts and there will always be people who want to have their little tyke test for a black belt.  I sometimes think that the latter are a way of curing the former.
> 
> Certainly, five year old black belts definitely have a demystifying effect.



I have no way of proving a definite cause and effect relationship , but a studio with several locations in my area closed in the early 2000s after he earned a fairly bad reputation in the area among the MA community.  No one supported his tournaments any more which accelerated his losses.  Many of his quickee black belts left him since they realized they were being passed through the ranks for revenue, rather than necessarily earning them.  Lots of horror stories circulating around about bad business practices and generally low level of training given.  Eventually even the kiddie market deserted him since the parents got fed up, and he left town owing money to various people including his property leaser.

Now did people stop dealing with him primarily because he was a poor business partner or because he ran a karate mill?  I can't assign a proportional value but I think the two can be very much intertwined.  Reputation matters.  In both business and personal life.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 2, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> I have no way of proving a definite cause and effect relationship , but a studio with several locations in my area closed in the early 2000s after he earned a fairly bad reputation in the area among the MA community.  No one supported his tournaments any more which accelerated his losses.  Many of his quickee black belts left him since they realized they were being passed through the ranks for revenue, rather than necessarily earning them. * Lots of horror stories circulating around about bad business practices and generally low level of training given.*  Eventually even the kiddie market deserted him since the parents got fed up, and he left town owing money to various people including his property leaser.


I know of a school owner in a similar situation.  The bolded part is what cost him his adult and older teen students.  A lousy after school program coupled with hitting parents with higher fees while diminishing the quality and quantity of what was provided in return for said fees cost him the kids and his after school program.



dancingalone said:


> Reputation matters.


I never said that it doesn't.


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 2, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I never said that it doesn't.



I was responding to your question about public perception and martial arts practices.  It's a two way street if we run schools that are open to the general public and are dependent on revenue to keep the doors open.  If you (generic you) don't care about what laymen think, you might find yourself gaining a reputation that will constrain you later on in ways perhaps unexpected by you.  It's only prudent to manage this the best you can and promote the image you want out there.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 2, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> I was responding to your question about public perception and martial arts practices.


While I agree with you, I was only referring to public's general perception of the black belt and the myths associated with it. 



dancingalone said:


> It's a two way street if we run schools that are open to the general public and are dependent on revenue to keep the doors open.  If you (generic you) don't care about what laymen think, you might find yourself gaining a reputation that will constrain you later on in ways perhaps unexpected by you.


I think that myths about what a black belt is need to be dealt with in the context of truthfulness in doing business: _no, your five year old will not be able to fend off knife wielding gang members just because he has a black belt, and no, you will not be catching bullets with your teeth no matter what your degree of ranking because bullet catching is not part of our curriculum_.

I think that black belt myths should be dealt with as the subject comes up, or perhaps an FAQ on what a black belt is and isn't on the school's website or in the school's literature.  

But outside of a student/teacher context (or business owner/customer context), I don't concern myself with what the general public thinks a black belt means or trying to shape what they think it means.  I participate in enough conversation outside of my own studio to know what sort of myths are out there and am prepared to deal with them as needed.  

Referencing the schools you and I mentioned in the last couple of posts, their problems arose from bad business practices and sub par instruction, not from martial arts myths.  And I feel pretty confident in saying that the same is likely true of any MA school that has a bad reputation.  Abrasive/abusive personalities within the instructional staff and drama can sink a school as well.



dancingalone said:


> It's only prudent to manage this the best you can and promote the image you want out there.


Definitely.


----------



## puunui (Apr 3, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> Absolutely agree that there will always be people with silly notions.  That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to try and minimize how many of them there are.



Or you can go the other direction and realize that a 5 year old with a black belt, for example, has no real effect on you and does not in any way diminish or cheapen your own accomplishments.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 3, 2012)

puunui said:


> Or you can go the other direction and realize that a 5 year old with a black belt, for example, has no real effect on you and does not in any way diminish or cheapen your own accomplishments.



A 5 year old black belt, while silly, doesn't bother me nearly as much as people who are convinced a black belt turns you into a Super Secret Ninja Dude who can deflect throwing stars with their earlobes.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 3, 2012)

puunui said:


> Or you can go the other direction and realize that a 5 year old with a black belt, for example, has no real effect on you and does not in any way diminish or cheapen your own accomplishments.


If anything, the five year old black belt serves as an agent of demystification.  And personally, I think that that is what really bothers those who rail against it the loudest.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 3, 2012)

The biggest mistake a sensei can make is to build a student up to something their not.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 3, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> If anything, the five year old black belt serves as an agent of demystification.



 Demystification or a self-fulling prophecy that rank isn't just unimportant but meaningless? People love to talk about how unimportant rank is. If that's true give the kid a 10th dan and be done with it.



> And personally, I think that that is what really bothers those who rail against it the loudest.



It would really depend on the person, I think. Personally, I think 5 year old black belts are silly. But not because they "demystify" what black belt really means. There's a specific meaning to black belt in the ITF and it certainly isn't anything "mystical." Gen. Choi sets out a pretty pragmatic explanation about the significance of I dan, which I have already posted. Nothing to demystify. 

If another martial art or style of TKD wants to have black belts who just learned to tie their shoes more power to them.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 3, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> It would really depend on the person, I think. Personally, I think 5 year old black belts are silly. But not because they "demystify" what black belt really means.


I agree 100%, but then you don't rail vociferously about the subject either.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 3, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I agree 100%, but then you don't rail vociferously about the subject either.



What good would it do? 

