A school with no stated style and no rank belts: would you train there?

[Daniel Sullivan]

A hypothetical question.

Over in the hapkido section, I posted this thread a couple of months back:

A school without rank belts; not without belts; the dobok or gi, depending upon the style of uniform your school uses, is designed to be worn with a belt of some kind.

I posted this here instead of in the TKD section, though it certainly could apply there as well; I thought that I would give the TKD section a breather for a bit before starting a discussion there about rank and belts.

All of the discussion about black belts, poom belts, and such over in the TKD section got me thinking: what if a school simply had one belt for everyone for the sole purpose of keeping the dobok in place?

Or perhaps a sash? Suppose that the color was based on something that had some meaning to the school? Or was the color of the student's birth stone? Or suppose students wore belts based on what color they liked, and nothing more? But regardless, in this scenario, the belt's color has nothing to do with the student's rank.

The question that came to mind from that is this:

If a hapkido school (or any other school for that matter) has only one belt color for dobok gathering only and simply taught class, handing out certificates to students when they passed their tests, assuming that the training was decent and the location was within your means, would you train there?

Remember, in this scenario, you will never get a black belt, though if you pass your tests and meet all of the requirements, you will receive a dan certificate.

An alternative scenario:
Students are white belt until first dan and then they are black belt. That means two to four years in a white belt. Or another single color; it does not matter, the point being that there will be no color change during the keub/kyu ranks.

In this scenario, you will not have any visible indicator of your keub rank and will not have a change in belt color until you earn your first dan. Would you still train there?

Take that premise and add to it that the school has no stated style. Just martial arts. No HKD, TKD, JKD, KFM, flavor of the week-do, and no cultural background or language commands.

No sport element either; students may compete in whatever open tournaments suit their fancy, but the school does not teach to a specific rule set. Let us assume that the school has realistic sparring and just enough rules to insure the safety of the students.

Would you train there or at least check it out?

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

I myself would. We have something similar informally where a set of MA friends get together once a month or so. We take turns leading class and we do not use any non-English terms nor do we practice style-specific drills like kata, etc. It usually boils down to a good warmup and basics practice. Then we rotate partners and practice things like blocking, avoiding, and various takedowns and counters. We end the night with some light sparring and some matwork for the guys that want to participate.

Commercially, I just don't think the idea works. For starters, you'd be weeding out all the students (many of whom are children) who train for other reasons even if the answer given is 'self-defense'.

 

[Joab]

I'd check it out.

 

[Shuto]

I'd LOVE the idea of a two belt school or even one belt. Some of the people I train with get too wrapped up in the quest for new belts for my taste. It becomes more about the belt than it does the knowledge and skill. Of course, they acquire the knowledge and skill along the way but that doesn't appear to be their purpose or motivation.

I'm not sure about the style aspect though. While I appreciate the basic concept of training to fight I also enjoy some of the non-martial aspects that sometimes accompany the traditional arts, at least they do where I train. For example, I thought bowing upon entering the dojo was kind of silly when I first started but I like it now.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I train Traditional Chinese Martial Arts and we don't need no stinking belts

A hypothetical question.

Over in the hapkido section, I posted this thread a couple of months back:

Take that premise and add to it that the school has no stated style. Just martial arts. No HKD, TKD, JKD, KFM, flavor of the week-do, and no cultural background or language commands.

No sport element either; students may compete in whatever open tournaments suit their fancy, but the school does not teach to a specific rule set. Let us assume that the school has realistic sparring and just enough rules to insure the safety of the students.

Would you train there or at least check it out?

Daniel

I use to belong to a group (not a school) of martial artists from various styles that would get together on Saturday afternoons and beat the hell out of each other (no drills just sparing) and it was mighty cool and you learned a lot.

As to the scenario in question I would likely check it out, if for no other reason than to see just what the heck they were doing, could be good, and could be bad.

 

[dbell]

I would check it out, but would be worried about safety and structure if it was a commercial venue.

I have participated in training with groups with no belt, no language issues (using Asian language for movements/etc), and no "style" predominate, and have learned many good things in these events. But they were not a commercial school, more of several people from different systems training together...

