# Standards Of A Black Belt- Present vs. Past



## MJS (May 22, 2006)

What are everyones thoughts on the standards of todays Black Belts? Often we see young people walking around with 2 or 3 stripes, which often leads to the word "McDojo" popping into ones head. Then again, you could also see someone older wearing a BB, and they can't fight their way out of a paper bag, the material looks poor, etc.

So, what are your thoughts of what it was like to get a Black Belt in the 'past' compared to 'today'? What or how was the training geared towards? 

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (May 22, 2006)

It seems that it is difficult to find a standardized curriculum for achieving a black belt. 

We've had many discussions about the 16 technique curriculum vs. the 24 technique curriculum vs. the 32 technique curriculum. I have heard of other schools using an 8 technique curriculum. Some schools use a rotating curriculum. 

I don't know if any of these options mean that one gains more or less ability or knowledge. Certainly, the school owner/operator believes they are doing what is correct. Each school, no doubt,  traces its lineage back to their Grandmaster Roast Duck. Nobody who is paying (Or collecting) $50.00, $60.00, $80.00, $100.00 bucks a month or more *wants* to be doing Kenpo poorly.

I think that, like fly fishing, Kenpo is an individual sport. What is important, is the value I place on *MY* black belt (when I finally earn it). I will try not to project onto your black belt, my value.

Oh, and I'm not sure I could fight my way out of a paper bag. And I don't expect that I will ever find out. I'm not sure self-defense and fighting are synonomous. In our last seminar with Mr. Planas, he said every Kenpo fight should be a two hit fight ... I hit the bad guy, the bad guy hits the floor.


----------



## bigrogb (May 22, 2006)

I compare the way Kenpo is taught to earning a higher education degree. You can take a full load + (the 32 tech system), standard load(24 tech), 1/2 load (16 tech) or 1 class a semester (8 tech).

Bottom line is it really dosent matter to me how you are getting your KENPO education, just as long as you stick with it, and the type of instruction you are recieving is decent. 

I agree with you in saying its MY black belt. I sweat and bled for it, you didnt. -Good point!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Michael Billings (May 22, 2006)

Past v. Present.  How long ago?  Late 50's, with James Ibrao and Chuck Sullivan, early 60's with the Tracy's, Steven LaBounty, or the later 60's.  Geez when is Past?

Further back = less material + must be tough enough to fight (remember martial arts were not a good thing back then.  It was considered "dirty fighting" by many and most cannot imagine the stigma back then.)  You had to have heart and spirit to strap on a black, and basically be able to defend it.

Now days there is a lot of "material" and "knowledge" involved in most black tests.  There is a teaching component usually.  The number of black belts is huge, and different associations have different expectations, and I do not see these as being even across the board.  Lots of young 4ths and 5ths in Kenpo, you never saw that in the old days.  Not judging, just commenting.

-Michael


----------



## Jonathan Randall (May 22, 2006)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> Further back = less material + must be tough enough to fight (remember martial arts were not a good thing back then. It was considered "dirty fighting" by many and most cannot imagine the stigma back then.) You had to have heart and spirit to strap on a black, and basically be able to defend it.
> 
> Now days there is a lot of "material" and "knowledge" involved in most black tests. There is a teaching component usually. The number of black belts is huge, and different associations have different expectations, and I do not see these as being even across the board. Lots of young 4ths and 5ths in Kenpo, you never saw that in the old days. Not judging, just commenting.
> 
> -Michael


 
Good points. IMO, across the board, first dans are generally much slower coming than they were 40 years ago, but higher dans are MUCH more quickly awarded than before. Remember, many American service members earned dans in well under a year back in the 1950's and 1960's, came home and began teaching. In Japan and Korea, shodans and chodans are often awarded within the first two years of training. However, recent dans require far less, IMO, physical and emotional toughness than they did back then. Back, circa 1965, the untrained person would probably have had their behind easily handed to them by a purple belt in Karate. Nowadays, partly because of the demographics you mentioned (only the already tough generally took MA) and also because the training itself (largely due to lawsuit and income concerns) is far less strict and the contact generally much lighter, the average first degree black belt of today may not EVEN have an advantage over many attackers.


