# Graham lelliot promoted to 9th dan



## Headhunter (Dec 15, 2017)

So I just saw this that graham lelliot was promoted to 9th dan recently. Not a guy I've had a lot to do with. Met him a few times did a few seminars but never seen him work. But yeah congrats to him but I never really get how that high a promotion works


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 16, 2017)

Malos1979 said:


> Ofcourse you do, you have heard of honorary ranks? So they are given to them for their contribution to the art, or at least thats what you see in other arts.


Yeah and who promotes them because in kenpo you need to be 2 ranks above to promote someone but the highest rank is 10th dan


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> Yeah and who promotes them because in kenpo you need to be 2 ranks above to promote someone but the highest rank is 10th dan


In some associations, it requires a group of the highest ranks. I've seen where it requires 3 10th to promote to 9th or 10th. I've also seen where there's one person at the highest rank, and they are able to promote to any rank (including designating the next at their rank when they retire/die).


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 16, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> In some associations, it requires a group of the highest ranks. I've seen where it requires 3 10th to promote to 9th or 10th. I've also seen where there's one person at the highest rank, and they are able to promote to any rank (including designating the next at their rank when they retire/die).


To me all that's a waste of time and kind of just an ego thing. To me the ranks stop meaning anything after 3rd dan in kenpo as there's no more material to learn and the promoting can get very sketchy. To me when someone says they're an 8th or 9th dan to me it's not hugely impressive as I know most were simply given them and didnt have to test


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> To me all that's a waste of time and kind of just an ego thing. To me the ranks stop meaning anything after 3rd dan in kenpo as there's no more material to learn and the promoting can get very sketchy. To me when someone says they're an 8th or 9th dan to me it's not hugely impressive as I know most were simply given them and didnt have to test


I've never had much interest in the higher dan ranks, either, except for the ability to promote folks to instructor. I think many associations just use them as a way to maintain levels of hierarchy. I don't know if this is something from the structure used in Japan, but it seems like more work than the benefit it drives.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 16, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I've never had much interest in the higher dan ranks, either, except for the ability to promote folks to instructor. I think many associations just use them as a way to maintain levels of hierarchy. I don't know if this is something from the structure used in Japan, but it seems like more work than the benefit it drives.


I see it more for promotion. E.g when promoting your school a 8th dan sounds better than a 3rd dan and when untrained people hear 8th dan they think of something extremely special


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> I see it more for promotion. E.g when promoting your school a 8th dan sounds better than a 3rd dan and when untrained people hear 8th dan they think of something extremely special


I'm not sure how much it helps with untrained folks. It's generally more impressive to those with some amount of training, who experienced an association where it meant something (or, at least, they thought it did). I've seen instructors make a big fuss over it, but have rarely heard a prospective student ask what dan-rank someone is. It's much more common to ask how much experience they have.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 16, 2017)

At some point, promotion is more about recognizing someones dedication to and promotion of the art, maintaining a clear hierarchy within an organization, and the ability to promote others. Where this occurs is blurry, and in many cases it's more a gradual thing than a "X is earned but Y is granted" sort of thing.
In our system, there is new material (in so far as you have to learn a new form) through 9th Dan. But these forms are not really teaching any new techniques, concepts, or principles. I would say that somewhere around 3rd or 4th Dan,  our rank becomes more about hierarchy and ability to promote, and by 6th or 7th Dan it's primarily about dedication and promotion of the art.
As someone mentioned, pretty much all arts have some tradition about promotion, usually to one or two ranks below your own. Our tradition in the Moo Duk Kwan is one rank below your own, which I believe is the most common. Obviously, there must be some process in place to promote to the highest ranks, or the hierarchy would collapse. This generally amounts to a board, composed of the highest ranked members of the organization, or (mostly in smaller orgs) a decision made by the head of the system.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 16, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> In some associations, it requires a group of the highest ranks. I've seen where it requires 3 10th to promote to 9th or 10th. I've also seen where there's one person at the highest rank, and they are able to promote to any rank (including designating the next at their rank when they retire/die).


And I’ve seen it where a person simply decides it is time to “assume the rank” due to the length of time he has been doing it.

Self-promotion, plain and simple.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 16, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> And I’ve seen it where a person simply decides it is time to “assume the rank” due to the length of time he has been doing it.
> 
> Self-promotion, plain and simple.


Pretty much yeah. I just don't think those higher ranks really mean much. 1st dan is obviously the big one everyone aims for. Second doesnt hold much significance but 3rd is head instructor level, 4th again not much significance but I suppose 5th is a nice one just because the belt looks cool with the big red block and not got 4 red stripes which looks a bit silly to me lol. 