There are always going to be people who will promote anyone to any rank for any reason. That may or may not influence how people view my rank. The only thing I can do is make sure I endeavor to be worthy of the rank I hold as determined by the organization to which I belong and the instructor under whom I train and who tested me.

The fact is, however, that people can say rank is unimportant all they want but that doesn't mean they believe it. They certainly don't act like it is. I will not say it's unimportant. Is it the most important thing in martial arts training? Not by a long shot. But until we can have threads here where 5 year olds are getting 8th dans and people are congratulating the little whipper-snapper instead of lamenting his promotion I will continue to believe that much (not all) of the talk about the unimportance of rank is a bunch of nonsense. The reaction demonstrates the falsity of the proposition. 

And note, I am denigrating neither the reaction nor the belief. I'm just pointing out that people don't behave like they do. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chinto (Apr 3, 2012)

I do not like the idea of a 5 year old black belt. Not because of "demystification" but because I expect a certain level of ability and competence at that rank. Like some have said, an advanced beginner,  but one capable of a particular level of both technique and ability to apply that technique practically in a defensive encounter if needed.

the Idea that some how a shodan makes some one an expert is ridiculous to me!  now start talking about a sandan or yondan or godan and we can talk about it perhaps.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 3, 2012)

chinto said:


> I do not like the idea of a 5 year old black belt. Not because of "demystification" but because I expect a certain level of ability and competence at that rank. Like some have said, an advanced beginner,  but one capable of a particular level of both technique and ability to apply that technique practically in a defensive encounter if needed.


For the record, I am not crazy about the idea of five year old black belts either.  As far as people who don't like it due to demystification, these are the ones who insert pages of negative posts anytime the subject is mentioned, frequently shouting the mantra, 'they make me look bad!' in some fashion or another.  If you (the general you) are that concerned about how a five year old black belt makes you look, then you have an ego issue or have an unrealistic image of what a black belt/first dan really symbolizes.



chinto said:


> the Idea that some how a shodan makes some one an expert is ridiculous to me!  now start talking about a sandan or yondan or godan and we can talk about it perhaps.


Agree.


----------



## puunui (Apr 3, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> Demystification or a self-fulling prophecy that rank isn't just unimportant but meaningless? People love to talk about how unimportant rank is. If that's true give the kid a 10th dan and be done with it.



Or we can do away with the system of rank entirely. Either way, the 10th dan to a kid doesn't change or affect my own spot on the journey, and frankly it doesn't change that kid's place either. 



chrispillertkd said:


> It would really depend on the person, I think. Personally, I think 5 year old black belts are silly. But not because they "demystify" what black belt really means. There's a specific meaning to black belt in the ITF and it certainly isn't anything "mystical." Gen. Choi sets out a pretty pragmatic explanation about the significance of I dan, which I have already posted. Nothing to demystify.



A lot of people don't like children black belts because they feel their own accomplishments are somehow cheapened if a kid can get it too.


----------



## puunui (Apr 3, 2012)

seasoned said:


> The biggest mistake a sensei can make is to build a student up to something their not.



And one way a sensei does that is to overly value rank, especially black belt ranks, such that children aren't allowed to receive them.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 3, 2012)

The belt never makes the person, but to the contrary, the person always makes the belt. I personally believe in age limits, character, maturity then capability, in this order. I consider a shodan an apprentice in training, and where the learning really begins.


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 3, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> have an unrealistic image of what a black belt/first dan really symbolizes.[/B]



I wouldn't say unrealistic.  There is no agreement at all on what a black belt means, how long it should take to get one, etc.   Let's face it - the people who argue vociferously that 1st dan is a low rank with corresponding low expectations are about as right as those who disagree with them.  It's all subjective anyway, and everyone can have an opinion.  It's easy enough to reverse the equation and say the people you disagree with are the unrealistic ones.  And who would be right?  No one, everyone. 

I wouldn't promote a 5 year old to BB, and I'll freely tell anyone listening or reading that.  Not because I am worried about demystifying martial arts.  Not necessarily because my ego is hurt over them, though I'll admit some personal pain over the general evolution of martial arts into a direction I dislike.  Like most who share my stance, I'd prefer for the rank to be difficult to obtain, to represent a good level of achievement in skill, rather than some low bar of 'learned the basics' whatever that means.  I don't think the people here on MT (I'm thinking of 1 or 2 members who might fit your description of inserting pages of commentary on kiddie BBs) care anything at all about mysticism and awe and attaching those qualities to a BB.


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 3, 2012)

puunui said:


> A lot of people don't like children black belts because they feel their own accomplishments are somehow cheapened if a kid can get it too.



It depends on the material studied.  A child could probably earn a BB in a primarily striking system very legitimately, if they're not required to be proficient in negating, managing, and controlling a larger antagonist.  Crank up the material content along with asking the students to be effective against larger people, and it becomes more and more dubious.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 3, 2012)

Lets all please keep in mind, that we were that shodan once. Hind sight is always 20/20, and I remember that 23 yr old expert called me. But, humility and the help of my sensei, always reminded me that there was much much more to learn. Any sensei that are reading, do right by your students, and train them for the long hull, and in 40 or 50 years they will thank you for it. If not in person, then in spirit.  :asian:


----------



## puunui (Apr 3, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> It depends on the material studied.  A child could probably earn a BB in a primarily striking system very legitimately, if they're not required to be proficient in negating, managing, and controlling a larger antagonist.



Which describes taekwondo. Having said that, are you still unwilling to award children poom rank?