 

[Blindside]

I'd train at a school like that if the training atmosphere was good and the folks working there seemed knowledgable. But that is me now as a long-term practitioner, but I think it would be difficult for a beginner. Training structure is important, whatever that structure is. Repitition is important to skill building early, and this format doesn't really lend itself to that. If you practice a combo or even simply a new kick/punch/whatever and don't see it again for several weeks, you won't be able to correct problems and will ingrain poor basics.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Just to clarify the scenario a bit.

Hypothetical school would have some kind of structured training consisting of whatever hypothetical owner was skilled in and qualified to teach. Hypothetical owner may well have his Shotokan, Taijutsu, and Judo credentials (and or any other credentials) proudly displayed. He or she may even inform students along the way that such and such technique came from such and such art.

But this individual has taken what he or she has learned, put it together into a cohesive curriculum with clear progression from one set of techniques to the next. He or she simply does not call it by any name other than "Martial arts."

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

At the risk of being controversial, would be analogous to the school owner teaching his own "style" yet he's trying to avoid all the negative baggage that comes along with that?

Sounds good to me. There's a guy not too far away from my home who teaches in the community rec center. He teaches Tang Soo Do with a little bit of BJJ added in. He calls it Tang Soo Do with some BJJ added in. Honest and humble. I like it.

 

[tshadowchaser]

Many many years ago I belonged to a group made up of 7 people who all had training in different arts. We met once a week and someone was the instructor for the day ( or maybe I should say the beginning of class). The instructor would lets work on this technique today and show us the technique. After we all had practiced it for a while and the principle was known to all of us we would all take turns varying it or refining it to see what it also might do. There was NO one up manship involved as we all had enough rank and intelligence to respect each others knowledge. I must say that I do miss those gentlemen that where in the group. I feel we all learned much about all the other styles and all the workouts where fun if not sometimes brutal.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

At the risk of being controversial, would be analogous to the school owner teaching his own "style" yet he's trying to avoid all the negative baggage that comes along with that?

Could be that, though I was thinking more long the lines of this...

Sounds good to me. There's a guy not too far away from my home who teaches in the community rec center. He teaches Tang Soo Do with a little bit of BJJ added in. He calls it Tang Soo Do with some BJJ added in. Honest and humble. I like it.

...but trying to avoid any baggage that goes along with the name of any specific TMA (they all have baggage in someone's opinion) or trying to avoid the politics that may go with associating themselves with a specific style.

Or it could simply be as simple as the instructor's taekwondo curriculum having been adjusted and modified so much over a period of time that he or she was no longer comfortable calling it taekwondo anymore.

Kind of like how Michael Keaton's Batmobile in the 1989 movie began life as a 1989 Caprice, but by the time they were done with it, there was not enough left of the original car to even call it a Chrevrolet.

Daniel

 

[tshadowchaser]

I will have to say that I would check out another group with no style but the instructor(s) would have to be liget and know their stuff.
I would not join one if the instructor was just making things up or taking stuff off the internet and passing it along as his personal knowledge

 

[harlan]

No rank, okay. No history, no way.

I mean, it's a rather odd question...to first state that the art basically has no stated style, and yet qualify it that the teacher is qualified to teach in an art he isn't passing on. That...smells.

Just to clarify the scenario a bit.

Hypothetical school would have some kind of structured training consisting of whatever hypothetical owner was skilled in and qualified to teach. Hypothetical owner may well have his Shotokan, Taijutsu, and Judo credentials (and or any other credentials) proudly displayed. He or she may even inform students along the way that such and such technique came from such and such art.

But this individual has taken what he or she has learned, put it together into a cohesive curriculum with clear progression from one set of techniques to the next. He or she simply does not call it by any name other than "Martial arts."

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

No rank, okay. No history, no way.

No history in terms of instructor or art? Which do you refer to?

I mean, it's a rather odd question...to first state that the art basically has no stated style, and yet qualify it that the teacher is qualified to teach in an art he isn't passing on. That...smells.

Why?

Suppose the guy or gal checks out as being in good standing with the organizations that they hold rank in, has not inflated his rank, and is up front about his or her back ground. Would it still smell?

