# Experience...helpful but not necessary?



## StudentCarl (Mar 16, 2011)

I'm pulling this from the ATA thread to address separately:

_"I know this is off topic here, but while experience is helpful, I don't believe it necessary. I remember when our KJN had opened the branch school where I teach now, he was traveling 70 miles to teach. Obviously he could not come every class, so a 1st gup was teaching the class (approximately 3 years experience). To take it one step further, at the beginning of the school the next highest rank at the branch school was a 7th gup. He is now a 7th dan, and recalls teaching classes as a 7th gup, and while he admits it wasn't ideal, it was what was required at the time. Anytime you are teaching someone of lower rank and experience, there is something to be offered and something to be learned (both ways). _

_The school I began under had a similar situation, my Sahbumnim was travelling 45 miles to teach at the school I started under. He had produced a couple of 1st dans, that happened to quit. That left my father (a 3rd gup at the time) as the highest ranking student there. He took over teaching, and we were travelling 45 miles once a week to receive instruction. Now he is a 6th dan. _

_While I see your point, I don't believe it is necessary to have 4-10 years of experience to adequately teach the art. Is it helpful, yes, required, no." _

This is interesting. I agree that the best teachers are not always the most experienced, though it is important to have good judgment to teach only what you know. Good teachers are good at analyzing what they see and communicate effectively the corrections needed. It's also clear in the above that the junior teachers had regular access to more senior mentoring. Those who are analytical and dedicated to learning make better use of their experience/time too, so a dedicated 2yr student might know more than a senior who isn't like that.

However, some of the senior masters I've met have honed their analytical skills, teaching skills and understanding of the curriculum so much that they can cut to the absolute core of an issue and adjust a student in a more effective manner than a more junior instructor. They simply have more tools in their bag and know how to use them in more ways. IMO, that's why there's a separate term for master and instructor.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 16, 2011)

I think a distinction between material levels is important as well.  Could a colored belt teach a beginner the rudiments of stances and striking to a satisfactory level?  I think so.  Would I want the same colored belt running a multiple attacker drill?  Probably not.


----------



## andyjeffries (Mar 16, 2011)

I think the rank/experience level of the instructor is important, but it's not the be all and end all.  As well as my Taekwondo training, I am also learning BJJ.  My BJJ coach is a purple belt (admittedly that's equivalent to a 1st Dan Taekwondo).  I'm happy to learn from him, he knows way more than I do.  Would a black belt know more, absolutely, and I'm sure they'd be able to point out lots more detail.  The reality is though there isn't a black belt within easy driving distance.

That said I think there is a minimum level for instruction though and I consider that in Taekwondo to be 1st Dan.  Below that is really not ideal, and I'd prefer that club instructors were more senior.  However, it's better to learn something from a 3rd Kup than nothing from no-one   Mistakes can always be corrected (as much as it may infuriate senior instructors having to unravel them)...


----------



## Dragons TKD (Mar 16, 2011)

Teaching really depends on the person.  We have 2nd, 3rd and 4th dans that are not good at teaching.  They certainly have skill, but are neither able nor willing to teach.  In a pinch, sure they would be able to cover a class here and there, but acting as 'the instructor' would not go over well.

When I was coming up through the color belts, my instructor saw something in me and pretty much trained me to be an instructor.  Even though I despise public speaking, I'm told that I do a very good job instructing.  So much that I've won instructor of the year 2 of the 4 years it's been available to me at my new club.

I know it's been said repeatedly, but just because you're a good student or have exceptional skill, that does not necessarily mean that will translate into teaching.  Some of the best coaches across different sports were just mediocre athletes themselves.


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 16, 2011)

Well I will be the one to dis-agree here, I would never ever go to a school that had a blue belt teaching as the main instructor even for a class. There is something to be said for experience withen the art. At the same time I believe we can all learn something from everyone.

To me an experience martial artist that is a bad teacher is better than a good teacher that does not know the material.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 16, 2011)

Carl, you beat me too it!  Thanks for starting this thread.. .



Daniel Sullivan said:


> On the other hand, most other fields will  require either a four year degree or a masters degree for a teaching  position, and will probably want experience on top of that.  A school  teacher is required to be a student for thirteen years, plus go to  college as a student for an additional four to six years, before being  able to be an assistant teacher for a period of time (I'm pretty sure  that you aren't handed your own classroom right out of college).
> 
> A high school PE teacher, at least in my area, will need at least a four  year degree in PE. Again, this is after having been a student in school  system for thirteen years plus four years plus of college.
> 
> ...



 There are a couple of ways to look at this.  One is the way that Daniel has described; elementary school, middle/high school, undergraduate collegiate degree ~14-16 years of experience.  With the martial arts history in the U.S. being atleast 50 years old now, that is a luxury most of us have, since martial arts has spread throughout most of the country at this point.  I have 25 years experience now, so I fit that criteria.  Also, my sahbumnim fit that criteria when I started training under him 25 years ago.  However, I could see how many people would never had begun training in martial arts when they did if this was an enforced standard.  How many clubs/schools sprung up when someone moved due to work, and there were no clubs/schools in the place that they moved to?  How many of these people did not have 14-16 years of training?

The flip side of this coin is how watered down have these systems/clubs/schools become due to this lack of experience and training.

If we think about it from a "coaching" perspective rather than a "teaching" perspective, some high school coaches at smaller schools may have only played the sport in high school, never having competed on the collegiate level, so they may only have 4-6 years of experience in the sport; less than half of what it would require to be a "teacher."

I am not suggesting that any of this is right or wrong, but merely looking for some conversation on the topic.. .


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 16, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I think a distinction between material levels is important as well.  Could a colored belt teach a beginner the rudiments of stances and striking to a satisfactory level?  I think so.  Would I want the same colored belt running a multiple attacker drill?  Probably not.




That is really the meat and potatoes of what I'm getting at.  Circumstances may arise, where this is a necessity if the club/school is to continue to operate.  Should they close altogether because there isn't someone with the "required" experience?  A colored belt could teach the material that he/she knows, which is quite different than teaching something that is beyond their individual knowledge and skill set.  Would this set back the students at the school?  Maybe, but is something better than nothing?  

Again, I don't think this is really an issue these days, since most cities/towns/communities have _something _of a martial arts community.  However, 20-30 years ago I could see how this could've been a common dilemma.. .  

Again this poses the question that if this is justified, how much did this add to the "watering down" of the arts in the U.S.?


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 16, 2011)

terryl965 said:


> Well I will be the one to dis-agree here, I would never ever go to a school that had a blue belt teaching as the main instructor even for a class. There is something to be said for experience withen the art. At the same time I believe we can all learn something from everyone.
> 
> To me an experience martial artist that is a bad teacher is better than a good teacher that does not know the material.




If the choice was between 3 schools with black belt instructors and a school with a colored belt instructor, then I agree it would be a no brainer.. .  Would you have the same opinion if when you started there was only one available school in your area, and the instructor was not yet a black belt?  Again, I'm not looking for any particular answer, other than honest opinions.. .


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 16, 2011)

SahBumNimRush said:


> If the choice was between 3 schools with black belt instructors and a school with a colored belt instructor, then I agree it would be a no brainer.. . Would you have the same opinion if when you started there was only one available school in your area, and the instructor was not yet a black belt? Again, I'm not looking for any particular answer, other than honest opinions.. .


 
Simply put I would drive two hours to a Black belt that could teach me the entire curriculum. Not saying anything wrong with people ideals, but for me I do not want to go to a Unniversity that has a Instructor or professor that is 21 and just got a teaching credintial. Experience and age has alot to do with certain things in my life. Now with that being said if I walk into a school that had a 17 year old that was a BB and he knew the material and could teach it than that would also be a place I would go. If it had value than why not I do not see value in a 17 year old orange belt. Sorry just my opinion...


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 16, 2011)

SahBumNimRush said:


> Again this poses the question that if this is justified, how much did this add to the "watering down" of the arts in the U.S.?



Good question.  What do we mean by 'watered down'?  Are we assuming for argument's sake that TKD as studied and taught in the US is different or lesser than that taught elsewhere?  If that is the contention, I don't believe that is the case, so the issue of a colored grade teaching in earlier times in the US never is a factor in terms of present day quality or rigor.  If anyone disagrees, I'd be interested in your reasoning. 

On the other hand if watered down means that the rank and file students today do not practice as much or as intensely as people did during the fifties, sixties, and seventies, I would not argue the point.  MA is a much more mainstream activity now, and this means an inevitable settling of standards to the lowest common denominator, which usually means hobbyist students that are also frequently children.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 16, 2011)

SahBumNimRush said:


> If the choice was between 3 schools with black belt instructors and a school with a colored belt instructor, then I agree it would be a no brainer.. .  Would you have the same opinion if when you started there was only one available school in your area, and the instructor was not yet a black belt?  Again, I'm not looking for any particular answer, other than honest opinions.. .



I think black belt rank is way too arbitrary a standard to pick solely as the basis of choosing a teacher.

Would I rather learn from a 17 year old black belt who has studied commercial TKD or would I pick the 40 year old ex-Marine brown belt who was an amateur boxer too, assuming both are of good character and have the ability to impart information efficiently?  There's no contest in my mind.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 16, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Good question.  What do we mean by 'watered down'?  Are we assuming for argument's sake that TKD as studied and taught in the US is different or lesser than that taught elsewhere?  If that is the contention, I don't believe that is the case, so the issue of a colored grade teaching in earlier times in the US never is a factor in terms of present day quality or rigor.  If anyone disagrees, I'd be interested in your reasoning.
> 
> On the other hand if watered down means that the rank and file students today do not practice as much or as intensely as people did during the fifties, sixties, and seventies, I would not argue the point.  MA is a much more mainstream activity now, and this means an inevitable settling of standards to the lowest common denominator, which usually means hobbyist students that are also frequently children.




By watered down I am more referring to the curriculum and knowledge base, which I don't believe is something confined to the U.S.  I also don't necessarily believe it is confined to lack of time in training.  If certain techniques were never taught to certain students before they went out on their own, then what the next generation learns is "watered down" from the previous generation.  

This is a topic that is broader than the OP, but I wonder if what we are talking about in the OP has added it this.. .


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 16, 2011)

SahBumNimRush said:


> By watered down I am more referring to the curriculum and knowledge base, which I don't believe is something confined to the U.S.  I also don't necessarily believe it is confined to lack of time in training.  If certain techniques were never taught to certain students before they went out on their own, then what the next generation learns is "watered down" from the previous generation.
> 
> This is a topic that is broader than the OP, but I wonder if what we are talking about in the OP has added it this.. .



I hope I am not going off topic, but I really don't think TKD has been watered down in terms of loss of knowledge... as long as we start with post-Kwan era TKD as the starting point.  If anything, knowledge has been added, such as the creation of the jumping and spinning kicks, the evolution of the Olympic sport, the constant cross-breeding/or influence with/from hapkido, Krav Maga, MMA, karate bunkai, etc.