But either way I'm never getting that high i don't suck up to the right people for that lol


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 16, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> Pretty much yeah. I just don't think those higher ranks really mean much. 1st dan is obviously the big one everyone aims for. Second doesnt hold much significance but 3rd is head instructor level, 4th again not much significance but I suppose 5th is a nice one just because the belt looks cool with the big red block and not got 4 red stripes which looks a bit silly to me lol.
> 
> But either way I'm never getting that high i don't suck up to the right people for that lol


I’m not a fan of the ranking system as a whole, to be honest.  I believe there ought to be only two levels of black belt:  black belt non- instructor, and black belt instructor.  Once you have the instructor rank, you aren’t beholden to anyone anymore and have full authority to teach and promote all the way up.  No more chasing carrots.  Stop building empires.  Stop the madness.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 16, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> And I’ve seen it where a person simply decides it is time to “assume the rank” due to the length of time he has been doing it.
> 
> Self-promotion, plain and simple.



Self-promotion has a long and respected tradition. After all, the founder(s) of any art you care to mention indulged in it. They had to.
At the same time, it is viewed as a horrible and McDojo thing to do.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 16, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Self-promotion has a long and respected tradition. After all, the founder(s) of any art you care to mention indulged in it. They had to.
> At the same time, it is viewed as a horrible and McDojo thing to do.


Yeah, it’s true.

Most people shouldn’t do it.  Dunning-Kruger and all that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> And I’ve seen it where a person simply decides it is time to “assume the rank” due to the length of time he has been doing it.
> 
> Self-promotion, plain and simple.


I've seen that, too, where associations weren't available. I don't have a problem with it if they've defined standards and met them (assuming they are the head of their group, so have to be the ones defining the standard), such as if 5th dan is meant for someone who has developed 3 3rd dans who are running independent schools for at least 2 years, for instance. When there aren't any standards to evaluate by, it's just a misguided reach for a rank that matters a lot less than they think.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Self-promotion has a long and respected tradition. After all, the founder(s) of any art you care to mention indulged in it. They had to.
> At the same time, it is viewed as a horrible and McDojo thing to do.


Agreed. If every founder kept his last rank, and didn't promote someone else past it, we'd all be yellow belts (or whatever is the first in your style) now.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I’m not a fan of the ranking system as a whole, to be honest.  I believe there ought to be only two levels of black belt:  black belt non- instructor, and black belt instructor.  Once you have the instructor rank, you aren’t beholden to anyone anymore and have full authority to teach and promote all the way up.  No more chasing carrots.  Stop building empires.  Stop the madness.


This is the approach I'm taking, with one addition - a "Senior Instructor" rank, to certify they can actually train instructors. Once someone reaches that point, they can build Instructors and Senior Instructors. If I ever build the program enough, all of that might even matter some day.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 16, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> This is the approach I'm taking, with one addition - a "Senior Instructor" rank, to certify they can actually train instructors. Once someone reaches that point, they can build Instructors and Senior Instructors. If I ever build the program enough, all of that might even matter some day.


Honestly, I say ditch the Senior Instructor.  Just make it Instructor and be done.  Otherwise you end up right back where you started with too many ranks.  At some point it’s time to cut the leash and let people do as they will.  Or else just don’t promote someone to Instructor, if they aren’t ready or if you aren’t certain you can trust their motives or their capabilities.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 16, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. If every founder kept his last rank, and didn't promote someone else past it, we'd all be yellow belts (or whatever is the first in your style) now.


A founder doesn’t need rank.  He is outside of the ranking structure.


----------



## Tames D (Dec 17, 2017)

Step aside Cincinnati Reds, Kenpo is the new Big Red Machine


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Honestly, I say ditch the Senior Instructor.  Just make it Instructor and be done.  Otherwise you end up right back where you started with too many ranks.  At some point it’s time to cut the leash and let people do as they will.  Or else just don’t promote someone to Instructor, if they aren’t ready or if you aren’t certain you can trust their motives or their capabilities.


Training instructors is a different skill set from training students. It's not about motives, but about whether they can build capable instructors. The only requirement for reaching that rank is to present a capable instructor (trained according to the instructor manual) for promotion. If they get promoted, so does the person who trained them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> A founder doesn’t need rank.  He is outside of the ranking structure.


Of a new art/style, arguable true. Of a new association, I've never seen it work that way. I've seen them either keep their old rank (creating a new "ceiling" on rank), or promote themselves when necessary to promote someone else to a rank below them. They could, of course, step outside ranks entirely, but for many that will feel like they're claiming a rank comparable to the highest ranked person in the association/group they were in.