----------



## Hand Sword (May 22, 2006)

IMHO the standards have become much easier to get one now. The training is much lighter or family friendly. 5 and 6 yr. olds with BB's, Purchased BB's through the mail, etc.. It's about the almighty dollar now, overall.


----------



## Danjo (May 23, 2006)

Most of the black belts that I remember back in the 70's and before weren't necessarily in possession of a great deal of techniques, but they were tough guys. They had the attitude that they were fighters and that they were training to fight when they practiced. They strove for polished technique, but the big thing was how tough you were. Free sparring was brutal and the only protection we had was a groin cup. When I was 11 years old and just starting, the adults kicked my butt every time I sparred them. The mentality was just different then it seems to me. Those guys probably would not look as good on film as the black belts of today do, but I would rather have them at my back in a fight than most of what I have seen today. I'm glad to be back training in a place that reminds me of those days gone by and they haven't dropped the fighter training aspect of the martial arts.


----------



## marlon (May 23, 2006)

IMHO it is not about how many techniques...it is about training.  There is too the difference between martial arts and martial sports.  we tend to lump everyone into the same category also.  I train and teach shaolin kempo and there is a school not that far from me that teaches the same style yet our students look very differnt.  His opinion is that people want exercise so that is what he gives them.  in my school we train ...differently.  My first question is not what rank you are but how long have you been training and where, as i find these are better indicators of who the person is in the arts.  The differences are just differences.

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## MJS (May 23, 2006)

My apologies for not being clearer in my initial post.:asian: 

We could start as far back at the 50's and work up to the present.  Specifically, I'm looking at workouts in general, tests for rank, how frequent rank was given out then, compared to now, and age of people receiving rank then.  Was there an 8 yo 2nd degree BB running around?


----------



## terryl965 (May 23, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> My apologies for not being clearer in my initial post.:asian:
> 
> We could start as far back at the 50's and work up to the present. Specifically, I'm looking at workouts in general, tests for rank, how frequent rank was given out then, compared to now, and age of people receiving rank then. Was there an 8 yo 2nd degree BB running around?


 
MJS I can almost 100% promise you there where no 8 year 2nd BB running around in the fifties.
Terry


----------



## MJS (May 23, 2006)

terryl965 said:
			
		

> MJS I can almost 100% promise you there where no 8 year 2nd BB running around in the fifties.
> Terry


 
So, that being said, I'd take it that the standards have gone down. Considering todays way of law suit happy folks running around, people not wanting too hard of a workout, etc., that this is one of the reasons why there was change. Rather than wanting to work hard and rightfully earn something, people are more happy with getting a freebie. This, IMO, is probably one of the reasons some people look at the arts overall as a joke. 

I came across this on Mr. Bishops homepage. I think that it brings up some good points.

http://www.kajukenboinfo.com/kajukenbohistory.html#training


----------



## Danjo (May 23, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> My apologies for not being clearer in my initial post.:asian:
> 
> We could start as far back at the 50's and work up to the present. Specifically, I'm looking at workouts in general, tests for rank, how frequent rank was given out then, compared to now, and age of people receiving rank then. Was there an 8 yo 2nd degree BB running around?


 
When I started in Shotokan in 1978, my instructor would not train you unless you were at least 7 years old (and you had to act mature). Then, he would test you about every three to four months if he thought you were ready, until you got to brown belt when it went to every 6 to 9 months between testing. There were no black belts under the age of 16 years old.


----------



## Danjo (May 23, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> So, that being said, I'd take it that the standards have gone down. Considering todays way of law suit happy folks running around, people not wanting too hard of a workout, etc., that this is one of the reasons why there was change. Rather than wanting to work hard and rightfully earn something, people are more happy with getting a freebie. This, IMO, is probably one of the reasons some people look at the arts overall as a joke.
> 
> I came across this on Mr. Bishops homepage. I think that it brings up some good points.
> 
> http://www.kajukenboinfo.com/kajukenbohistory.html#training


 
Yep. Like I said, it's a good place to be training.


----------



## Ginsu (May 23, 2006)

I posted this response before in another thread MJS started called "qualities of a Black belt." I felt that it fit here as well.