If we are willing to go back and look at the kwan era, then an argument could be made that certain techniques from judo should be in much more common within TKD than they are.  But even then, this loss of knowledge has much less to do with colored belts teaching than it does with people like General Choi choosing to emphasize different things when they were codifying taekwondo.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 16, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I think black belt rank is way too arbitrary a standard to pick solely as the basis of choosing a teacher.
> 
> Would I rather learn from a 17 year old black belt who has studied commercial TKD or would I pick the 40 year old ex-Marine brown belt who was an amateur boxer too, assuming both are of good character and have the ability to impart information efficiently?  There's no contest in my mind.




This is much of what I am getting at.. . Time in rank/arts, doesn't necessarily translate into being better.  However, the coveted black belt is a perceived value/benchmark of knowledge to the lay person, so it is inherently more marketable to the public.

I know an individual in my town that have THREE 10th degree black belts (albeit self-proclaimed), members of karate and black belt hall of fames (which you pay to get into), who's who of martial arts (again you pay for getting your name in), and 30+ years of experience.  I would pit his "knowledge," skills, and teaching ability against one of my 1st or 2nd dans with only 4-6 years of experience any day.  Again it is perceived value to the public, and the "10th degree" runs a successful commercial school. However, I would take my traditional training over his "mail order mastery" any day.. .


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 16, 2011)

terryl965 said:


> Simply put I would drive two hours to a Black belt that could teach me the entire curriculum. Not saying anything wrong with people ideals, but for me I do not want to go to a Unniversity that has a Instructor or professor that is 21 and just got a teaching credintial. Experience and age has alot to do with certain things in my life. Now with that being said if I walk into a school that had a 17 year old that was a BB and he knew the material and could teach it than that would also be a place I would go. If it had value than why not I do not see value in a 17 year old orange belt. Sorry just my opinion...



But if you were starting out, then a colored belt could conceivably teach you the entire curriculum of your respective rank.  Further, what in your experience is the average knowledge base of a colored belt holder of 2-3 years experience lacking that a black belt of 3-4 years experience holds when it comes to teaching a white belt?

Again, I respect your statement and I do not necessarily disagree with it.  Just curious about your position/opinions.. .


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 16, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I hope I am not going off topic, but I really don't think TKD has been watered down in terms of loss of knowledge... as long as we start with post-Kwan era TKD as the starting point.  If anything, knowledge has been added, such as the creation of the jumping and spinning kicks, the evolution of the Olympic sport, the constant cross-breeding/or influence with/from hapkido, Krav Maga, MMA, karate bunkai, etc.
> 
> If we are willing to go back and look at the kwan era, then an argument could be made that certain techniques from judo should be in much more common within TKD than they are.  But even then, this loss of knowledge has much less to do with colored belts teaching than it does with people like General Choi choosing to emphasize different things when they were codifying taekwondo.



I am referring to specific techniques, and I can only speak from my perspective which is from the "kwan era TKD."  I know there are techniques that my sahbumnim has told me about that our KJN has "inflicted" on him, but never taught, and there are other techniques that he has taught my sahbumnim that he has not taught anyone else.  This could be an exception to the rule, maybe this doesn't happen outside of my association.  They are more "SD" techs than anything else, and they possibly came from things he learned in the ROK army rather than from his TKD instructor.  For example the hand shake thumb lock is something that, to my knowledge, he has only taught my sahbumnim, and my sahbumnim has only taught less than a handful of instructors.  So the lineage of people that has never learned or seen the technique, it will be lost.  

Modern TKD, I agree has evolved and added much more rather than losing.. . The KKW curriculum fosters an open book type of curriculum, where nothing is hidden.  However, I believe it to be lacking in some of the SD techs that the "kwan era" may have possessed.  I may be way off base on this, as it is only my speculation since it is way before my time.


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 16, 2011)

SahBumNimRush said:


> But if you were starting out, then a colored belt could conceivably teach you the entire curriculum of your respective rank. Further, what in your experience is the average knowledge base of a colored belt holder of 2-3 years experience lacking that a black belt of 3-4 years experience holds when it comes to teaching a white belt?
> 
> Again, I respect your statement and I do not necessarily disagree with it. Just curious about your position/opinions.. .


 
This is a fair question so let me start off with this, I learn from a six year old but that does not mean I would train under one. What I believe would be lacking is the complete understanding of the entire system, so for me to try and learn from a color belt would just not work for me. Not saying it would not for somebody else, I see a mature BB as a starting point for my question of what if's???? I do not believe a true color belt could answer those question as they become available during training. I would underrstand that most BB today probaly could not answer alot of question I would ask but than again I have been doing this a long long time and have seen very little coming down the pipeline as what I would consider what a BB should be, so many have mad skill but does not have the maturity or intrigrity I would want to be associated with.

Like I said we all can learn from every single person if we choice too, the problem is we as a society hold to much into rank and that includes me at times. None of us are perfect except in our minds and even then we second guess and wonder way to much. At the point I am at now I see tremendous value in a older wiser man or woman then me, the core of my art TKD has not been up to the standerds I learned over the last thirty years and even some of the oldest GM's I know are not the same in that matter. One thing for sure we Americans love the fact of being told we are great and superior than everybody else even if we are not.:asian: Sorry a little off topic probaly but I hope my point was in there somewhere.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 16, 2011)

SahBumNimRush said:


> I am referring to specific techniques, and I can only speak from my perspective which is from the "kwan era TKD."  I know there are techniques that my sahbumnim has told me about that our KJN has "inflicted" on him, but never taught, and there are other techniques that he has taught my sahbumnim that he has not taught anyone else.  This could be an exception to the rule, maybe this doesn't happen outside of my association.  They are more "SD" techs than anything else, and they possibly came from things he learned in the ROK army rather than from his TKD instructor.  For example the hand shake thumb lock is something that, to my knowledge, he has only taught my sahbumnim, and my sahbumnim has only taught less than a handful of instructors.  So the lineage of people that has never learned or seen the technique, it will be lost.
> 
> Modern TKD, I agree has evolved and added much more rather than losing.. . The KKW curriculum fosters an open book type of curriculum, where nothing is hidden.  However, I believe it to be lacking in some of the SD techs that the "kwan era" may have possessed.  I may be way off base on this, as it is only my speculation since it is way before my time.




That is interesting.  Why don't you ask your KJN to teach these missing bits (might be a lot, LOL)?

Depending on whom our kwan era link respectively is, we might be watered down a lot, a little, or not at all.  Many Koreans from that time also studied judo or what became hapkido.  I bet your GM had a decent amount of hapkido training at the very least if he knew finger locks.  Finger locks aren't usually taught in say aikido, until you've reached black belt rank.  

The majority of Koreans I would venture to say studied Japanese karate and would have learned body hardening techniques from there but probably little to no bunkai.  We discussed the body conditioning aspect before here - most TKDists are familiar with the methods but do not really actively train them.  And there's the kwon bup oddity out there from Yoon Byung In's line.  Those forms are still passed down, but I don't know if the meaning and usages have been.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 16, 2011)

terryl965 said:


> This is a fair question so let me start off with this, I learn from a six year old but that does not mean I would train under one. What I believe would be lacking is the complete understanding of the entire system, so for me to try and learn from a color belt would just not work for me. Not saying it would not for somebody else, I see a mature BB as a starting point for my question of what if's???? I do not believe a true color belt could answer those question as they become available during training. I would underrstand that most BB today probaly could not answer alot of question I would ask but than again I have been doing this a long long time and have seen very little coming down the pipeline as what I would consider what a BB should be, so many have mad skill but does not have the maturity or intrigrity I would want to be associated with.
> 
> Like I said we all can learn from every single person if we choice too, the problem is we as a society hold to much into rank and that includes me at times. None of us are perfect except in our minds and even then we second guess and wonder way to much. At the point I am at now I see tremendous value in a older wiser man or woman then me, the core of my art TKD has not been up to the standerds I learned over the last thirty years and even some of the oldest GM's I know are not the same in that matter. One thing for sure we Americans love the fact of being told we are great and superior than everybody else even if we are not.:asian: Sorry a little off topic probaly but I hope my point was in there somewhere.




I completely see where you are coming from, and I agree with the fountain of knowledge when it comes to questions being asked.  However, if we assume that the colored belt is not in a static rank position, but rather he is earning rank on the same track that you are, then he would be gaining this knowledge while still imparting knowledge to you.  So let's say he would be a black belt before you get 1/2 way through your colored belt curriculum.

I am not arguing for this, or against your statement.  I am more interested in what it truly means to have a black belt these days in 3-4 years, and how important it is to merely have a BB to be able to teach. 

 I know that in some KMA orgs, you are expected to have your own school at 4th dan, and not before then.  In that scenario, then I would expect there to be a great deal of difference between that school owner and a colored belt.

I am certainly not attempting to belittle rank or the value of a black belt.  I'm just curious what everybody thinks.. .


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 16, 2011)

Cross posted from the original thread:



> Originally Posted by *Daniel Sullivan*
> 
> 
> _Put in that perspective, less than four years seems rather brief. I suspect that the four year comment is based on many schools being four years to black belt. In those that are not four years to black belt, four years puts you half way between second and third dan.
> ...




_Hmm, I'm not sure what you're using to qualify your statement of "In taekwondo the average seems to be two years..." but that is decidedly not the experience I have. 3 to 4 years to I dan is common from what I have seen. 

Like your statement regarding kendo, you're not considered an instructor until IV dan. You can end up teaching at a lesser rank but you can't actually be certified as an International Instructor until IV dan and that is required to rank students with the ITF. The bb's I have seen that run their own schools have either been 1) under a higher ranking instructor, or 2) at least having a relationship with the head of the national organization they belong to which is, if not strictly student-instructor, one where the senior is seen as a mentor to the junior. 

Using the above time to I dan as a guide that means most people will reach IV dan after around 10 years of continuous training, sometimes (usually?) more.

Pax,

Chris 

​_


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 16, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> That is interesting.  Why don't you ask your KJN to teach these missing bits (might be a lot, LOL)?
> 
> Depending on whom our kwan era link respectively is, we might be watered down a lot, a little, or not at all.  Many Koreans from that time also studied judo or what became hapkido.  I bet your GM had a decent amount of hapkido training at the very least if he knew finger locks.  Finger locks aren't usually taught in say aikido, until you've reached black belt rank.
> 
> The majority of Koreans I would venture to say studied Japanese karate and would have learned body hardening techniques from there but probably little to no bunkai.  We discussed the body conditioning aspect before here - most TKDists are familiar with the methods but do not really actively train them.  And there's the kwon bup oddity out there from Yoon Byung In's line.  Those forms are still passed down, but I don't know if the meaning and usages have been.



It could be because I am gun shy of how KJN has reacted to these lines of questioning in the past.  He is very guarded about his past and his knowledge.  I do not know who his instructor was, all I know is that he "joined" the Moo Duk Kwan in 1960's.  I know that he had extensive training prior to "joining" but I have no idea from whom or in what style.  At a black belt instructor class 10-15 years ago, my sahbumnim talked my father (the lowest ranking black belt at the time) to ask our KJN who his master was.. . With a very stern face, he said "KIM." and that was the end of the conversation.  