----------



## JR 137 (Dec 17, 2017)

Don’t forget that other organizations can grant rank to a founder of an organization if that person is willing to accept it.

Shigeru Oyama (no relation to Mas Oyama) left Kyokushin in the early-mid 80s and started his own organization - World Oyama Karate.  A few years ago one of the major Kyokushin branches (quite possibly IKO 1) promoted him to 10th dan, recognizing his contribution to karate as a whole, and a lifetime achievement award in a sense.  I think he was deserving of it; along with Tadashi Nakamura he brought Kyokushin to North America and turned it into the major force it is/was here and internationally.  He started and grew a highly respected international organization consisting of many highly regarded students and instructors.  He was truly a legend in knockdown karate.  The promotion came no more than a year or two before he passed away.

Tadashi Nakamura did not promote himself to his current 9th dan.  He was promoted to 7th dan by Mas Oyama during his Kyokushin days in large part for his massive contribution to spreading Kyokushin internationally.  He served as the chief instructor at the Kyokushin honbu in Tokyo for quite some time and was considered by many to be the best teacher in Kyokushin.  Many years after leaving Kyokushin, he was promoted to 8th and 9th dan by a budo organization in Japan.  I’m not sure which one, and I know he didn’t ask for it.  He doesn’t advertise any of this, other than briefly mentioning 9th dan in appropriate places.  He’s reportedly stated a few times that he would never accept a 10th dan because he’s still learning.

There’s plenty more people out there who fall along these lines.  Not every high ranking yudansha promoted him/herself in an attempt to pad their resume, gain unearned respect, sign up more students, etc.  They’re certainly out there, but they’re easy to spot if you’ve got a little understanding of how ranks work and what they mean beyond one or two organizations.

When you look at it that way, I really struggle to figure out how a guy who runs a dojo in a strip mall and only has a handful of students who’ve successfully run their own dojo or doesn’t have any who’ve done so has “earned” a high ranking rank.  Unless of course they’ve “been there, done that” in a highly respected organization and recently broke away.

As far as people promoting someone above their own rank goes, I think some people overthink this one.  Is it really THAT HARD for a group of worthy high dan ranks to say “this guy is at another level.”  If basketball had dan ranks, I don’t think it would be too difficult for a group of some of the most respected players to say “these guys are far better and greater than us.”  Radical concept here, huh?

IMO the highest dan ranks should be the people who’ve made the biggest impact on the art.  The ones who’ve spread the art on a large scale, and/or the ones who those guys go to for their training.  Take a guy like Meitoku Yagi.  He was given Chojun Miyagi’s belt and gi by Miyagi’s family.  As far as I know, he didn’t bring Goju Ryu to the masses on the level that someone like Gōgen Yamaguchi did.  But guess who Yamaguchi and many of his peers went to to get further training?  Yagi.  They considered him the encyclopedia of Goju kata in a sense.  Do you think Yamaguchi and his peers couldn’t nor shouldn’t have the authority to promote him to a rank higher than their own?  Even stupider question - do you think Yagi cared much more than a simple “thank you very much” if they promoted him?  I doubt a guy like that needed that sort of validation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Don’t forget that other organizations can grant rank to a founder of an organization if that person is willing to accept it.
> 
> Shigeru Oyama (no relation to Mas Oyama) left Kyokushin in the early-mid 80s and started his own organization - World Oyama Karate.  A few years ago one of the major Kyokushin branches (quite possibly IKO 1) promoted him to 10th dan, recognizing his contribution to karate as a whole, and a lifetime achievement award in a sense.  I think he was deserving of it; along with Tadashi Nakamura he brought Kyokushin to North America and turned it into the major force it is/was here and internationally.  He started and grew a highly respected international organization consisting of many highly regarded students and instructors.  He was truly a legend in knockdown karate.  The promotion came no more than a year or two before he passed away.
> 
> ...


I'm going to guess that's unlikely in most US organizations. I've heard from instructors that when they left an organization, the organization formally revoked their earned rank. I can't see organizations like that ever granting rank to someone outside. It's a different (and more egotistical) view of rank and splits, IMO.


----------



## JR 137 (Dec 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'm going to guess that's unlikely in most US organizations. I've heard from instructors that when they left an organization, the organization formally revoked their earned rank. I can't see organizations like that ever granting rank to someone outside. It's a different (and more egotistical) view of rank and splits, IMO.


Everyone’s got their ways.  I doubt Shigeru Oyama’s split from Kyokushin was an amicable one on both sides. But time heals wounds.  And there was zero doubt on his contribution to Kyokushin and knockdown karate as a whole.