*Also Yes I know you can still Kick some one in the head Mr. Billings!!*:asian: 

This is a conversation that a friend and teacher of mine had several years ago about this very topic. I agree with some of it and some of it no. However I think it is worth sharing the conversation that my friend and I had on the quality and standards of what is a Black belt or isn't.

_Ginsu_


"Definition of a black belt---for some people, it is easy: If you can do the techniques during your testing, and you've spent the time-in-grade, you are a black belt. 

So it is based on what you can do? Let's take taekwondo as an example. TKD has a number of jumping/spinning kicks. I know a 7th dan TKD practitioner who no longer can do those jump-spinning heel kicks. His body simply won't do them anymore. By one definition, he wouldn't be able to pass a 1st dan test. Should he not be a black belt anymore? 
Higher rankings have different requirements, you might say. Oh, so the higher ranked you are, the less you have to be able to do? 

But they aren't physically capable anymore, one might argue. Ok, so now you don't have to be physically capable, you just have to _know_ how to do the techniques? So, in other words, you can get a black belt from reading books and watching videos. After all, I can read a good reference and be able to tell people how to do techniques that way. 
You don't think so? Okay, so what is the criterion? 

For some people, it is the ability to compete and win, that gives them the "points" necessary to advance to the next rank. (Pardon me for errors in this thinking, I've never actually practiced an art where this was true, though I hear a number of Taekwondoin and Judoka practice this way.) So, if you can do the techniques, show the kata, teach the art----but can't win, you don't count? 

What if you consistently win, using two techniques. (Bill Wallace comes to mind here.) You can't do anything else (okay, now we aren't talking about Mr. Wallace anymore) but those two carry you enough to win a number of tournaments. Are you a black belt? 
I don't think so. 

So, how do you define a black belt? Is it an attitude? Is it physical technique? Is it a levelheadedness with regards to physical confrontations, with emotional control? Is it an ability to teach? 
Is it something that you reach once, and after that, don't have to ever demonstrate again? 

There are a number of people out there in wheelchairs who are aikido practitioners, some of whom are black belt ranks. The question is, how so? They obviously can't do the footwork, the distance training, entering techniques (based on their physical movement) etc----a large section of their art, they can't do. 

And yet, they are ranked. Was someone feeling sorry for them? I don't think so. I think they worked hard, and earned their rank. Does that mean that rank requirements change depending on the person's abilities? So a blind quadrapalegic can get a black belt somehow? That doesn't seem right. So where is the line drawn? (And no, I don't mean to pick on aikido----I just read an article about handicapped martial artists and self-defense, so this example came to mind.) 

There was a blind man (well, actually about 17 years old) who had a black belt in TKD (or karate, I'm not certain). I read about him, and once saw him demonstrate a kata and some breaking techniques. He was _Impressive_. He broke two boards at head height with a jumping back kick, did several kata with power and control, and overall, was very technically oriented. 

On the other hand, his sparring was pathetic. He had no distance game (for obvious reasons) and as such, he'd never win a tournament in sparring. Similarly, he'd never be able to teach. A teacher could use him for demonstration, but he could never evaluate students in any meaningful way. And yet, he is ranked as a black belt. Again, is it based on techniques? Is it not? Based on teaching ability? How about on self-defense ability? How do you define a black belt ? 

We all say "black belt" and it means different things to all of us---and yet, there are certain things we expect of a person we call "black belt." But what is it? Our requirements, while obviously different for each art and each style, seem to also change based on who we are dealing with. 
And yet, we seem to expect many of the same things from our black belts, even though we can't seem to define what those things should be. And of course, people get in arguments as to what a "proper" black belt can do and be. 

I think of my instructor, who doesn't kick above the waist anymore, because his back and an injured knee. I think of that blind kid, who had the best jump spinning crescent that I'd ever seen at the time. I remember a guy from Omaha who visited down here one day who was technically proficient, (quite good actually) but wasn't a black belt, and who had the willpower of an unrepentant heroin addict, and the emotional maturity and control of a 14 yr old boy around a pretty girl. I'm not even sure how he stuck with it enough to gain that much physical control---but he certainly had it. 