----------



## puunui (Apr 3, 2012)

seasoned said:


> Lets all please keep in mind, that we were that shodan once. Hind sight is always 20/20, and I remember that 23 yr old expert called me.



Personally, I think the students today know much more and can do more than I or any one from my generation when they make 1st Dan. We didn't know all that much, at least with respect to taekwondo.


----------



## puunui (Apr 3, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> Like most who share my stance, I'd prefer for the rank to be difficult to obtain, to represent a good level of achievement in skill, rather than some low bar of 'learned the basics' whatever that means.




If you make 1st dan difficult, then what about the higher dan levels? Does it get increasingly more difficult to the point where anything over 4th or 5th dan is pretty much unattainable? 1st dan is a low rank, but only in comparison to 9th Dan. 9th Dan is the bar, 9th Dan is the ultimate, not 1st Dan.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 3, 2012)

puunui said:


> Personally, I think the students today know much more and can do more than I or any one from my generation when they make 1st Dan. We didn't know all that much, at least with respect to taekwondo.


Pertaining to Okinawan goju, the kata always held the secrets, and have never changed. Up to shodan the kata were practiced the way they were taught, but in the black belt levels, the layers were peeled back to expose a whole new art within the art. Very cool stuff..........


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 4, 2012)

This...


dancingalone said:


> I wouldn't say unrealistic.


is unrelated to this...



dancingalone said:


> There is no agreement at all on what a black belt means, how long it should take to get one, etc.


Which I agree with.  But that wasn't what I meant by 'unrealistic.' 



dancingalone said:


> Let's face it - the people who argue vociferously that 1st dan is a low rank with corresponding low expectations are about as right as those who disagree with them.  It's all subjective anyway, and everyone can have an opinion.  It's easy enough to reverse the equation and say the people you disagree with are the unrealistic ones.  And who would be right?  No one, everyone.


That has absolutely nothing to do with the context of my comment.  



dancingalone said:


> I wouldn't promote a 5 year old to BB, and I'll freely tell anyone listening or reading that.  Not because I am worried about demystifying martial arts.  Not necessarily because my ego is hurt over them, though I'll admit some personal pain over the general evolution of martial arts into a direction I dislike.  Like most who share my stance, I'd prefer for the rank to be difficult to obtain, to represent a good level of achievement in skill, rather than some low bar of 'learned the basics' whatever that means.  I don't think the people here on MT (*I'm thinking of 1 or 2 members who might fit your description of inserting pages of commentary on kiddie BBs*) care anything at all about mysticism and awe and attaching those qualities to a BB.


I don't disagree with you, but you, and those who feel as you do, are not the group that I was referring to.  

I wasn't specifically limiting my comment to MT posters; I actually interact MA related people outside of this forum and lurk in other forums, as well as interacting with people offline.  

However, the bolded part of your post would fall _within_ the context of my comment.  Though I am not targeting or calling them out specifically, inserting pages of *specifically antagonistic and inflammatory* commentary is what I mean by 'rail vociferously in the context of MT.'


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 4, 2012)

Daniel, all I am saying is that it's quite possible for reasonable people to disagree, especially on subjects such as the meaning and value attached to a black belt.  The people you think have unrealistic ideas likely would say the same thing about their friends on the opposite aisle.  Anyone can be 'right' about this.  It's not a concrete thing like a math equation.


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 4, 2012)

puunui said:


> Which describes taekwondo. Having said that, are you still unwilling to award children poom rank?



It can describe taekwondo. 

I rather like the existing promotion scheme for children and I am inclined to keep it going.  Kids as young as 10 can earn a full house BB.  However they aren't eligible to test for 2nd dan until age 16.  To me this is a good compromise for the most part.  Although the minimum age is younger than I would like, this arrangement avoids a possible quick progression through poom ranks along with the later dan conversion potential.  And the 16 year old age for a normal, full 2nd dan fits with KKW requirements. 

Can you confirm something for me?  While the KKW has the poom program for children, there is no actual hard age floor to gain dan certification, correct?  In other words, if a dan cert is applied for by a KKW master on behalf of a 10 year old, the paperwork will still go through?  Could you also give your opinion on whether this is 'appropriate' or not?


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 4, 2012)

puunui said:


> If you make 1st dan difficult, then what about the higher dan levels? Does it get increasingly more difficult to the point where anything over 4th or 5th dan is pretty much unattainable? 1st dan is a low rank, but only in comparison to 9th Dan. 9th Dan is the bar, 9th Dan is the ultimate, not 1st Dan.



I am not familiar with KKW requirements for attaining 4th dan +.  I am working on 3rd dan content right now and my current teacher has indicated I shouldn't have any problems passing his test.  I do not believe what I am working on is overly onerous considering the years that should normally go into practicing this material.  So at least up to 3rd dan, I think just about anyone with reasonable fitness and an inclination to work hard over time should be able to pass his BB exams.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 4, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> Daniel, all I am saying is that it's quite possible for reasonable people to disagree, especially on subjects such as the meaning and value attached to a black belt.  The people you think have unrealistic ideas likely would say the same thing about their friends on the opposite aisle.  Anyone can be 'right' about this.  It's not a concrete thing like a math equation.


Okay, either you are completely missing my point, or you're playing at something else.