I know that he has "softened" with age, but I fear the tongue lashing that could ensue.. . I admit I'm gonna have to get over it and just ask, otherwise the knowledge may be lost in time.


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 16, 2011)

SahBumNimRush said:


> I completely see where you are coming from, and I agree with the fountain of knowledge when it comes to questions being asked. However, if we assume that the colored belt is not in a static rank position, but rather he is earning rank on the same track that you are, then he would be gaining this knowledge while still imparting knowledge to you. So let's say he would be a black belt before you get 1/2 way through your colored belt curriculum.
> 
> I am not arguing for this, or against your statement. I am more interested in what it truly means to have a black belt these days in 3-4 years, and how important it is to merely have a BB to be able to teach.
> 
> ...


 
See i come from a different era, it took me 14 years to get my BB. At my school I have only promoted 9 people to Bb over the last ten years, my average student learns from a young age that a BB is more than knowing kicks and movement but also understanding the ntire curriculum that I teach. maybe that is why so many leave in a couple of years to other school to get there BB and than stop training, they only see value in the belt and not the material that is being tought.

I am not perfect but everyday I sent myself up to be knowing I can never be. My students all understand that we do not care about belts and hey are a means to gauge where you are in your training and nothing else. I do relize that I am way off on 6-8 years to Bb and have been told if I want to get a money making machine than I need to change my approach and I see it as this if someone can come in here and learn everything in 2 - 4 years I would promote but seriously how many really put the proper number of time in grade. I see a guy who is a 1st dan become a 5th dan in three years, so once again people would rather take short cuts and achieve than actually achieve it by merit. 

I certainly understand what you are saying but for me I want age and rank along with wisdon and passion to train with someone. But like I have said before we can learn from everybody from all aspect of life and we should keep an open mind, even though my mind has been tainted over the years.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 16, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> _Hmm, I'm not sure what you're using to qualify your statement of "In taekwondo the average seems to be two years..." but that is decidedly not the experience I have. 3 to 4 years to I dan is common from what I have seen.
> 
> Like your statement regarding kendo, you're not considered an instructor until IV dan. You can end up teaching at a lesser rank but you can't actually be certified as an International Instructor until IV dan and that is required to rank students with the ITF. The bb's I have seen that run their own schools have either been 1) under a higher ranking instructor, or 2) at least having a relationship with the head of the national organization they belong to which is, if not strictly student-instructor, one where the senior is seen as a mentor to the junior.
> 
> ...



In my small splinter of an association, it is a minimum of 3 years to earn 1st dan, and a minimum of 12 years to get to 4th dan (cumulative from white belt to 4th dan).  I have been training for 25 years, and will be eligible to test for my 6th dan in 2014.  No one under 5th dan tests their own students, and even then our KJN would rather everyone come to the association wide test held every 3 months.  My father's circumstance of teaching prior to black belt and up through 4th dan was still contingent on his training under our Sahbumnim.  The school was always considered to be our Sahbumnim's, not my father's.  

So my experience in this matter tends to follow your experience with the governance of the ITF.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 16, 2011)

terryl965 said:


> See i come from a different era, it took me 14 years to get my BB. At my school I have only promoted 9 people to Bb over the last ten years, my average student learns from a young age that a BB is more than knowing kicks and movement but also understanding the ntire curriculum that I teach. maybe that is why so many leave in a couple of years to other school to get there BB and than stop training, they only see value in the belt and not the material that is being tought.
> 
> I am not perfect but everyday I sent myself up to be knowing I can never be. My students all understand that we do not care about belts and hey are a means to gauge where you are in your training and nothing else. I do relize that I am way off on 6-8 years to Bb and have been told if I want to get a money making machine than I need to change my approach and I see it as this if someone can come in here and learn everything in 2 - 4 years I would promote but seriously how many really put the proper number of time in grade. I see a guy who is a 1st dan become a 5th dan in three years, so once again people would rather take short cuts and achieve than actually achieve it by merit.
> 
> I certainly understand what you are saying but for me I want age and rank along with wisdon and passion to train with someone. But like I have said before we can learn from everybody from all aspect of life and we should keep an open mind, even though my mind has been tainted over the years.




The era you speak of, although different in time, is not so dissimilar to that of my own experience.  It took me 7 years to earn my 1st dan, and at 25 years of experience I am a 5th dan.  The difference between what you are saying and my experience, is that a 1st dan knows only a very small part of the entire system.  There is alot of the system that has not been taught to them at 1st dan, and much more knowledge is imparted to them as they go from 1st through 5th dan.  

I also agree, that age, rank, wisdom and passion is the IDEAL situation.  The problem that I see, is that is rarely the case.  Many times younger means more passion, older means more wisdom.  Both have their value, but, IMHO, it is hard to have peak passion at the same time you have peak wisdom.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 16, 2011)

SahBumNimRush said:


> If we think about it from a "coaching" perspective rather than a "teaching" perspective, some high school coaches at smaller schools may have only played the sport in high school, never having competed on the collegiate level, so they may only have 4-6 years of experience in the sport; less than half of what it would require to be a "teacher."
> 
> I am not suggesting that any of this is right or wrong, but merely looking for some conversation on the topic.. .


Four to six years would be acceptable.  I was not promoting the idea, by the way, that a certified instructor should have a full seventeen years worth of experience or somehow mirror the teaching requirments of a public school PE teacher.  

My point was that to have enough experience to be both proficient in the art yourself and to have the technical skills needed to teach a class effectively, four to ten years is not unreasonable. 

Especially given that a good number of people feel that four years is barely enough time to be proficient enough to warrant a first dan.

Daniel


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 16, 2011)

It seems to me that by-in-large, one of the biggest reasons it is hard justify any 1st dan having the experience and skill it takes to teach a class is the current divide between what many are calling "hobbyists," the traditional martial arts practitioner, and those who fall somewhere in between the two.  If someone is SERIOUS about the art, I would think that 3-4 years could be enough to begin teaching.  I don't think it is an ideal situation to own and run your own school with that little of experience, but I think one *could* competently begin teaching others at this point.  

It is one thing to memorize the tenents, curriculum, philosophy, techniques, etc. of a system, but it is another thing entirely to internalize, UNDERSTAND, and live it.  Learning from someone who has only memorized the required criteria will not end successfully, in my opinion.  A monkey can be trained to kick and punch, but understanding aspects such as martial philosophy is a deep level of understanding that can be a long road to enlightenment.

Incidentally, I know I've been playing the devil's advocate here a bit, and I know this thread has kinda been all over the place.  However, I agree with most all of you, and I really appreciate everyone chiming in on this discussion!


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 16, 2011)

SahBumNimRush said:


> It seems to me that by-in-large, one of the biggest reasons it is hard justify any 1st dan having the experience and skill it takes to teach a class is the current divide between what many are calling "hobbyists," the traditional martial arts practitioner, and those who fall somewhere in between the two. If someone is SERIOUS about the art, I would think that 3-4 years could be enough to begin teaching. I don't think it is an ideal situation to own and run your own school with that little of experience, but I think one *could* competently begin teaching others at this point.


How serious one is never seems to be the issue in time to BB discussions: four year minimum seems to be a pretty hard line for a good number of people.  



SahBumNimRush said:


> It is one thing to memorize the tenents, curriculum, philosophy, techniques, etc. of a system, but it is another thing entirely to internalize, UNDERSTAND, and live it. Learning from someone who has only memorized the required criteria will not end successfully, in my opinion. A monkey can be trained to kick and punch, but understanding aspects such as martial philosophy is a deep level of understanding that can be a long road to enlightenment.


I'm far less concerned about martial philosophy and enlightement in my instructors.  They're a nice bonus, but not what makes one a good teacher.

A good teacher knows the system well enough to perform the techniques correctly (barring physical injury or some handicap) and to be able to tell someone else how to.  This includes people with radically different learning styles.  A good teacher can show you, explain it to you, physically direct you, or a combination of the three.  You'd be amazed at how many subtle, little things are involved in sword work, and how much of a huge difference it makes if those things are either not taught or taught incorrcectly.  And that is just sword work.

A striking art like taekwondo will have a host of similar things as well.  Slap on some add-on grappling and you have even more nuances to consider. 

I train in and instruct hapkido and kumdo, and trained in taekwondo for a very long time, and will say with confidence and authority that if you add a weapon art to your program and only have seminars or less than two years worth of experience, you are categorically *unfit* to teach that art.  Any students you teach who start teachin g that art themselves will be even more unfit unless they seek real instruction.

If you decide to add hapkido to your taekwondo program, unless you're just slapping on some basic grapples and escapes, you are likewise unfit to do so if your experience is entirely seminar based or is less than two years.

That said, if you're going to slap on krav maga, the instructor had better have more than just an organizational six week certification program and had better have more than two years in.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 16, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> Cross posted from the original thread:
> 
> [/i]
> 
> ...


You are missing the point that I am making and getting caught up in 'my org takes this long and does that.' Kendo was only mentioned because it is a weapon art, and weapons was one of the add ons being discussed in the other thread. 

Time in grade to BB in TKD, from what I can see based upon personal observation of schools that I have visited and what I see posted on various sites, seems to be two years. No value judgement one way or the other. I have already stated my opinion about two years TKD BBs on other threads and fairly recently (raising some eyebrows in the process).

For the sake of brevity, I will sumarize my response from the other thread: 

If most organizations don't even consider you to be a full instructor until fourth dan (which is a minimum of eight years experience most of the time), don't even pretend to be qualified to teach an art after a six week seminar or less than two years of training in said art. You don't have to be a fourth dan, but I would expect more two years of dedicated study in that art.

Daniel


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 16, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> How serious one is never seems to be the issue in time to BB discussions: four year minimum seems to be a pretty hard line for a good number of people.



That is my point, that now a days, many schools/orgs have that hard line, so it becomes difficult to recognize the merit of the instructor purely by rank.  If it was a standard of Black Belt = SERIOUS, then it would make things alot easier.  Instead, it is more and more Black Belt = 4 years (give or take) time in school.  




Daniel Sullivan said:


> I'm far less concerned about martial philosophy and enlightement in my instructors.  They're a nice bonus, but not what makes one a good teacher.
> 
> A good teacher knows the system well enough to perform the techniques correctly (barring physical injury or some handicap) and to be able to tell someone else how to.  This includes people with radically different learning styles.  A good teacher can show you, explain it to you, physically direct you, or a combination of the three.  You'd be amazed at how many subtle, little things are involved in sword work, and how much of a huge difference it makes if those things are either not taught or taught incorrcectly.  And that is just sword work.



Going by my statement immediately above, this has little to do with rank and everything to do with observation skills, psychology (i.e. identifying/knowing/understanding the particular student you are teaching), and knowledge of the techniques.  A black belt will only tell you one thing for certain; they've put in 4 years, so they should probably have a good handle on the technical part of it.  Granted you should be learning these skills as you go, and partly it is a learn on your feet type of thing (you learn from experience).  Certainly these are important skills to have as a teacher, and it is something that a yudanja curriculum should put focus on.  I know that my association certainly does.  