A woman I tested with once would just take you apart with her self-defense techniques. Her locks were sharp and solidly in control, her pressure points were precise and effective, and if you grabbed her and tried to restrain her you'd end up a close, personal acquaintance of the floor, wondering if your body was ever going to work correctly again, If she ever let you up. And yet, none of her breaks worked during that particular test. Not one. She didn't break her bricks, her hand techniques didn't break the boards, and she bruised her heel badly on her spinning heel break. By some testing criteria, if you don't break (if you even miss one) you don't pass. 

Should she be a black belt? By what criterion? 
My friend and I finally came up with a tortured, mangled, alterable-but-working definition of a black belt,

*Black belt*: Someone who has a thorough, proficient grounding in the basic techniques of an art, such that they can effectively demonstrate and/or teach those techniques. Additionally, someone who has the mental and emotional control to both use those techniques _effectively_ and _appropriately_ in society. 

That seems to cover just about everyone I know that I consider to be a black belt, and disqualifies everyone that has some knowledge but whom I do not consider black belt material. (Hey, I can be subjective---this is an opinion definition, after all.  

That blind man----he may not be able to teach, but he certainly can demonstrate. That wheel-chaired black belt----may not be able to demonstrate footwork, but of all people understands the concept of effective distance, and can teach it. That woman who couldn't break that day----I've seen her break before, and I'm sure she'll be able to do it again. She is a wonderful teacher, and an excellent practitioner. It just wasn't a good break day. 

They are all black belts, and should be. 
And that one from Omaha who visited? Nope. "Appropriateness" is a word outside his vocabulary. (Actually, "Duh" was about his limit, but let us not be unkind. Well, not TOO unkind. Ahem.) 

The definition of a black belt differs greatly from art to art----and yet, when we say "dan rank," "black sash," or whatever term reflects that particular rank, we expect the practitioner to know certain things, to act certain ways, and to be an example for lower ranks. 
We don't always get it----I've seen black belts that I would not let get anywhere NEAR my students, and others that I think need remedial emotional control practice. However, that doesn't change what I _expect_: 

A person with emotional, mental, and physical control, teaching or technical ability, and above all, the capacity to be an example of a good martial artist to lower ranks. 
A black belt."


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 23, 2006)

Old days -- less litigous (sp?). You had to be willing and able to mix it up. Technical standards were....incidental, but there. Could you make it work? I think Mr. LaBounty's iron worker vs watch maker analogy applies well.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## Michael Billings (May 23, 2006)

Danjo said:
			
		

> Most of the black belts that I remember back in the 70's and before weren't necessarily in possession of a great deal of techniques, but they were tough guys. They had the attitude that they were fighters and that they were training to fight when they practiced. They strove for polished technique, but the big thing was how tough you were. Free sparring was brutal and the only protection we had was a groin cup. When I was 11 years old and just starting, the adults kicked my butt every time I sparred them. The mentality was just different then it seems to me. Those guys probably would not look as good on film as the black belts of today do, but I would rather have them at my back in a fight than most of what I have seen today. I'm glad to be back training in a place that reminds me of those days gone by and they haven't dropped the fighter training aspect of the martial arts.


But don't ya remember grinning about it and feeling proud of the bumps and bruises you had (and maybe a bit of blood - enough to scare off any "family karate" school member, that's for sure!)  Ya peeled the tape off that served as "pads", since we did not have any.  

Good and bad, good and bad.  When things don't change, ya know you are dead.

-Michael


----------



## Danjo (May 24, 2006)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> But don't ya remember grinning about it and feeling proud of the bumps and bruises you had (and maybe a bit of blood - enough to scare off any "family karate" school member, that's for sure!) Ya peeled the tape off that served as "pads", since we did not have any.
> 
> Good and bad, good and bad. When things don't change, ya know you are dead.
> 
> -Michael


 
Hell yes. I loved every minute of it.


----------



## CTKempo Todd (May 24, 2006)

Thank the lawyers...

Try doing old school stuff in a class, people (kids) walk out with bruises and 1 is bound to sue...

Really is pathetic..