I'll repeat the comment:

_If you (the general you) are that concernedabout how a five year old  black belt* makes you look*, then you have an ego issue or have an  unrealistic image of what a black belt/first dan really symbolizes._

This comment is not about what you're trying to make it about.  It is about one feeling that *their own accomplishments are diminished* if a kid is wearing the same color belt that they are.  Those same people ignore the issue or feel that it isn't an issue until the belt is black.  And honestly, I only put in the unrealistic part to be kind; since that seems to be causing confusion, I'll say it plainly:

If you (the general you) feel that a kid having a black belt *diminishes your accomplishments or makes  you look bad in any way*, you have an ego issue and need to get over yourself.

If you feel that a black belt represents a level of expertise that is well beyond that of an advanced beginner, that is not an ego issue or unrealistic.

What I meant by unrealistic was the catching bullets in your teeth crap that was mentioned in the posts to which I was replying when I made the initial comment.  Thus my reason for saying that you are not responding to my comment in the context in which it was made.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 4, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> Can you confirm something for me?  While the KKW has the poom program for children, there is no actual hard age floor to gain dan certification, correct?  In other words, if a dan cert is applied for by a KKW master on behalf of a 10 year old, the paperwork will still go through?  Could you also give your opinion on whether this is 'appropriate' or not?


It should not.  There is a hard age for a first dan: fifteen.  Pum grades convert at fifteen, automatically, I think.  But the KKW will not award a dan cert to a ten year old.

A lot of people who dislike the pum system dislike it because of the way that pum grades convert.

Article 8 Kukkiwon pum/dan regulations: http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/viewfront/eng/promotion/regulations.jsp.


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 4, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Okay, either you are completely missing my point, or you're playing at something else.



Neither.  Our minds are simply interpreting the conversation differently, which isn't unusual for message board discussions.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> I'll repeat the comment:
> 
> _If you (the general you) are that concernedabout how a five year old  black belt* makes you look*, then you have an ego issue or have an  unrealistic image of what a black belt/first dan really symbolizes._
> 
> ...



Here's the thing, Daniel.  What you just wrote is also a matter of opinion.  I have no problems with the likes of TF saying something along the lines of "One cheesy instructor makes us all look cheesy".  I'm only using him as an example because he has a blunt way of expressing himself which can offend others, and because I think you're thinking of him yourself when mentioning the pages of comments on kid BBs.  I don't interpret his expressions as ego and a need to get over himself.  He has as much a legitimate viewpoint as anyone else although his method of expressing himself gets in the way of his message. 



Daniel Sullivan said:


> If you feel that a black belt represents a level of expertise that is well beyond that of an advanced beginner, that is not an ego issue or unrealistic.
> 
> What I meant by unrealistic was the catching bullets in your teeth crap that was mentioned in the posts to which I was replying when I made the initial comment.  Thus my reason for saying that you are not responding to my comment in the context in which it was made.



Thank you for explaining what you meant by unrealistic.

However, overall I don't see how I am missing your point or responding in the wrong context.  You clarified in a note to Chinto  "As far as people who don't like it due to demystification, these are the ones who insert pages of negative posts anytime the subject is mentioned, frequently shouting the mantra, 'they make me look bad!' in some fashion or another."  To repeat myself, I don't think the people here on MT, even those with bombastic writing styles, are concerned at all about demystifying the BB rank nor do their objections to child BBs arise from  their egos.


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 4, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> It should not.  There is a hard age for a first dan: fifteen.  Pum grades convert at fifteen, automatically, I think.  But the KKW will not award a dan cert to a ten year old.
> 
> A lot of people who dislike the pum system dislike it because of the way that pum grades convert.
> 
> Article 8 Kukkiwon pum/dan regulations: http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/viewfront/eng/promotion/regulations.jsp.



Thanks, I've seen this before but I'm wondering what would actually happen if a submission came through for a 10 year old.  I have heard of some kids with full paper, whether from a clerical error or not.  

Businesses and institutions often have by-the-book requirements which handle the bulk of the cases, but they sometimes handle things differently when a need arises.  Example:  I did my last semester for my MBA in absentia, despite what the degree requirement said at the time.  All it took was asking the dean's office and explaining my situation (I landed a great job and my firm wanted me to start early).


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 4, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> Neither.  Our minds are simply interpreting the conversation differently, which isn't unusual for message board discussions.


Possible.



dancingalone said:


> Here's the thing, Daniel.  What you just wrote is also a matter of opinion.


Of course it is.  The vast majority of posts on this board are a matter of opinion.



dancingalone said:


> I have no problems with the likes of TF saying something along the lines of "One cheesy instructor makes us all look cheesy".  I'm only using him as an example because he has a blunt way of expressing himself which can offend others, and because I think you're thinking of him yourself when mentioning the pages of comments on kid BBs.  I don't interpret his expressions as ego and a need to get over himself.  He has as much a legitimate viewpoint as anyone else although his method of expressing himself gets in the way of his message.


Actually, I wasn't thinking him, or anyone else specifically.  If I have a problem with another poster's manner of posting, I will address them directly rather than make veiled comments about them.



dancingalone said:


> Thank you for explaining what you meant by unrealistic.


You're welcome.



dancingalone said:


> However, overall I don't see how I am missing your point or responding in the wrong context.  You clarified in a note to Chinto  "As far as people who don't like it due to demystification, these are the ones who insert pages of negative posts anytime the subject is mentioned, frequently shouting the mantra, 'they make me look bad!' in some fashion or another."


Yes, after discussing people thinking that a black belt means catching bullets with their teeth and making a tongue in cheek remark about five year old BBs being one way to 'demystify' the black belt.



dancingalone said:


> To repeat myself, I don't think the people here on MT, even those with bombastic writing styles, are concerned at all about demystifying the BB rank nor do their objections to child BBs arise from  their egos.