I guess what I'm getting at, is that I see far too many black belts with 4+ years, sometimes 10+ years that never "get it."  Some of them attain higher dan ranks too.  I suppose there is nothing that can be done about this, and it is not something that is unique to TKD, martial arts in general or society.  Look at the education system in the U.S., far too many teachers don't "get it," otherwise they'd probably be doing something else.  Mainly because, in the U.S. we do not honor the teaching profession.






Daniel Sullivan said:


> I train in and instruct hapkido and kumdo, and trained in taekwondo for a very long time, and will say with confidence and authority that if you add a weapon art to your program and only have seminars or less than two years worth of experience, you are categorically *unfit* to teach that art.  Any students you teach who start teachin g that art themselves will be even more unfit unless they seek real instruction.
> 
> If you decide to add hapkido to your taekwondo program, unless you're just slapping on some basic grapples and escapes, you are likewise unfit to do so if your experience is entirely seminar based or is less than two years.
> 
> ...



Absolutely no argument from me there.  BTW, I see you have experience in TSD.  Who did you train under, if you don't mind me asking.


----------



## puunui (Mar 16, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I think a distinction between material levels is important as well.  Could a colored belt teach a beginner the rudiments of stances and striking to a satisfactory level?  I think so.  Would I want the same colored belt running a multiple attacker drill?  Probably not.




I agree, I think experience is everything, especially for the upper levels.


----------



## puunui (Mar 16, 2011)

Dragons TKD said:


> Teaching really depends on the person.  We have 2nd, 3rd and 4th dans that are not good at teaching.  They certainly have skill, but are neither able nor willing to teach.  In a pinch, sure they would be able to cover a class here and there, but acting as 'the instructor' would not go over well.




I would also distinguish with those who like to teach and those that do not. Most of my best teachers hated teaching. Or they rather be researching and training than teaching. I think those who enjoy teaching at the lower levels and take that route early develop problems later because they spent too much time early on teaching, and not learning or training.


----------



## puunui (Mar 16, 2011)

SahBumNimRush said:


> Again this poses the question that if this is justified, how much did this add to the "watering down" of the arts in the U.S.?




Not keeping up with the changes is a form of "watering down". If you are a basketball coach and you are still teaching under handed free throw shots, is that considered watering down, or is that just not keeping up with the times?


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 16, 2011)

puunui said:


> I would also distinguish with those who like to teach and those that do not. Most of my best teachers hated teaching. Or they rather be researching and training than teaching. I think those who enjoy teaching at the lower levels and take that route early develop problems later because they spent too much time early on teaching, and not learning or training.




Very insightful observation, and a very good point!


----------



## goingd (Mar 16, 2011)

Experience is not always an adequate reflection of actual skill level. I've met people who have trained consistently for well over a decade but still perform with a set of fundamentally bad habits in their techniques. Of course it is preferable for someone with the proper skill level (as reflected in his/her rank, hopefully) to lead classes. And hopefully these instructors can more effectively teach. However, for lower belts and beginning students, I see little harm in having an adept higher belt, but not a black belt, lead most or all of a class. Even for classes with higher belts, I would not totally revoke the idea of having a higher belt of equal rank to the others in the class lead part of the class, such as stretching, basic warm ups, and even a few technique routines, provided that he/she can do so effectively.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 16, 2011)

puunui said:


> Not keeping up with the changes is a form of "watering down". If you are a basketball coach and you are still teaching under handed free throw shots, is that considered watering down, or is that just not keeping up with the times?



While I see your reasoning for the analogy, I have to disagree with it in this context.  I would not consider Shorin-ryu watered down compared to what Gichin Funakoshi "changed" into Shotokan.  It is different but similar.  You and I are different, but under the name Taekwondo, just as Shorin-ryu and Shotokan are different but under the name Karate.


----------



## Gorilla (Mar 16, 2011)

My daughter who is 16 almost 17 is currently instructing(forms)at a school under the supervision of the Master and my son has done allot of assisting with some instruction.  They both teach and coach sparing. They are getting allot of positive feedback from parents(my daughter is strong on discipline and runs a tight class). Allot of parents like how they instruct and the kids respond well.

They are getting a small following of kids who want to train with them in sparring.  If you are young it can be a hurdle but if you know your stuff people will over look your age!


----------



## auxiliary (Mar 16, 2011)

I had this problem for a while and still do.  

I started training in martial arts when I was 4 and started teaching when I was 18.  The first couple years of teaching was very hard.  Hindsight I was no where near as good as an instructor as I am now, at the ripe old age of 26.  However, it took that time and my instructor allowing me to teach and giving me feedback to help me make me the instructor I am today.  

I have seen many different instructors from many different organizations that didn't match up with their rank with their teaching skill.  I have seen world champions that can't teach worth a crap.  I think those experiences and milestones can help make you a better instructor but that alone doesn't make a great instructor.  

Some adults are disappointed when they come in and see me as the instructor.  Usually after a class or two they change their minds.  Some adults rather learn from a grandmaster or master or some super korean guy and that's fine.  There are schools for them.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 16, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> You are missing the point that I am making and getting caught up in 'my org takes this long and does that.' Kendo was only mentioned because it is a weapon art, and weapons was one of the add ons being discussed in the other thread.


 
Well, no, I wasn't doing that. I was pointing out that in _my experience_ gaining a black belt in Taekwon-Do takes more time on average than what you stated and that reaching an official instructor level takes a fairly substantial time. It had nothing to do with "My org. does this, that org, does that." 



> Time in grade to BB in TKD, from what I can see based upon personal observation of schools that I have visited and what I see posted on various sites, seems to be two years. No value judgement one way or the other. I have already stated my opinion about two years TKD BBs on other threads and fairly recently (raising some eyebrows in the process).


 
And, as I said, from what I can see based on my personal experience two years to I dan is not a common occurance. That was the main point of my post.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## andyjeffries (Mar 17, 2011)

puunui said:


> I would also distinguish with those who like to teach and those that do not. Most of my best teachers hated teaching. Or they rather be researching and training than teaching. I think those who enjoy teaching at the lower levels and take that route early develop problems later because they spent too much time early on teaching, and not learning or training.



Out of interest, what problems would you consider common from teaching too much early on?


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Mar 17, 2011)

auxiliary said:


> I had this problem for a while and still do.
> 
> I started training in martial arts when I was 4 and started teaching when I was 18.  The first couple years of teaching was very hard.  Hindsight I was no where near as good as an instructor as I am now, at the ripe old age of 26.  However, it took that time and my instructor allowing me to teach and giving me feedback to help me make me the instructor I am today.
> 
> ...


For outsiders looking in or new students, age does play a part whether rightly or wrongly. I have seen new students seem a little 'sus' when their instructor is a 3rd dan 24 year old, but for some reason people dont mind a 40 year old 1st dan. Maybe people off the street walk in and expect to see a "mr myagi" style instructor.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 17, 2011)

SahBumNimRush said:


> Absolutely no argument from me there. BTW, I see you have experience in TSD. Who did you train under, if you don't mind me asking.


It was Tomkins Karate (TKA) back in the late seventies for about a year.  I remember that we did pyung ahn forms and that one of the other students could never pronounce it right and called them 'peanut' instead.  Couldn't tell you the name of my instructor.  I was like nine  or ten.  That, and I remember the experience positively.  I signed my older son up for classes with TKA when he was eight and he enjoyed it.  Took about a year or so worth of classes and then moved onto soccor.

Daniel


----------



## StudentCarl (Mar 17, 2011)

andyjeffries said:


> Out of interest, what problems would you consider common from teaching too much early on?


 
"too much" is when you neglect your own training because you're putting your time and energy into teaching. It takes more work and more focus to find the important lessons as you go beyond the fundamentals in any field. The more valuable the lesson, generally the more has gone into finding it.

It's possible to stand in front of a class of your juniors and feel confident because you know the basic curriculum well, and not think about what you don't know. It can be comfortable to be the senior--to feel too comfortable with where you are now. It's important to find time to become the junior again, to have humility and hunger to become as skilled as one's seniors.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 17, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> It was Tomkins Karate (TKA) back in the late seventies for about a year.  I remember that we did pyung ahn forms and that one of the other students could never pronounce it right and called them 'peanut' instead.  Couldn't tell you the name of my instructor.  I was like nine  or ten.  That, and I remember the experience positively.  I signed my older son up for classes with TKA when he was eight and he enjoyed it.  Took about a year or so worth of classes and then moved onto soccor.
> 
> Daniel




I was curious, because I saw that you are from MD, and arguably one of the best Tang Soo Do grandmasters in the U.S. was from around your neck of the woods.  Grandmaster Ki Whang KIM taught in D.C. and I know he had a few branch schools in Maryland.  Now I know some of us could/would argue he was not Tang Soo Do, but regardless he flew under that flag for a while.. .  Just curious.


----------



## auxiliary (Mar 17, 2011)

ralphmcpherson said:


> For outsiders looking in or new students, age does play a part whether rightly or wrongly. I have seen new students seem a little 'sus' when their instructor is a 3rd dan 24 year old, but for some reason people dont mind a 40 year old 1st dan. Maybe people off the street walk in and expect to see a "mr myagi" style instructor.



I always joke with this with my instructor.  He's korean and we always say that when he teaches kids just listen better because of that.  Imagine how much better of a teacher I would be if I was korean!


Women instructors get this too.  Even though they're sometimes the best a  lot of people feel awkward at first having a woman teaching them a martial arts.  Personally I don't but I have worked with women instructors who get frustrated with that.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 17, 2011)

SahBumNimRush said:


> I was curious, because I saw that you are from MD, and arguably one of the best Tang Soo Do grandmasters in the U.S. was from around your neck of the woods. Grandmaster Ki Whang KIM taught in D.C. and I know he had a few branch schools in Maryland. Now I know some of us could/would argue he was not Tang Soo Do, but regardless he flew under that flag for a while.. . Just curious.


I am familiar with his studio.  Might have to drop in some time, as it is fairly convenient; I pass it on the way to work everyday.  http://www.kim-studio.com/

One of my instructors at KMA trained there many years ago.  Kix Karate's founder came out of Kims as well.

Daniel


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 17, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I am familiar with his studio.  Might have to drop in some time, as it is fairly convenient; I pass it on the way to work everyday.  http://www.kim-studio.com/
> 
> One of my instructors at KMA trained there many years ago.  Kix Karate's founder came out of Kims as well.
> 
> Daniel



I'm not sure who uses KIM's namesake after his passing.  Mitchell Bobrow, Albert Cheeks, Mike Warren, John Critzos II.. . all legendary fighters produced under Grandmaster Ki Whang KIM.  I know John Critzos II is the Karate Do instructor at the Naval Academy in Annapolis.  We still see him and his cadets at competitions and functions.  I know we haven't been supporting the Eagle Classic, and I assume it is because of who is using KIM's and his tournaments name.  But, I really have no idea why our KJN has not sanctioned our participation in it.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 17, 2011)

SahBumNimRush said:


> I'm not sure who uses KIM's namesake after his passing. Mitchell Bobrow, Albert Cheeks, Mike Warren, John Critzos II.. . all legendary fighters produced under Grandmaster Ki Whang KIM. I know John Critzos II is the Karate Do instructor at the Naval Academy in Annapolis. We still see him and his cadets at competitions and functions. I know we haven't been supporting the Eagle Classic, and I assume it is because of who is using KIM's and his tournaments name. But, I really have no idea why our KJN has not sanctioned our participation in it.