I’m 99% sure it was IKO1 and Matsui who granted the promotion.  Matsui is not very well liked within Kyokushin circles outside of IKO1 to say the least.  He and his people are the single biggest why Kyokushin is as fractured as it is today.  Most other Kyokushin factions have gotten along recently; they all seem united in despising Matsui.

I say all of that because for IKO1 to recognize and honor someone outside their circle is huge.  Matsui’s most vocal critics respect Matsui recognizing Oyama in this way.

There was a great thread about Oyama’s promotion and a link to an official-looking release and pictures on the now defunct Kyokushin4life forum.  I’d link to it, but there’s no trace of anything from the forum.  It’s too bad it’s not archived somewhere easily accessible.

But yes, highly unlikely for an organization to recognize a past member like this.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Training instructors is a different skill set from training students. It's not about motives, but about whether they can build capable instructors. The only requirement for reaching that rank is to present a capable instructor (trained according to the instructor manual) for promotion. If they get promoted, so does the person who trained them.


Well, for many generations this stuff was a folk art, meaning it was passed along from one generation to the next, often fathers to sons, grandfathers to grandsons, uncles to nephews, etc.  there were no formal organizations that held authority like a corporation, although there are some family systems that can be held tightly by the family.

But my point is, I doubt there was formal “instructor-trainer” classes.  It seems to me that that is something more in line with the modern world.  I’m often not convinced it is necessary.

Personally, I believe that to be a good teacher requires a natural knack for it on some level.  Without that knack, all the instruction in the world will not overcome that deficit and will only make someone a slightly less sucky teacher.  For someone with that knack, that instructor training might make them better at it, but they would still be perfectly capable without it.

People can train for years and learn teaching methods through the example of their own teachers.  People can figure out what works and what doesn’t from those years of being a  student, and then teach in a similar manner, making adjustments along the way and as they gain experience.  I don’t think it’s that hard.

Some people will never be good teachers, no matter the instruction.  So don’t promote them to Instructor ranking.  Make that assessment along the way.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Well, for many generations this stuff was a folk art, meaning it was passed along from one generation to the next, often fathers to sons, grandfathers to grandsons, uncles to nephews, etc.  there were no formal organizations that held authority like a corporation, although there are some family systems that can be held tightly by the family.
> 
> But my point is, I doubt there was formal “instructor-trainer” classes.  It seems to me that that is something more in line with the modern world.  I’m often not convinced it is necessary.
> 
> ...


As with much else, just because it was that way for generations, that doesn't make it better. I've seen many instructors who didn't follow some very basic principles of adult learning (simple mistakes, like explaining the technique before showing it to the students in full flow). They do this because they understand the techniques quite well, but most don't really understand how people learn. In my professional life, I've helped many subject-matter experts learn to teach what they know. Some were naturals, and just needed some polishing to be quite good. Others were deeply proficient and knowledgeable, but couldn't transfer that to the trainee. The same holds true in MA. There are folks who are very good martial artists, and who have some natural ability teaching. The instructor development program will help them, but that's not who it's for. It's for all the others, who aren't so good at transferring that knowledge they've gained over the years.

Yes, there are some who will never be good, just as there are some who will naturally be good. The instructor development program separates those, helps the latter become better, and equips the rest (the majority) to become competent instructors.

Teaching is a skill. It can be taught, and it can be learned. The reason many people think it must be a natural thing is that they've never experienced being taught how to teach. Now, I will say that there's a natural disposition that makes it more comfortable (about 50% of the population will have that), and another that will make it easier to be methodical (a different, overlapping 40%, IIRC). But the techniques and approaches can be learned by anyone with reasonable communication skills.

EDIT: I left out a key point you made. Yes, people can learn from their instructors. However, teaching approaches should be fitted to the individual (both student and teacher). If their instructor has a different personality, it's unlikely the same approach will work equally well for both.


----------



## Jusroc (Oct 21, 2021)

Just like to quickly say, cool for Grahame L'Elliot and congratulation.

I have not seen or trained with Professor L'Elliot for years, partly due to me being out of Kenpo for 
a long long time (over 20 years), but also Professor L'Elliot did move from the small island he was born on
in the Channel Islands UK, to teach in Nevada and then later CA USA.

Great for Grahame, Great to be recognised, appreciated and supported by your peers.
I grew up as a kid training at his Dojo, when I first met him he was a 2nd degree (Kenpo Guys prefer to use the Term Degree rather than Dan) and i was 11 (years old not Degree.... lol)...

During this early time in my life, he was an awesome and highly technical instructor, even back then.
Technical analysis appeared to come natural to him, and he was always friendly, positive and entertaining.

I am sure he will continue to be and good luck to him.


----------