And to repeat* my* self, my comments are not limited to MT.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 4, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> Thanks, I've seen this before but I'm wondering what would actually happen if a submission came through for a 10 year old.


It would be issued as a first pum.



dancingalone said:


> I have heard of some kids with full paper, whether from a clerical error or not.


I have never heard of this ever.  I have seen ten year olds issued dojang dan certs.  Chances are, their 'full paper' is a pum grade that either they or their parents _think_ is a dan grade because it was issued with a black belt and was probably referred to as a 'degree' and not a 'dan.'


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 4, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Actually, I wasn't thinking him, or anyone else specifically.  If I have a problem with another poster's manner of posting, I will address them directly rather than make veiled comments about them.



You were thinking of someone where you mentioned people who write pages of antagonistic comments about kiddo BBs.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> And to repeat* my* self, my comments are not limited to MT.



Maybe so, but we're on MT and so your comments will inevitably be most linked to MT and those on MT.  But this line of discussion is unproductive, so until the next thread or next post...


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 4, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> It would be issued as a first pum.
> 
> 
> I have never heard of this ever.  I have seen ten year olds issued dojang dan certs.  Chances are, their 'full paper' is a pum grade that either they or their parents _think_ is a dan grade because it was issued with a black belt and was probably referred to as a 'degree' and not a 'dan.'



I've seen the cert.  No 'poom' in English on it, although admittedly I'm no expert on KKW paper.

But I am really asking puunui.  Thanks, though.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 4, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> You were thinking of someone where you mentioned people who write pages of antagonistic comments about kiddo BBs.


No.



dancingalone said:


> Maybe so, but we're on MT and so your comments will inevitably be most linked to MT and those on MT.  But this line of discussion is unproductive, so until the next thread or next post...


Yes.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 4, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> I've seen the cert.  No 'poom' in English on it, although admittedly I'm no expert on KKW paper.
> 
> But I am really asking puunui.  Thanks, though.


Ok.


----------



## puunui (Apr 4, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> Daniel, all I am saying is that it's quite possible for reasonable people to disagree, especially on subjects such as the meaning and value attached to a black belt.  The people you think have unrealistic ideas likely would say the same thing about their friends on the opposite aisle.  Anyone can be 'right' about this.  It's not a concrete thing like a math equation.




I agree that the meaning and value of a black belt is a subjective opinion oriented discussion, with no right or wrong answer.


----------



## puunui (Apr 4, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> I rather like the existing promotion scheme for children and I am inclined to keep it going.  Kids as young as 10 can earn a full house BB.  However they aren't eligible to test for 2nd dan until age 16.  To me this is a good compromise for the most part.  Although the minimum age is younger than I would like, this arrangement avoids a possible quick progression through poom ranks along with the later dan conversion potential.  And the 16 year old age for a normal, full 2nd dan fits with KKW requirements.



Ok, so this is slightly different from what you spoke about in the past, wherein your philosophy for your taekwondo instruction allowed for only the rank of black belt, with no progression through the dan levels, that there was only one level for your school. 



dancingalone said:


> Can you confirm something for me?  While the KKW has the poom program for children, there is no actual hard age floor to gain dan certification, correct?  In other words, if a dan cert is applied for by a KKW master on behalf of a 10 year old, the paperwork will still go through?  Could you also give your opinion on whether this is 'appropriate' or not?



If you submit a promotion recommendation for someone under 15, the certificate that comes back will be a poom certificate. The form is the same for poom or dan recommendation so what I do is put the number for the rank on the application, and let the kukkiwon sort out whether it is a poom or dan certificate.


----------



## puunui (Apr 4, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> It should not.  There is a hard age for a first dan: fifteen.  Pum grades convert at fifteen, automatically, I think.  But the KKW will not award a dan cert to a ten year old.



Small comment: It is spelled poom not pum on the kukkiwon certificates. I don't know if you knew that or not.


----------



## puunui (Apr 4, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> I've seen the cert.  No 'poom' in English on it, although admittedly I'm no expert on KKW paper.
> 
> But I am really asking puunui.  Thanks, though.



Perhaps you can scan it or take a picture and I can have a look. That would be the best way to get to the bottom of it.


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 4, 2012)

puunui said:


> Ok, so this is slightly different from what you spoke about in the past, wherein your philosophy for your taekwondo instruction allowed for only the rank of black belt, with no progression through the dan levels, that there was only one level for your school.



Yes, that was at my church parish class which used a different curriculum and where rank advancement seemed somewhat unseemly in such an environment. 




puunui said:


> If you submit a promotion recommendation for someone under 15, the certificate that comes back will be a poom certificate. The form is the same for poom or dan recommendation so what I do is put the number for the rank on the application, and let the kukkiwon sort out whether it is a poom or dan certificate.
> 
> ....
> 
> Perhaps you can scan it or take a picture and I can have a look. That would be the best way to get to the bottom of it.



Thank you, sir.  I will discreetly look into getting a picture of it since my curiosity is piqued.  I was thinking in the back of my head if it's possible to get a full 1st dan for all our students, why not offer them the chance?  And then just proceed as normal with 16 = 2nd dan eligible.


----------



## Jenna (Apr 5, 2012)

seasoned said:


> Jenna, in you're opinion, how would this equate to an individual that trained most of their life, but was in their 60s or 70s. As a comparison, that person would not be able to physically do what he could when they were younger, but would now possess a greater knowledge and understanding.


I do not always equate physical fitness with physical proficiency.  I think there are those who are physically fit in general terms and yet physically incompetent in a particular discipline or in the case of martial arts, particular techniques.