----------



## MJS (May 24, 2006)

Danjo said:
			
		

> When I started in Shotokan in 1978, my instructor would not train you unless you were at least 7 years old (and you had to act mature). Then, he would test you about every three to four months if he thought you were ready, until you got to brown belt when it went to every 6 to 9 months between testing. There were no black belts under the age of 16 years old.


 
Not sure if this is the case with the instructor that you mention, but I'm sure in many cases, its an issue of money.  I get the impression from reading this, and I may be wrong, but I'm guessing that money wasn't that much of an issue here?  I mean, most schools you see today wouldn't turn away a 4yo and would most likely test on a more regular basis.  Today, it seems like turning away someone because of age and not promoting on a regular basis, would eventually start taking a toll on the pockets.



> Yep. Like I said, it's a good place to be training.


 
I'm sure you're enjoying it!:ultracool   Unfortunately, no Kaju schools around my area.

Mike


----------



## Danjo (May 24, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Not sure if this is the case with the instructor that you mention, but I'm sure in many cases, its an issue of money. I get the impression from reading this, and I may be wrong, but I'm guessing that money wasn't that much of an issue here? I mean, most schools you see today wouldn't turn away a 4yo and would most likely test on a more regular basis. Today, it seems like turning away someone because of age and not promoting on a regular basis, would eventually start taking a toll on the pockets.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The price was 13 dollars every ten weeks. The tests cost 5 dollars. We met for 1 1/2 hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays. He worked full-time and made no money off the lessons. Many years later, the price had gone up to 20 dollars every 6 weeks. It all went for rent on the building.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 24, 2006)

Danjo said:
			
		

> The price was 13 dollars every ten weeks. The tests cost 5 dollars. We met for 1 1/2 hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays. He worked full-time and made no money off the lessons. Many years later, the price had gone up to 20 dollars every 6 weeks. It all went for rent on the building.


 
Perhaps you have uncovered one big point.  In the old days, (I didn't enter the martial arts scene until 1984 at the age of 13 so I am really speculating here) perhaps the martial arts were not viewed as a viable profession, a way to earn a living.  They were done for the love of it, and fees were collected to pay any rent on the building, but everyone, including the instructor, had a day job.  Once the idea began to sink in to more an more people that you could actually run a school and earn a living from it and not have a day job, the whole picture began to change.  

It's certainly a tempting notion: to do what you love and make a living off it.  Nothing wrong with that idea.  But I think that it really changed the quality of what is taught, and how people train.  I still find myself thinking that the whole scene might be better off if everyone kept their day job and only collected enough fees to pay the teaching costs, and nobody had commercial schools with hundreds of students and no way to keep control of quality.


----------



## John Bishop (May 24, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Perhaps you have uncovered one big point.  In the old days, (I didn't enter the martial arts scene until 1984 at the age of 13 so I am really speculating here) perhaps the martial arts were not viewed as a viable profession, a way to earn a living.  They were done for the love of it, and fees were collected to pay any rent on the building, but everyone, including the instructor, had a day job.  Once the idea began to sink in to more an more people that you could actually run a school and earn a living from it and not have a day job, the whole picture began to change.
> 
> It's certainly a tempting notion: to do what you love and make a living off it.  Nothing wrong with that idea.  But I think that it really changed the quality of what is taught, and how people train.  I still find myself thinking that the whole scene might be better off if everyone kept their day job and only collected enough fees to pay the teaching costs, and nobody had commercial schools with hundreds of students and no way to keep control of quality.



There's a lot of arguments for both sides.  One thing that is true is that many of the people we consider the "great martial artists" of our time, like: Fumio Demura, Hidetaka Nishiyama, William Chow, Ed Parker, Adriano Emperado, Mike Stone, Chuck Norris, Joe Lewis, and many more got their training in college clubs, YMCA's, military base clubs, community centers, cultural centers, garages, and backyards.
Two things to consider when thinking about making a living by teaching are: the more students you have, the more money you make.  So there is a very strong temptation to lower your standards for training and promotions.  
And anytime something becomes "your job", it just dosen't seem to be as enjoyable as it was when you did it for the love of it.


----------

