A Reason Why Rank Might Be Important

[Gerry Seymour]

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

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

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

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

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

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

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

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

 

[Steve]

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

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

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

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

 

[JR 137]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dvcochran]

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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

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

The language changes.

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

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

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

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

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

Yeah. Snipe on.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

The language changes.

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

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

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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

Without having to have spent 20 years bashing people.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

Without having to have spent 20 years bashing people.

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

 

[JR 137]

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

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

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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

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

And apparently he had been walking around for ten minutes.

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

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

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

And apparently he had been walking around for ten minutes.

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

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

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

 

[JR 137]

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

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

And apparently he had been walking around for ten minutes.

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

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

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

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

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


Yeah. Snipe on.

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