I think when I refer to proficiency, I do not imply physical fitness and but rather a kind of physical efficiency.  Having said that, I do not practice my art in an extravagant and flamboyant way and so I cannot speak to other arts that may  I do not know how it works when mastery means you must hit a target above head height, I do not have experience in those disciplines though I imagine age is potentially an obstacle in meeting those standards?  I have never been taught by anyone younger than me and was taught by many that were significantly older than me yet I never felt I was a physical match for them despite youth and fitness.  Their technical and mechanical efficiency that was borne through years of fettling with their technique seemed to me to have produced a kind of magical ability that I held in awe and still do.  My shihan was late 70s when I began and could put me where he wanted me despite my best efforts to release or deflect and it is something I am still trying to emulate even all these years later.  And so apologies for a longwinded reply - I only mean that "master" is in my opinion a horribly trite term that does not carry a fraction of the gravitas that it implies.  I think it should not be determined by a static marker and but rather by demonstration of proficiency against others represented within the upper percentiles of the same statistical bell curve, otherwise their title is nothing more than platitude.  So I do not think it should be a test in isolation against a paper benchmark.

And to address your point directly Wes, I am not sure if you are suggesting that master status could be applied retrospectively?  I would not have a problem with the conferring of that status upon someone that achieved that high-percentile peer-comparable proficiency in former years and perhaps is less able to demonstrate the proficiency that they once demonstrated.  I think it is the fact that they once did demonstrate that proficiency that is the key for me.  If that is the case then that is enough for me   I hope that is what you were asking Jx


----------



## puunui (Apr 5, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> I was thinking in the back of my head if it's possible to get a full 1st dan for all our students, why not offer them the chance?  And then just proceed as normal with 16 = 2nd dan eligible.



Eventually all your poom students can transfer to get that kukkiwon 1st dan, but I don't think that is the answer you are looking for. I also had a kukkiwon 1st dan recommendation for a twentysomething year old come back as a 1st poom certificate. We had to return it and they reissued the certificate. it was through the old ustu, and I believe there was a new person who was assigned that duty.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 5, 2012)

Jenna said:


> * in other words, claiming master status in the face of others that are exceedingly proficient may be foolish.*





seasoned said:


> Jenna, in you're opinion, how would this equate to an individual that trained most of their life, but was in their 60s or 70s. As a comparison, that person would not be able to physically do what he could when they were younger, but would now possess a greater knowledge and understanding.





Jenna said:


> And to address your point directly Wes, I am not sure if you are suggesting that master status could be applied retrospectively?  I would not have a problem with the conferring of that status upon someone that achieved that high-percentile peer-comparable proficiency in former years and perhaps is less able to demonstrate the proficiency that they once demonstrated.  *I think it is the fact that they once did demonstrate that proficiency that is the key for me.  If that is the case then that is enough for me   I hope that is what you were asking* Jx



Thank you for you're comment, Jenna.

I did not want to get off topic, by switching from young "master" to old master, but felt it interesting to bring up.
In the case of the young "master" who may derive their status from superb technique with little depth and understanding, to the old master, who, has lost the crispness of the technique but possesses the depth and understanding of underlying principals of their art. Who would appear to be the true master in the eyes of the paying public. 


Anyone care to throw a thought out................


----------



## Jenna (Apr 6, 2012)

seasoned said:


> Thank you for you're comment, Jenna.
> 
> I did not want to get off topic, by switching from young "master" to old master, but felt it interesting to bring up.
> In the case of the young "master" who may derive their status from superb technique with little depth and understanding, to the old master, who, has lost the crispness of the technique but possesses the depth and understanding of underlying principals of their art. Who would appear to be the true master in the eyes of the paying public.
> ...



Forgive me for not understanding that you were looking at it from the pov of the paying public.  Yes I think that is a quite different set of lenses to view it through.  I would say in the dichotomous example of "master" you have given that the paying public appreciate their stereotypes.  In that case I would argue that BOTH of these are stereotypes that would satisfy the public perception of "master".  Speaking as a member of the public, I would say that I like to see good fights in the ring or mats or even on screen in fiction.  At the same time I appreciate the TRUTH (for me) that depth of skill cannot come without depth of understanding.  And depth of understanding can only come from length of practice.  That is my opinion as I have experienced it with the practitioners I have trained and fought with.  

Again though that may be specific to the art.  In Aikido I think age-related mastery and efficiency gains are notable.  In boxing, there is a definite split depending upon application.  Older heads bearing deeper understanding will ALWAYS have the measure of younger heads with superficial understanding.  However, that is tempered by understandably lacking endurance.  In the ring that is everything.  Ring environment suits younger "master" types.  Elsewhere, endurance is not the thing and depth of understanding that generates significant efficiencies ALWAYS wins (in my experience).  I am sorry for digressing.  I think the public like stereotypes.  A young, fit "master" that can take on all comers would appear to prove theirselves worthy of the title in the eyes of the public I think.  A more erudite, neater, more efficient master would also fit that stereotype of what it is to be a master in the eyes of the public.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 6, 2012)

puunui said:


> Perhaps you can scan it or take a picture and I can have a look. That would be the best way to get to the bottom of it.


I had heard that there is a new KKW cert as of last year or the year before, but prior to that, the poom certs were pink or peach and the dan certs were more of a parchment.  The visual difference was immediately apparent.


----------



## pgsmith (Apr 6, 2012)

> Who would appear to be the true master in the eyes of the paying public.