I would assume that it is Grandmaster Roberts, based on what is in the website's about us tab: http://www.kim-studio.com/AboutUs/roberts.html

People locally still seem to regard them fairly well.  I had trained at another 'Kim's' in Rockville in the mid to late eighties, Jae Kim's Karate, and in a conversation with someone a last year, once he heard the name, 'Kims', he immediately began spouting superlatives.  Only after the conversation progressed did we realize that we were not talking about the same school.  I had trained at Kim's Karate is TKD http://www.kimskaratemd.com/home.html), which had had a location in Rockville as well, though it was up across from Congressional Plaza. 

Daniel


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 17, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I would assume that it is Grandmaster Roberts, based on what is in the website's about us tab: http://www.kim-studio.com/AboutUs/roberts.html
> 
> Daniel




Yeah, after looking at the website, it has to be Roberts.  I remember seeing him around at different events when I was younger, but I'm not sure how he came to be the one with the rights to KIM's name.  Either way, I don't know enough about Master Roberts to have an opinion one way or the other.  I'm also not sure who promoted him to 8th dan after KIM's death.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 17, 2011)

Ah.  You replied while I was adding content. 

Daniel


----------



## puunui (Mar 17, 2011)

goingd said:


> Experience is not always an adequate reflection of actual skill level. I've met people who have trained consistently for well over a decade but still perform with a set of fundamentally bad habits in their techniques.




Ten years is experienced, compared to who? After ten years of training, I felt like I didn't know anything, compared to my seniors. But then again, my first ten years of training weren't all that serious.


----------



## puunui (Mar 17, 2011)

SahBumNimRush said:


> While I see your reasoning for the analogy, I have to disagree with it in this context.  I would not consider Shorin-ryu watered down compared to what Gichin Funakoshi "changed" into Shotokan.  It is different but similar.  You and I are different, but under the name Taekwondo, just as Shorin-ryu and Shotokan are different but under the name Karate.




Before Taekwondo, I studied Shotokan Karate. Our Shotokan roundhouse kick consisted of lifting our kicking leg up like a dog about to pee, keeping our hips square, with our knee pointed forward, and then snapping the lower leg out, making contact with the ball of the foot. It was described as a horizontal front kick. That kick never got used when we sparred. Then when I studied Taekwondo and Hapkido, I learned a different type of roundhouse. If I had continued to do roundhouse kick like we did it in Shotokan, would that be watered down?


----------



## puunui (Mar 17, 2011)

andyjeffries said:


> Out of interest, what problems would you consider common from teaching too much early on?




People may get the mistaken impression that teaching is the same thing as training. In fact, for a lot of "instructors", the only time they go on the mat is to teach. The martial arts are fundamentally different from other types of sports in that in the martial arts, we expect our instructors or coaches to maintain a high level of personal skill. Whether this is right or wrong is a matter of opinion. But right or wrong, that is the way it is. In comparison, no one expected Angelo Dundee to keep up with Muhammed Ali.


----------



## andyjeffries (Mar 18, 2011)

puunui said:


> People may get the mistaken impression that teaching is the same thing as training. In fact, for a lot of "instructors", the only time they go on the mat is to teach. The martial arts are fundamentally different from other types of sports in that in the martial arts, we expect our instructors or coaches to maintain a high level of personal skill. Whether this is right or wrong is a matter of opinion. But right or wrong, that is the way it is. In comparison, no one expected Angelo Dundee to keep up with Muhammed Ali.



But this sounds like a problem with teachers doing more teaching than training and losing their sharpness/skill rather than a problem of people teaching too much and too early?

I agree though, it is a weird expectation.  

I know I've learnt from people in the past that couldn't do the things I could do (can't do them now I'm much older) but could still help me make them better...


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Mar 18, 2011)

andyjeffries said:


> But this sounds like a problem with teachers doing more teaching than training and losing their sharpness/skill rather than a problem of people teaching too much and too early?
> 
> I agree though, it is a weird expectation.
> 
> I know I've learnt from people in the past that couldn't do the things I could do (can't do them now I'm much older) but could still help me make them better...


This is why I know a lot of higher dans that refuse to teach. They have limited time (they run businesses, have family commitments etc) and only have so much time to put into tkd. They dont necessarilly have a problem with teaching, but if it will detract from the time they have left to actually train and keep their skills sharp then they are not willing to teach at the expense of their own physical development. The only ones Ive met who can juggle the two effectively, have quit their day job and have become instructors full time which leaves them the time to continue their own training.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 18, 2011)

puunui said:


> Before Taekwondo, I studied Shotokan Karate. Our Shotokan roundhouse kick consisted of lifting our kicking leg up like a dog about to pee, keeping our hips square, with our knee pointed forward, and then snapping the lower leg out, making contact with the ball of the foot. It was described as a horizontal front kick. That kick never got used when we sparred. Then when I studied Taekwondo and Hapkido, I learned a different type of roundhouse. If I had continued to do roundhouse kick like we did it in Shotokan, would that be watered down?



"Watered down" in my mind means that something has lost an aspect of itself.  Because they are merely different identities, I don't see how it is watered down.  Especially since an art like Shotokan has evolved in a different direction than Taekwondo has.  Certainly few would argue that Shotokan had some level of influence on the initial development of what has became known as Taekwondo, but the two have both evolved in two distinctly different ways.

Because I practice a curriculum that predates the Kukki curriculum, I cannot see how something I do could be watered down from a kukki curriculum since the two diverged into two dinstinctly different styles.  I don't see that one is superior than another, one is more watered down than another, but they are just two different things at this point.

Watered down to me would be a *loss *of transmission from generation to generation.  For instance, a particular SD technique that was not taught to a student, who becomes an instructor/school owner and therefore never passes it on to his students.  This would be watering down the art, because it has effectively lost a technique.  

Another example would be a watering down in tradition, losing the two handed handshake, the bowing, the use of sir/mam.  These things water down the structure of the art, because they are effectively *losing *a part of the tradition.  

This is merely my interpretation of what watering down means.  I'd be curious as to what other people feel water's down an art.


----------



## Dragons TKD (Mar 18, 2011)

ralphmcpherson said:


> This is why I know a lot of higher dans that refuse to teach. They have limited time (they run businesses, have family commitments etc) and only have so much time to put into tkd. They dont necessarilly have a problem with teaching, but if it will detract from the time they have left to actually train and keep their skills sharp then they are not willing to teach at the expense of their own physical development. The only ones Ive met who can juggle the two effectively, have quit their day job and have become instructors full time which leaves them the time to continue their own training.



This is exactly why I go to a completely different school to train Muay Thai.  No one knows who I am or what I do in my free time and the certainly don't know I'm a 5th dan in TKD.

When I'm at the TKD school, I have no time to train.  Everyone is either asking me questions before and after class or I'm busy teaching the class.  I'm lucky if I get to do some bag work during class with everyone else.  Usually I only get to hit it a few times while demonstrating the technique.


----------



## puunui (Mar 18, 2011)

Dragons TKD said:


> When I'm at the TKD school, I have no time to train.  Everyone is either asking me questions before and after class or I'm busy teaching the class.  I'm lucky if I get to do some bag work during class with everyone else.  Usually I only get to hit it a few times while demonstrating the technique.




Are you the head instructor at your Taekwondo school?


----------



## Dragons TKD (Mar 28, 2011)

puunui said:


> Are you the head instructor at your Taekwondo school?



That's kind of a tricky question to answer and I know where you're going with it.  No, I am not the 'Head Instructor', but, if there is class going on, I am teaching.

We don't have our own store front currently.  We teach out of an exercise room a couple times a week.  The actual time we get to use the room is very limited.  This is why training is nearly impossible for me.  When students only see me once or twice a week, they have the other 5 or 6 days to think of questions for me it seems.


----------



## Gorilla (Mar 28, 2011)

Teaching can be used as part of training.  My kids teach about 1-3 hours per week.  The sport stuff is usually training and teaching at the same time. About 1 hour of that is purely instructional teaching.  I think that they learn quite a bit from teaching.  It gives them perspective.  We monitor how much they do they have to stayed committed to their own training and learning also!!!!


----------



## puunui (Mar 28, 2011)

Dragons TKD said:


> That's kind of a tricky question to answer and I know where you're going with it.  No, I am not the 'Head Instructor', but, if there is class going on, I am teaching.




Are you thinking about opening your own school? Personally, I don't see how you could advance to 5th Dan without having your own school and your own students.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Mar 28, 2011)

puunui said:


> Are you thinking about opening your own school? Personally, I don't see how you could advance to 5th Dan without having your own school and your own students.


There are heaps of 5th dans (in many martial arts), who dont own their own school or have their own students. Fifth dan grading requirements at both karate schools Ive attended and most tkd schools I know of make no mention of having their own school.


----------



## Dragons TKD (Mar 29, 2011)

puunui said:


> Are you thinking about opening your own school? Personally, I don't see how you could advance to 5th Dan without having your own school and your own students.



The head instructor is a 6th dan and I'm one of two 5th dans.  We also have three 4th dans that also are part of the club.  The club itself has been around for over 20 years.  I came from one of the larger chain of schools in the area and I've only been with this club for 5 years.

Also, we are thinking about getting our own storefront in the near future.  Our classes have exploded and we can't handle the students with our current setup.  We have to break our classes up into 2 groups and put them in different rooms right now.  With our own school, we would be able to have a kids class, a color belt class and a high belt class.  We have to have everyone in the same class currently, which hasn't been an issue until about 6 months ago when our enrollment doubled.


----------



## ATC (Mar 29, 2011)

ralphmcpherson said:


> There are heaps of 5th dans (in many martial arts), who dont own their own school or have their own students. Fifth dan grading requirements at both karate schools Ive attended and most tkd schools I know of make no mention of having their own school.


One of our requierments to get you 4th Dan is to be the head instructor of a school for at least 2 years. To get your 3rd DAN in our system you must assist and lead classes throughout your 2nd DAN.


----------



## puunui (Mar 29, 2011)

ATC said:


> One of our requierments to get you 4th Dan is to be the head instructor of a school for at least 2 years. To get your 3rd DAN in our system you must assist and lead classes throughout your 2nd DAN.




I can understand the reasoning behind such a policy. Why have instructor level rank if you are not willing or not able to accept instructor level responsibilities?


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Mar 29, 2011)

ATC said:


> One of our requierments to get you 4th Dan is to be the head instructor of a school for at least 2 years. To get your 3rd DAN in our system you must assist and lead classes throughout your 2nd DAN.


Yes, I am aware of a few schools who do this. It seems different schools have different policies on this. I can understand both schools of thought but personally I dont think someone should have to teach to advance through the ranks. In saying that, everyone does at least a bit of instructing. I train with many 5th and 6th dans who dont want to instruct or have their own schools, yet lower belts are regularly asking for advice on all aspects of tkd and they are more than happy to take the time to give advice and instruction, but technically speaking they are not instructors.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 29, 2011)

What if someone is in a location that the market just won't support yet another martial arts school?  Are they limited in advancement to 2nd or maybe 3rd dan?  What if they simply can't afford to run a school or club, or are just not that good a teacher?  Is there no room for technical advancement and recognition?