Just to clarify, I am not challenging your answer; it is an open ended topic so I am glad for both positive and negative perspectives.

Daniel

 

[Omar B]

I remember the Hapkido thread similar to this one well. I would train at a school that uses some sort of melange of styles, though it would have to be really structured. Not some school where it's whatever caprice the instructor is on that day is what you work on. Does not lead to a balanced system. Just like if I were an instructor there it would end up being mostly kicking, sabaki and blocks which I know would not work for anyone, but for myself works fine.

Also, I would be weary of what styles are being thrown in the blender there. It's a small quirk of mine but really I have no desire to learn CMA, they never appealed to me in real life, on film or anything like that. It's not a knock against CMA, it's proponents or how it works mechanically. It's just that I'm so ingrained with JMA a KMA at this point, even the kata that has Chinese influences I kinda dislike.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Just to clarify my purpose in posting the topic:

The topic is an intellectual exercise: some people get so caught up with rank, lineage, and style, while others shun formal rank and traditional styles. Personally, I am neutral on the subject.

In this scenario, we have a decent instructor who is making no outlandish claims of either their background or their material. Their asking price is acceptable to you. The only thing out of the ordinary is that they are not confining themselves to a specific style and either have no belt system at all or just a white belt until such time as the person reaches black (for this scenario, we will assume roughly three to five years).

Primarily, I thought it would be a good conversation piece.

As for how I would answer the question:

As a student, I am only interested in a good instructor. Assuming that the guy or gal was not a flake and that any credentials that they claimed checked out, if I liked what was being offered after watching the class (and assuming that they were not asking some stupid price), I would simply show up and train.

As a school owner, I would personally want to either associate with a specific style or state which styles I am teaching if my shingle just stated martial arts. If I were teaching an art that traditionally has a ranking system and accompanying colored belts, I would use belts to some degree, primarily because students would be expecting belts in certain martial arts. Though I do believe that I would limit the number of belts from white to black to eight or less (including white and black).

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I remember the Hapkido thread similar to this one well. I would train at a school that uses some sort of melange of styles, though it would have to be really structured. Not some school where it's whatever caprice the instructor is on that day is what you work on. Does not lead to a balanced system. Just like if I were an instructor there it would end up being mostly kicking, sabaki and blocks which I know would not work for anyone, but for myself works fine.

For the sake of this discussion, the school has a structured curriculum and is reasonably balanced. The instructor in this instance is using one particular style as the base with the other elements integrated into it, can tell the students where he or she learned the techniques (karate, kenpo, hapkido, etc.) and what was done to integrate them into the base system so that they will work appropriately in the way that students are being taught to move.

Daniel

 

[Omar B]

Sure, that would work, I wouldnt have a problem with that. I'm more concerned with a balanced system.

 

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

This harkens back to an old Punisher comic I have somewhere.

In it he describes how to keep his Hand to hand sharpe he belonged to a small private group that trained hand to hand without any particular allegence to a style.

 

[Nolerama]

I'd train at a place like that. I already do.

Lots of folks are interested in labeling themselves with a style, and have a source of pride (and rightly so!) in claiming a lineage. They like to rank as a gauge for progress to reiterate their involvement/dedication to a person/style/system/school/etc.

That's great for some, but not for me. I don't like bowing to a person who calls himself "master" or having to take a test to "rank" based on my knowledge of a different language, or learn a history that has no basis on what I came to class to do: train.

I don't ever want to go to class wondering what my teacher thinks of me. That kind of co dependency is unhealthy for me. Instead, I want my instructor to know my abilities, and find some way to train to my strengths, while reducing my weaknesses.

I think some schools place a higher priority on the bells and whistles over the car itself.

As much as I respect those who want to train in systems like that, and place a higher value in that sort of thing; it's certainly not my scene.

Am I saying that training w/o someone experienced is the way to go? Not at all. Everyone in my gym brings their own MA background, finds other learning resources (private instruction... OMG! Video tutorial... and seminar) and brings that back to the gym so your learning process isn't just individualized, but more involved than, say, someone telling you that you're better and handing you a belt for the sake of selling belts.