  Coming from a koryu perspective, we don't really care about the views of the paying public.  Sort of a rude outlook but there just isn't enough interest, or flexibility, in the koryu arts to make teaching it a 'for profit' venture, so we pretty much tend to ignore the general public. Besides, I think the view of the general population would depend entirely upon how many old Kung Fu Theater movies they've seen.


----------



## Black Belt Jedi (Apr 6, 2012)

A Black Belt doesn't mean you are a master. When reaching 1st dan, you are a Sempai (senior student) but not a master. I say you have to be a 4th 5th or 6th dan to be a master, 7th to 10th dan you are a grandmaster. Some schools automatically throw around titles here and there. Some schools automtically call a 1st dan a Sensei. I have been taught that you earn the title of Sensei when you own your own club, if your Sensei passed down ownership of his or her dojo to you or get to 3rd or 4th dan. I had people addressing me as Sensei, but I reply that I am not and I don't own a dojo. Even the title Sempai is given to a 1st dan if you train in the dojo longer and show up volunteering your time to the dojo teaching classes and doing a service to the community. That's what happened to me.

My belief that titles in the black belt should be thrown around so much. It's means more to have patience and earning a title through humility, hard work, and modesty.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 6, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> Coming from a koryu perspective, we don't really care about the views of the paying public.  Sort of a rude outlook but there just isn't enough interest, or flexibility, in the koryu arts to make teaching it a 'for profit' venture, so we pretty much tend to ignore the general public. Besides, I think the view of the general population would depend entirely upon how many old Kung Fu Theater movies they've seen.


Just throwing things out there for conversation. Shodan masters aren't my cup of tea. I come from the 60s vintage and have held true to the way I was taught and trained.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 6, 2012)

Black Belt Jedi said:


> A Black Belt doesn't mean you are a master. When reaching 1st dan, you are a Sempai (senior student) but not a master. I say you have to be a 4th 5th or 6th dan to be a master, 7th to 10th dan you are a grandmaster. Some schools automatically throw around titles here and there. Some schools automtically call a 1st dan a Sensei. I have been taught that you earn the title of Sensei when you own your own club, if your Sensei passed down ownership of his or her dojo to you or get to 3rd or 4th dan. I had people addressing me as Sensei, but I reply that I am not and I don't own a dojo. Even the title Sempai is given to a 1st dan if you train in the dojo longer and show up volunteering your time to the dojo teaching classes and doing a service to the community. That's what happened to me.
> 
> My belief that titles in the black belt should be thrown around so much. It's means more to have patience and earning a title through *humility, hard work, and modesty*.



Now your talking............... This is a cup half full.


----------



## puunui (Apr 6, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I had heard that there is a new KKW cert as of last year or the year before, but prior to that, the poom certs were pink or peach and the dan certs were more of a parchment.  The visual difference was immediately apparent.



The old kukkiwon poom certificates were also a different color from the dan certificates. Each poom had its own color, while the 1st-4th Dan had its color, and the 5th and up dan had its own color.


----------



## puunui (Apr 6, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> Coming from a koryu perspective, we don't really care about the views of the paying public.  Sort of a rude outlook but there just isn't enough interest, or flexibility, in the koryu arts to make teaching it a 'for profit' venture, so we pretty much tend to ignore the general public. Besides, I think the view of the general population would depend entirely upon how many old Kung Fu Theater movies they've seen.



Gee, I must be a koryu thinker then, because I don't care what the paying public thinks either.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 9, 2012)

puunui said:


> Gee, I must be a koryu thinker then, because I don't care what the paying public thinks either.


Personally, I think that the whole idea of being concerned with what the paying public thinks depends more on whether or not you wish to run a for profit school than what art you are teaching.  And even then, being concerned with what the paying public thinks really has more to do with how you run your business than what art you teach or in how you define a first dan/black belt.


----------



## pgsmith (Apr 9, 2012)

> I come from the 60s vintage and have held true to the way I was taught and trained.


As we all should! Hold true that is, not be a 60s vintage!




> Gee, I must be a koryu thinker then, because I don't care what the paying public thinks either.


However, that is different than the vast majority of TKD practicioners that I've met. 



> Personally, I think that the whole idea of being concerned with what the paying public thinks depends more on whether or not you wish to run a for profit school than what art you are teaching.


I agree with that completely. That's why you rarely see koryu instructors worried about public image because there's just no way to do this stuff for profit. Those that run a koryu dojo just hope to not lose too much money at it.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 9, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> However, that is different than the vast majority of TKD practicioners that I've met.


Well, the practitioners usually are the paying public in the case of TKD.  I assume that you mean TKD school owners.



pgsmith said:


> I agree with that completely. That's why you rarely see koryu instructors worried about public image because there's just no way to do this stuff for profit. Those that run a koryu dojo just hope to not lose too much money at it.


The dojo where I train in Tenshinsho Jigen Ryu is mainly a judo/jujutsu school.  Kind of the best of both worlds; they have an art that is commercially viable while offering the Koryu as well.


----------



## puunui (Apr 9, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> However, that is different than the vast majority of TKD practicioners that I've met.



I don't think I am like the vast majority of taekwondo practitioners. The kwan founders, for example, all had outside jobs for their primary source of income. I choose to follow their example, in part because it allows me to get more in touch with how they thought and felt about their art. I want to understand their thoughts and the thoughts of their first generation direct students, who I refer to as the pioneers. The pioneers also all had outside jobs as their primary source of income.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 9, 2012)

puunui said:


> I don't think I am like the vast majority of taekwondo practitioners. The kwan founders, for example, all had outside jobs for their primary source of income. I choose to follow their example, in part because it allows me to get more in touch with how they thought and felt about their art. I want to understand their thoughts and the thoughts of their first generation direct students, who I refer to as the pioneers. The pioneers also all had outside jobs as their primary source of income.