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 29, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> What if someone is in a location that the market just won't support yet another martial arts school?  Are they limited in advancement to 2nd or maybe 3rd dan?  What if they simply can't afford to run a school or club, or are just not that good a teacher?  Is there no room for technical advancement and recognition?



I understand the reasoning.  Nothing keeps individuals from improving their physical skills.  On the other hand, if you study a system that defines high dans as teachers and teachers of other teachers, it's not unreasonable to tie further advancement into instruction somehow, even if that means running a school.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Mar 29, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> What if someone is in a location that the market just won't support yet another martial arts school?  Are they limited in advancement to 2nd or maybe 3rd dan?  What if they simply can't afford to run a school or club, or are just not that good a teacher?  Is there no room for technical advancement and recognition?


Good point. I knew of one guy who couldnt run his own club because he did not have his own transport to get to and from his own club (he car pooled with others to get to his regular club), I know of another who did not have the finances to start his own club, I know of another 3rd dan who would love to teach but was born deaf and so understandably he could not run his own club, I know of others who have very sporadic hours because of their day job and cannot commit to monday and wednesday from 6.30 - 7.30 every week without fail, I know of another who is a school teacher and uses tkd as his 'escape' and the last thing he wants to do is 'teach' and the list goes on and on. I think its unfair to deny these people advancement if they are still training regularly and improving all the time.


----------



## puunui (Mar 30, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> What if someone is in a location that the market just won't support yet another martial arts school? Are they limited in advancement to 2nd or maybe 3rd dan?



There is always room for one more school. Where there is a will, there is a way. If the student doesn't understand that yet, then in my opinion, they are not ready to be promoted to instructor rank.




jks9199 said:


> What if they simply can't afford to run a school or club,



Where there is a will, there  is a way. If the student doesn't understand that yet, then in my  opinion, they are not ready to be promoted to instructor rank.




jks9199 said:


> or are just not that good a teacher?



Where there is a will, there  is a way. If the student doesn't understand that yet, then in my  opinion, they are not ready to be promoted to instructor rank.




jks9199 said:


> Is there no room for technical advancement and recognition?



Where there is a will, there  is a way. If the student doesn't understand that yet, then in my  opinion, they are not ready to be promoted to instructor rank.

Basically, the questions that you present are excuses, something that in my opinion an instructor level practitioner recognizes are invalid reasons for going forward. Nothing would be accomplished if all possible objections must first be overcome. 

The difference between an instructor level practitioner (4th Dan and above) and a non-instructor practitioner (3rd Dan and below) is that the non-instructor practitioner learns primarily under an instructor, while the instructor level practitioner learn primarily by himself, in his own dojang, with his own students. When you have your own school, you are the captain of your own ship. With that freedom comes certain responsibilities. If the student is unable or unwilling to accept those responsibilities, then in my opinion they are not entitled to the corresponding freedom and rank that goes along with that responsibility. 

And that responsibility grows with each rank one receives. If you are doing exactly the same thing as a 6th Dan as you were as a 4th Dan for example, then something went wrong. You should be thinking different thoughts and focusing on different things at each different dan level. 

When you get promoted in the military, your job responsibility changes correspondingly. As a buck private, you have little responsibility and little freedom. As a general, you have great responsibility and great freedom, compared to the buck private. If someone does not wish to accept greater responsibility in the military, then they get passed over for promotion. It is unreasonable for the person who wishes to remain a platoon sergeant his whole life to expect a general's rank and privilege.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Mar 30, 2011)

All I can say is thank god my school doesnt operate that way. I would hate to train somewhere where it is expected of me to teach someday. I have seen many lazy, unmotivated instructors in my time and I can only assume the reason they are instructing is because they have to in order to gain promotion. For me personally, I want to teach so it wouldnt affect me as much, but to be a good teacher someone has got to be charismatic, extroverted (to a point) and motivated to do so. In my opinion saying 'everyone must teach' is just asking for sub standard instructors. Our GM only wants people to instruct if its what they really want to do and if they have the personality type to suit the proffession. Each to their own though I guess.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 31, 2011)

ralphmcpherson said:


> All I can say is thank god my school doesnt operate that way. I would hate to train somewhere where it is expected of me to teach someday. *I have seen many lazy, unmotivated instructors in my time and I can only assume the reason they are instructing is because they have to in order to gain promotion.*


The counter question is this:  Why gain promotion if all you want to do is train?  If all one wants is a higher dan grade but does not want greater responsibility, then they have an ego issue in my opinion.  If they are lazy and unmotivated as instructors, chances are that they do not enjoy or are perhaps miserable in the instructor's role.  If their sole motivation is promotion, then they probably are not mature enough for the grades that they hold.



ralphmcpherson said:


> For me personally, I want to teach so it wouldnt affect me as much, but to be a good teacher someone has got to be charismatic, extroverted (to a point) and motivated to do so. *In my opinion saying 'everyone must teach' is just asking for sub standard instructors.* Our GM only wants people to instruct if its what they really want to do and if they have the personality type to suit the proffession. Each to their own though I guess.


Yes, but that is not what Glenn said.  He said that fourth dan and up is an *instructor level rank*.  Nobody requires you to test for fourth dan. If you just want to keep on training, then nothing is stopping you from doing so as a third dan.

In and of itself, rank is unimportant.  But it is not meaningless.  The higher you go in dan grades, the more the emphasis is on giving back to and promoting the art.  The primary way of giving back to and of promoting a martial art is to either open one's own school and teach or teach in a larger facility (thus facilitating the attendence of more students).  So if you don't want to do that, then you should not seek a dan grade higher than third.  

There is a reason that fourth dans can sign off on dan certificates.  The reason is that they are assumed to be teaching their own students and either running their own or be on their way to running their own dojang.  If that was not an explicit responsibility, the ability to promote students to dan grades would not be given.

Daniel


----------



## andyjeffries (Mar 31, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> The counter question is this:  Why gain promotion if all you want to do is train?  If all one wants is a higher dan grade but does not want greater responsibility, then they have an ego issue in my opinion.  If they are lazy and unmotivated as instructors, chances are that they do not enjoy or are perhaps miserable in the instructor's role.  If their sole motivation is promotion, then they probably are not mature enough for the grades that they hold.



There are a great number of situations you are not covering.  The choices aren't student or instructor.  For example, my Grandmaster enjoys travelling round and helping different groups of people (sometimes with teaching them, sometimes promoting them).  He also tries to help out on a national level with organisational/coaching.

He isn't interested though in running his own club.  IMHO he has a valid reason for wanting high dan rank, and ego is nothing to do with it.

Not everyone's path is the same.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Yes, but that is not what Glenn said.  He said that fourth dan and up is an *instructor level rank*.  Nobody requires you to test for fourth dan. If you just want to keep on training, then nothing is stopping you from doing so as a third dan.



You say there's nothing to stop you staying a third dan, but there's also nothing coded in the Kukkiwon regulations about it being necessary to teach to obtain higher dan rank.  Therefore, there's nothing to stop you from training up until 9th Dan without ever having had a personal student.

The Kukkiwon apparently realises there is success in multiple paths or the rules (like some other groups, e.g. the ATA as we have recently heard) would be different.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> In and of itself, rank is unimportant.  But it is not meaningless.  The higher you go in dan grades, the more the emphasis is on giving back to and promoting the art.  The primary way of giving back to and of promoting a martial art is to either open one's own school and teach or teach in a larger facility (thus facilitating the attendence of more students).



It sounds like you're advocating assistant instructors (the "or" after opening one's own school above) having higher dan rank than third?  In which case surely this covers most people as most black belts assist in the teaching some of the time.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> There is a reason that fourth dans can sign off on dan certificates.



I would argue the reason is that with the time you have spent (considering time requirements for each rank) training Taekwondo, that fourth dan is a reasonable point where you could be reasonably thought to be a decent judge of what each dan should be able to do/look like.  I don't think it relates to whether you have your own club but a finger in the air "you've been doing it long enough, you can realistically judge what those below you do in terms of grade".



Daniel Sullivan said:


> The reason is that they are assumed to be teaching their own students and either running their own or be on their way to running their own dojang.  If that was not an explicit responsibility, the ability to promote students to dan grades would not be given



I would argue this is an implicit responsibility rather than explicit.  The reason is that if it were an explicit responsibility to be teaching your own students that would be easily provable - how many Kukkiwon certificates have you applied for in the past x years since your last test.

Of course, many MNA wouldn't like that (as they don't like gradings outside the official association ones), but that would be an easy way for the Kukkiwon (or whoever) to judge whether you are running your own school.

My personal situation is that I have a rank above 3rd Dan but don't* have my own school.  I'm an assistant instructor at my school and have been told in the past that I will be running the school when our instructor retires.  Arguably therefore, I don't need higher than 3rd Dan.  When the time comes though, I would then promote to 4th Dan so I could promote the students but I would be a lower rank than the club's competitors in the local area.  Why does that seem sensible that I should remain 3rd Dan until that time?

* I have actually taken the decision to start my own club teaching children on a weekend now because I feel I'm at the stage of my life/Taekwondo career where I'd like to be passing on what I know to my own set of students.  However, the above feelings remain true and I don't feel I should be restricted in rank until I have my own club.


----------



## andyjeffries (Mar 31, 2011)

Man, that was a long reply - I should have broken that up in to multiple replies so it's easier to reply to each point.  Sorry y'all...


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 31, 2011)

andyjeffries said:


> There are a great number of situations you are not covering. The choices aren't student or instructor. For example, my Grandmaster enjoys travelling round and helping different groups of people (sometimes with teaching them, sometimes promoting them). He also tries to help out on a national level with organisational/coaching.
> 
> He isn't interested though in running his own club. IMHO he has a valid reason for wanting high dan rank, and ego is nothing to do with it.
> 
> ...


Of course there are reasons that I am not covering.  My statements were not intended to be carved in stone, 'all must do thusly.' Overall, I will stand by them.

You offered two exceptions. Yourself, and your GM.

You are working toward school ownership and are teaching on some level (I'm not sure what you mean by assistant instructor: do you mean that you assist another instructor who runs the class or that you are running your own classes but are not the head instructor?).

Your grandmaster almost certainly had a school at one time, and most certainly taught his own classes at one time. And while your grandmaster may not run a club, he certainly either owns one or promoted someone who does; he wouldn't be *your* grandmaster otherwise. 

Your grandmaster does something that certainly promotes and give back to the art, but it is not the *primary* way that the art is promoted. The majority of people are brought into taekwondo via the opening of studios and have little to no experience in taekwondo outside of the studio. 

Yes, there certainly are exceptions, but as a general rule, there should not be gobs of TKD fourth and fifth dans who have no interest in teaching and/or running a dojang, particularly in one school.  

Daniel


----------



## andyjeffries (Mar 31, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Of course there are reasons that I am not covering.  My statements were not intended to be carved in stone, 'all must do thusly.' Overall, I will stand by them.
> 
> You offered two exceptions. Yourself, and your GM.


 


Daniel Sullivan said:


> You are working toward school ownership



I get you, so it's *intention* that's the key part for you.  You are OK with someone gaining higher rank if they intend to teach their own club at some point.  If they expressly have no such intention then they should be no higher than third.  Do I have you correct?

If so, I'm more on board with that...  I would amend it to just "intend to teach" not necessarily have their own club though.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> and are teaching on some level (I'm not sure what you mean by assistant instructor: do you mean that you assist another instructor who runs the class or that you are running your own classes but are not the head instructor?).



I sometimes run classes but am not the head instructor, sometimes I just teach groups of students within the class under the head instructor.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Your grandmaster almost certainly had a school at one time, and most certainly taught his own classes at one time.



Indeed, he founded the school I still train at



Daniel Sullivan said:


> And while your grandmaster may not run a club, he certainly either owns one or promoted someone who does; he wouldn't be *your* grandmaster otherwise.



As above.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Your grandmaster does something that certainly promotes and give back to the art, but it is not the *primary* way that the art is promoted. The majority of people are brought into taekwondo via the opening of studios and have little to no experience in taekwondo outside of the studio.
> 
> Yes, there certainly are exceptions, but as a general rule, there should not be gobs of TKD fourth and fifth dans who have no interest in teaching and/or running a dojang, particularly in one school.



This is the first time I've really noticed the intention/interest rather than actually doing being important and I guess I almost agree with it.  If you aren't interested in passing it on in any shape or form there's no need.  If you want to pass the art on in some shape or form or help promote others so they can, then I'm all for it.


----------



## puunui (Mar 31, 2011)

andyjeffries said:


> There are a great number of situations you are not covering.  The choices aren't student or instructor.  For example, my Grandmaster enjoys travelling round and helping different groups of people (sometimes with teaching them, sometimes promoting them).  He also tries to help out on a national level with organisational/coaching. He isn't interested though in running his own club.  IMHO he has a valid reason for wanting high dan rank, and ego is nothing to do with it. Not everyone's path is the same.



The point though is that he did go through the step of establishing his own school and teaching his own students and developing his own curriculum and style. That is an important step in the journey. Now he is at a different stage of his journey, so of course we don't expect him to be out there teaching white belts how to tie their belt. That should be handled by other students while he does other things. 




andyjeffries said:


> You say there's nothing to stop you staying a third dan, but there's also nothing coded in the Kukkiwon regulations about it being necessary to teach to obtain higher dan rank.  Therefore, there's nothing to stop you from training up until 9th Dan without ever having had a personal student.



Name one 9th Dan that you know that never had his/her own dojang.



andyjeffries said:


> I would argue this is an implicit responsibility rather than explicit.  The reason is that if it were an explicit responsibility to be teaching your own students that would be easily provable - how many Kukkiwon certificates have you applied for in the past x years since your last test.



Actually the Kukkiwon does keep track of those kinds of things. They have a book with all instructor's names in it and it lists by year how many poom and dan recommendations you have processed. 




andyjeffries said:


> * I have actually taken the decision to start my own club teaching children on a weekend now because I feel I'm at the stage of my life/Taekwondo career where I'd like to be passing on what I know to my own set of students.  However, the above feelings remain true and I don't feel I should be restricted in rank until I have my own club.



Of course not. No one like to be told no and no one wants to feel held back. And of course you can get promoted if that is what your instructor wants to do. But I am not talking about pieces of paper but rather the journey through the dan ranks, and what each dan rank stands for. If you do not have your own school with your own students and your own curriculum, then your development will be retarded or stopped, in much the same way as your development will be different if you continue to live in your parent's home and never make a home of your own. You might not realize it now, but perhaps you will later, after you do take over the school and/or fully develop the program you got going on the weekends.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Mar 31, 2011)

I think this just highlights the beauty of having so many martial arts schools to choose from. I can understand both sides of the debate, but I strongly disagree that you should have to instruct or be a school owner to gain promotion beyond 4th dan. So, in my case I just choose a school who has the same belief as me, just as someone who believes that teaching should be a requirement can choose a school that can take them down that path. For me, dans indicate 'time in grade', not skill level or teaching credentials. I can look at a 4th dan and just know they have been training roughly 10 years since getting a black belt for example. I just see too many 2nd dans who are better than 4th dans (for instance). Like anything requiring physical ability and co ordination it is just unrealistic to think that person 'a' and person 'b' will be the same skill level just because they have the same number of stripes on their belt. The whole "4th dan is instructor rank" and "6th dan is master rank" really makes no sense to me. I have trained under 1st dans who are much better teachers than 5th dans and vice versa. To me, the dan just shows me how long someone has been training and no more.


----------



## andyjeffries (Apr 1, 2011)

puunui said:


> The point though is that he did go through the step of establishing his own school and teaching his own students and developing his own curriculum and style. That is an important step in the journey. Now he is at a different stage of his journey, so of course we don't expect him to be out there teaching white belts how to tie their belt. That should be handled by other students while he does other things.



OK, fair enough.



puunui said:


> Name one 9th Dan that you know that never had his/her own dojang.



I'll be honest, I cannot.  To turn it around - can you name the section of the Kukkiwon Promotion Regulations that says school ownership/number of promotions is required for promotion to Kukkiwon 9th Dan?  Or can you name anyone that has been denied a Kukkiwon 9th Dan for solely this reason?



puunui said:


> Actually the Kukkiwon does keep track of those kinds of things. They have a book with all instructor's names in it and it lists by year how many poom and dan recommendations you have processed.



That won't look so good for those instructors in countries where the WTF MNA wants all kukkiwon promotions to go through them then, like the UK.



puunui said:


> But I am not talking about pieces of paper but rather the journey through the dan ranks, and what each dan rank stands for. If you do not have your own school with your own students and your own curriculum, then your development will be retarded or stopped, in much the same way as your development will be different if you continue to live in your parent's home and never make a home of your own. You might not realize it now, but perhaps you will later, after you do take over the school and/or fully develop the program you got going on the weekends.



Well, you and I have known each other for enough years that I think we'll still know each other in another 5 or 10, so maybe we'll have this discussion again then and we'll see if you're right...


----------



## puunui (Apr 1, 2011)

andyjeffries said:


> I'll be honest, I cannot.  To turn it around - can you name the section of the Kukkiwon Promotion Regulations that says school ownership/number of promotions is required for promotion to Kukkiwon 9th Dan?  Or can you name anyone that has been denied a Kukkiwon 9th Dan for solely this reason?



Frankly, I don't know anyone who comes near that sort of rank who has not at one time or another had a dojang of their own. 

I remember a discussion with my first Hapkido teacher (who also did Taekwondo), who was encouraging me to open my own school. I told him that I hated teaching and much more enjoyed training and learning. He said that I could do that, but there comes a point where I needed to open my own school in order to progress. He said that in his generation of Korean born practitioners who moved to the US, there was a big difference between those instructors who had dojang in Korea, and those that did not. He said that Korean Martial Arts are built around the idea of a student opening up their own school, that it was automatically assumed once a student reached a certain point and that if you do not, then your teachers, seniors, peers and juniors looked down at you, for being unwilling to take the next step so to speak. 

He said I had to open my own school, which I begrudgingly did. I didn't understand what he was talking about at the time, but eventually I did realize what he did for me, gently pushing me out of the nest. I still visit him and call him Sabumnim, and when I do visit he tells me what his other students who have opened dojang are doing. We were very close and he once told me that he treated his students like his children, but I was more like his younger brother, even though he was way older than me. Again I didn't realize what he was saying until much later. Because of that, we talked about a lot of things that he generally didn't mention to others, like the above. When he retired he ended up giving me all the stuff in his dojang. 

He started training in the early 1950's, and it was a period of great expansion of the martial arts. The Modern History book touches upon this when it discusses how each Kwan competed with one another to be the biggest and best. The Korean Martial Arts could not have grown to the size that it currently is unless there is a strong emphasis and policy of having students open their own dojang. This policy is also embedded in the Kukkiwon yudanja poomsae, which we discussed earlier. 4th Dan, or Pyongwon is all about teaching. 




andyjeffries said:


> That won't look so good for those instructors in countries where the WTF MNA wants all kukkiwon promotions to go through them then, like the UK.



I don't know about that sort of thing. I just said that the Kukkiwon does keep track of those kinds of things. I don't know how that information is used. The count is done for those who process directly with the Kukkiwon, as opposed to those who go through their MNA. We looked up my recommendations and there was a big hole when I used to go through the USTU. 




andyjeffries said:


> Well, you and I have known each other for enough years that I think we'll still know each other in another 5 or 10, so maybe we'll have this discussion again then and we'll see if you're right...



I've seen positive change and growth in you over the years so I am sure there will be more of the same in 5 or 10 years as well....


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Apr 1, 2011)

So, is there a section of the Kukkiwon Promotion Regulations that says school  ownership/number of promotions is required for promotion to Kukkiwon 9th  Dan, or even 4th dan for that matter? If its so important then surely it would be a hard and fast requirement and not just a theory.


----------



## andyjeffries (Apr 2, 2011)

puunui said:


> Frankly, I don't know anyone who comes near that sort of rank who has not at one time or another had a dojang of their own.



That's true it may be difficult to show someone that was denied rank due to not having a school, because I guess most people do at sometime.

In fact, I had my own club for 2-3 years when I was younger, so maybe I've already qualified on this point ;-)



puunui said:


> The Korean Martial Arts could not have grown to the size that it currently is unless there is a strong emphasis and policy of having students open their own dojang. This policy is also embedded in the Kukkiwon yudanja poomsae, which we discussed earlier. 4th Dan, or Pyongwon is all about teaching.



The funny thing is I can see you're right, for Taekwondo to become as popular as it has, it had to have a period of this being encouraged.

As I kind of related side note, I spoke to my sabumnim the other night about me opening a club - a kind of feel him out/get his blessing type of chat.  I wasn't sure how he'd feel about it (I was fairly confident that he'd be encouraging, but sometimes you never know).  He was very positive about it and said that it's a shame no-one else has opened a club in the area to expand our group.  I did reply that a couple of people have mentioned it over the years but I gathered they thought he might not be too happy about it.

Anyway, good news for me, he's very happy that I'm doing it.



puunui said:


> I don't know about that sort of thing. I just said that the Kukkiwon does keep track of those kinds of things. I don't know how that information is used.



If you ever speak to a senior at the Kukkiwon and happen to ask, I'd be interested in the answer...



puunui said:


> The count is done for those who process directly with the Kukkiwon, as opposed to those who go through their MNA. We looked up my recommendations and there was a big hole when I used to go through the USTU.



Did they say anything about that hole?  "Shame you didn't process them yourself" type of comment?



puunui said:


> I've seen positive change and growth in you over the years so I am sure there will be more of the same in 5 or 10 years as well....



Thanks 

At least it seems I'm on a good track then.  I'll definitely be interested in the chat in 5 or 10 years then, so I can see if I feel different for having had my own club.