Would teaching commercially have even been possible for the pioneers and kwan founders at that point in time?


----------



## puunui (Apr 9, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Would teaching commercially have even been possible for the pioneers and kwan founders at that point in time?



Why not.


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 9, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Would teaching commercially have even been possible for the pioneers and kwan founders at that point in time?



I don't see why not.  It was a possibility in Japan where headmasters such as Ueshiba lived off the offerings of his students after a certain point.  Ueshiba was notably noncommercial however.  He never cared much about money and didn't accept it directly from his students (they gave their donations discretely to an altar or shomen? and Ueshiba Sensei would take as needed from it after making a prayer).  I believe Ueshiba's teacher, Takeda Sokaku, charged by the technique to learn them though.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 9, 2012)

puunui said:


> Why not.


I should rephrase; was it commercially viable to teach martial arts in Korea at that time?  Was the customer base such that it was possible to teach martial arts as one's sole occupation?  Maybe it was; I don't know so that is why I was asking.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 9, 2012)

seasoned said:


> Just throwing things out there for conversation. Shodan masters aren't my cup of tea. *I come from the 60s vintage* and have held true to the way I was taught and trained.





pgsmith said:


> As we all should! *Hold true that is, not be a 60s vintage*!



I have no choice, because I started training in the mid 60s.

Please elaborate on* your *interpretation of 60s vintage.


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 9, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I should rephrase; was it commercially viable to teach martial arts in Korea at that time?  Was the customer base such that it was possible to teach martial arts as one's sole occupation?  Maybe it was; I don't know so that is why I was asking.



How did Dojunim Choi support himself after 1958 when he opened his own school?  I'm assuming that he had quit farming by then?

This article might be of interest to you, Daniel.  The author, GM KIM Pyung Soo, states that martial arts teachers had a difficult time keeping their dojang doors open due to finances though he doesn't explicitly state a time frame.  I gather it was kwan era Korea however because he mentions GM PARK Chul Hee being a itinerant instructor, teaching all over Seoul where he could find the space.

http://kimsookarate.com/articles/dojang-bee.html


----------



## pgsmith (Apr 9, 2012)

> Please elaborate on* your *interpretation of 60s vintage.



Not everyone can be a 60's vintage. I'm a decade behind you. Just making a joke, didn't consider that you might be touchy about it. Apologies.



> It was a possibility in Japan where headmasters such as Ueshiba lived off the offerings of his students after a certain point.


A large number of the Japanese koryu arts began this way also, with out of work samurai opening a dojo and teaching the arts to merchants for pay.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 9, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> Not everyone can be a 60's vintage. I'm a decade behind you. Just making a joke, didn't consider that you might be touchy about it. Apologies.



I was just trying to get a conversation going, and I didn't realize the humor content. Next time throw one of these  at the end and it will explain everything. No hard feeling here.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 10, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> How did Dojunim Choi support himself after 1958 when he opened his own school?  I'm assuming that he had quit farming by then?



After returning to Korea at the end of the war, he worked at the Seo Brewing Company, which is where he broke up a fight using what I think he was calling _yu sul _or_ yawara_ at the time.  This brought him to the attention of Seo Bok Seob, the chairman's son, who was a judoka as I recall.  Seo Bok Seob was impressed and became Choi Dojunim's first student and set up a dojang on the premises so that he could be trained.  He later worked as a bodyguard for Seo's father who was a politician as well.

I don't know what he did professionally after that, but he and Seo opened a dojang in Daegu in 1951, calling the art Daehan Hapki Yu Kwon Sul.  He opened his own school until 1958, at which point I think he was calling the art hapkido.  Apparently, he had a farm where he taught private students, one of whom was GM Ji Han Jae.

Glenn can, I'm sure, give a much better account.



dancingalone said:


> This article might be of interest to you, Daniel.  The author, GM KIM  Pyung Soo, states that martial arts teachers had a difficult time  keeping their dojang doors open due to finances though he doesn't  explicitly state a time frame.  I gather it was kwan era Korea however  because he mentions GM PARK Chul Hee being a itinerant instructor,  teaching all over Seoul where he could find the space.
> 
> http://kimsookarate.com/articles/dojang-bee.html


Many thanks!  I am kind of checking in and out, but I will definitely make some time to read it today.


----------



## puunui (Apr 10, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> I gather it was kwan era Korea however because he mentions GM PARK Chul Hee being a itinerant instructor, teaching all over Seoul where he could find the space.



Funny, but GM PARK Chull Hee told me directly that he taught for 25 years at the YMCA, until 1970. GM Park speaks fluent english. Perhaps I misunderstood him though.


----------



## puunui (Apr 10, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> The author, GM KIM Pyung Soo, states that martial arts teachers had a difficult time keeping their dojang doors open due to finances though he doesn't explicitly state a time frame.



That might have been true in the 1950's, but by the 1960's, things were rolling.


----------



## Grasshopper22 (Apr 10, 2012)

When I was younger I always thought that black belt was the ultimate target but since then I have learned that earning your black belt is the beginning of your proper training. Your black belt actually symbolises the fact that you have now got all of the basics nailed and are now ready to start the more advanced stuff. By the time you've earned your black belt you will have come on quite a journey but once you achieve your black belt, then and only then do you really start learning.


----------