I actually can't wait to have students that are 100% my students again (rather than feeling a shared studentship over the guys at my club).  Looking forward to seeing how well I can develop them.


----------



## puunui (Apr 2, 2011)

andyjeffries said:


> In fact, I had my own club for 2-3 years when I was younger, so maybe I've already qualified on this point ;-)



Did you develop any students to 1st Poom or 1st Dan? 




andyjeffries said:


> As I kind of related side note, I spoke to my sabumnim the other night about me opening a club - a kind of feel him out/get his blessing type of chat.  I wasn't sure how he'd feel about it (I was fairly confident that he'd be encouraging, but sometimes you never know).  He was very positive about it and said that it's a shame no-one else has opened a club in the area to expand our group.



Good. 




andyjeffries said:


> If you ever speak to a senior at the Kukkiwon and happen to ask, I'd be interested in the answer...



Ok. I think they just do it to do it. 




andyjeffries said:


> Did they say anything about that hole?  "Shame you didn't process them yourself" type of comment?



No. Nothing like that. 




andyjeffries said:


> I actually can't wait to have students that are 100% my students again (rather than feeling a shared studentship over the guys at my club).  Looking forward to seeing how well I can develop them.



There you go. Do you feel that excitement and anticipation inside you? Looking ahead at all of the possibilities in a positive way? Can't wait to get started? THAT is what the martial arts journey is all about, which some call "the beginner's mind". It's not about rank, stripes on a belt, pieces of paper or other such nonsense, which I bet you are not even thinking about because you are too busy thinking about studying, learning, experimenting and growing.


----------



## andyjeffries (Apr 3, 2011)

puunui said:


> Did you develop any students to 1st Poom or 1st Dan?



No, and I'd guessed that was the (unspecified) criteria hence the winky smile 



puunui said:


> Do you feel that excitement and anticipation inside you? Looking ahead at all of the possibilities in a positive way? Can't wait to get started? THAT is what the martial arts journey is all about, which some call "the beginner's mind". It's not about rank, stripes on a belt, pieces of paper or other such nonsense, which I bet you are not even thinking about because you are too busy thinking about studying, learning, experimenting and growing.



I hate it when other people predict how you're feeling and get it spot on!


----------



## puunui (Apr 4, 2011)

andyjeffries said:


> I hate it when other people predict how you're feeling and get it spot on!




There are two basic ways that one can approach the martial arts journey. One is to focus on things like rank or certificates and collect that sort of thing. People like that tend to go through the motions and/or do only enough to get their certificate. Their skill level tends to be mediocre, which shows in the fact that they resist learning, especially new things, or doing old things in new ways. It is easier to simply do what you have always done. What does it really matter when you got that certificate, which was the goal in the first place. 

At the other end of the spectrum are those that focus on learning and growing. They go to things like instructor courses or participate on message boards like this to learn new things, to get new ideas, or to find that missing piece which allows them to continue progressing. Of they receive certificates as well, but the focus is on the journey, not the belt or the paper, which is important for beginners, but shouldn't be for dan holders so much. Color belts need the encouragement of color belt changes and promotions, because there is a point in the middle of the guep holder's journey where things become boring or monotonous, and we need to do things to keep them going.


----------



## andyjeffries (Apr 4, 2011)

puunui said:


> There are two basic ways that one can approach the martial arts journey. One is to focus on things like rank or certificates and collect that sort of thing. People like that tend to go through the motions and/or do only enough to get their certificate. Their skill level tends to be mediocre, which shows in the fact that they resist learning, especially new things, or doing old things in new ways. It is easier to simply do what you have always done. What does it really matter when you got that certificate, which was the goal in the first place.



I know a guy like this...  He grades on the dot of when his time is up.  I mean literally he counts it down in months and years since his last one until he's "going to be an X dan".  He never thinks he'll fail (and somehow doesn't) and he will always be grading as soon as he can.



puunui said:


> At the other end of the spectrum are those that focus on learning and growing. They go to things like instructor courses or participate on message boards like this to learn new things, to get new ideas, or to find that missing piece which allows them to continue progressing. Of they receive certificates as well, but the focus is on the journey, not the belt or the paper, which is important for beginners, but shouldn't be for dan holders so much.



I agree.  However, it is useful to keep promoting if for no other reason than the ability to promote students and help people get Kukkiwon rank for themselves and their students.



puunui said:


> Color belts need the encouragement of color belt changes and promotions, because there is a point in the middle of the guep holder's journey where things become boring or monotonous, and we need to do things to keep them going.



And I find this is even more so for children.  That's a problem I feel we have at our current club.  The children only train once per week (most of them, a couple who have black belts for parents train twice or more) and they grade once per year.  

I personally feel that is too long between tests and actually has a detrimental effect on their performance.  If they tested more frequently (say every 6 months) you would have the "polishing up before a test" period for more of the year and it's during that period that we see the most improvement.  When they can coast for 8 months then polish up, their level has hardly improved since the last time.

I'll break this point off as a separate thread though...


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Apr 4, 2011)

Just a thought. Would it be true to say that those that continue to train 4 or 5 days a week but never take up teaching, become better martial artists physically? I know in theory that once you start instructing you should keep up your own personal training regularly, but in the real world Ive found this doesnt happen as often as it should. I have no doubt that menatally, and from a sheer knowledge standpoint, someone who instructs will become far superior as I found when I took up guitar teaching. Once I started teaching I learnt more about playing guitar than I ever could just playing by myself. So I respect that those that teach probably become more "rounded". But what about physically? At our club training camp last week everyone trained and was instructed by a seventh dan. We had 6 X 6th dans there, 3 of which train 4 or 5 days a week and the other 3 instruct 4 or 5 days a week and I must say that physically the three that train were heaps sharper, heaps stronger and heaps quicker.  Physically they were in great shape. So my question is, to those of you who instruct, how hard is it to find the time to instruct and still keep on top of your game physically? Does it need to be your full time job?


----------



## andyjeffries (Apr 4, 2011)

ralphmcpherson said:


> Just a thought. Would it be true to say that those that continue to train 4 or 5 days a week but never take up teaching, become better martial artists physically? But what about physically? At our club training camp last week everyone trained and was instructed by a seventh dan. We had 6 X 6th dans there, 3 of which train 4 or 5 days a week and the other 3 instruct 4 or 5 days a week and I must say that physically the three that train were heaps sharper, heaps stronger and heaps quicker.  Physically they were in great shape. So my question is, to those of you who instruct, how hard is it to find the time to instruct and still keep on top of your game physically? Does it need to be your full time job?



I would say that they become better athletes, but better martial artists is highly debatable.  As you posted, I have learnt heaps (particularly over the past few years) when teaching.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Apr 4, 2011)

andyjeffries said:


> I would say that they become better athletes, but better martial artists is highly debatable.  As you posted, I have learnt heaps (particularly over the past few years) when teaching.


I agree, and that is why I want to instruct someday. For me though, keeping physically on top is where Im worried I'll struggle unless I do it full time.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Apr 5, 2011)

Well, I know I started this thread a while back, and I'm excited that it's still breathing!  Tonight is the official first class at my new school.  25 years of training, rank of 5th dan, lots of time teaching and instructing and learning, and I'm now starting my own school.  

By the discussions I've read, some would say I am long overdue for this responsibility.  By others' standards, my situation is irrelevant to owning/running a school.  

I come from a very unique school, where there were 2 7th dans (incidentally the head and assistant head instructors of the whole association), 2 6th dans, and  5th dans in one location.  We were on a rotating schedule of teaching classes, which IMHO was a great asset for the students; having so many instructors to learn from.

The two 7th dans are retiring from running a school, and will be traveling to other branch schools in the association and working on the national level of the organization more.  I was asked to carry on my Sahbumnim's legacy and to open a school of my own; a responsibility I am honored and humbled to take.

One of the 6th dans, is opening his own school down the road, so it's a great opportunity to grow the local presence.  

Looking forward to continuing this journey!


----------



## andyjeffries (Apr 5, 2011)

SahBumNimRush said:


> Well, I know I started this thread a while back



Are you referring to this thread?



SahBumNimRush said:


> and I'm excited that it's still breathing!  Tonight is the official first class at my new school.  25 years of training, rank of 5th dan, lots of time teaching and instructing and learning, and I'm now starting my own school.



Congratulations, I'm sure you'll do great!  Good luck!



SahBumNimRush said:


> One of the 6th dans, is opening his own school down the road, so it's a great opportunity to grow the local presence.



Is this the 6th Dan you were referring to when you wrote "I am nervous of how the 6th dan will take to a 5th dan owning the school"?

It's a shame he's decided to do that (as initially it might not grow the presence but split it), but it's great that you're seeing it as the positive step it can be.

Anyway, best of luck!


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Apr 5, 2011)

andyjeffries said:


> Are you referring to this thread?
> 
> Haha! Yeah, I forgot that Carl actually started this thread, it came from a side tracked discussion we were having from another thread.. .






andyjeffries said:


> Congratulations, I'm sure you'll do great!  Good luck!




Thanks!




andyjeffries said:


> Is this the 6th Dan you were referring to when you wrote "I am nervous of how the 6th dan will take to a 5th dan owning the school"?




Yes, and it got REALLY ugly, petty, and unprofessional.. . I am still uncertain what repercussions will take place from the conduct unbecoming of an instructor.. .  I have done my best to act as I have been taught and take the honorable path in all of it.  Ultimately, only two students went with the 6th dan, and the rest have went with me.  I think that speaks volumes to my conduct.




andyjeffries said:


> It's a shame he's decided to do that (as initially it might not grow the presence but split it), but it's great that you're seeing it as the positive step it can be.



Well, I ultimately have my reservations about how good of an idea it is for him to be representing our association by himself.  However, he is my senior and I support his decisions as long as he is a member of our association.  I am just glad that, in the end, he is not in my dojang.  It has just simplified many of the underlying problems that were arising.



andyjeffries said:


> Anyway, best of luck!



Thanks, I'm excited for tonight!


----------



## andyjeffries (Apr 5, 2011)

SahBumNimRush said:


> Yes, and it got REALLY ugly, petty, and unprofessional.. .



That's a shame.  I'd be interested in hearing more, but understand you might not want to post that publicly...



SahBumNimRush said:


> I am still uncertain what repercussions will take place from the conduct unbecoming of an instructor.. .  I have done my best to act as I have been taught and take the honorable path in all of it.  Ultimately, only two students went with the 6th dan, and the rest have went with me.  I think that speaks volumes to my conduct.



Indeed.  That's good news.



SahBumNimRush said:


> Well, I ultimately have my reservations about how good of an idea it is for him to be representing our association by himself.  However, he is my senior and I support his decisions as long as he is a member of our association.



From your wording above that may not be as long as it might have been...



SahBumNimRush said:


> I am just glad that, in the end, he is not in my dojang.  It has just simplified many of the underlying problems that were arising.



Absolutely.



SahBumNimRush said:


> Thanks, I'm excited for tonight!



Don't forget to post back tomorrow and let us know how it went.  I'm sure you've run odd sessions anyway, but there may be questions from the students/changes/etc.  Just interested in how it goes for you...


----------

