Belt fees/Promotion fees

[TSDTexan]

Yeah, it's not trained airmen or post war occupation villagers anymore, it's suburban kids. Not surprising it takes longer to pick up the curriculum.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

The problem is, that for those who are able and dedicated enough to train like the old guys at the tempo and intensity they did... the MDK won't even give them the opportunity to test.

 

[mgotangsoodo]

Sure, we probably lose out on some people because of this but I'm not losing any sleep over it. It doesn't mean we don't have anyone who isn't this dedicated either. We're setting up a new studio, every Dan has a key and we train at least five days a week, not one person is concerned about not being able to test sooner. We train together, learn from eachother and rank is just a thing we do because it's there.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[TSDTexan]

Sure, we probably lose out on some people because of this but I'm not losing any sleep over it. It doesn't mean we don't have anyone who isn't this dedicated either. We're setting up a new studio, every Dan has a key and we train at least five days a week, not one person is concerned about not being able to test sooner. We train together, learn from eachother and rank is just a thing we do because it's there.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

That's great.

But you do see my point about changing rules creating an inequality?

 

[mgotangsoodo]

That's great.

But you do see my point about changing rules creating an inequality?

I mean, I understand the point you're making but I'm not bothered by it. It also happened 40 years ago. Standardization and consistency seem like reasonable goals and minimum times seem like reasonable steps to achieve this. The tradeoff is that some really dedicated people have to wait longer or ship off to somewhere else.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[Buka]

I wear a Kataaro belt these last few years. (last belt fell apart) I like it, it's an okay belt.

Teach a few times a month in a Tang-Soo-Do school now. (Just self defense) The guy that runs it is a friend, his teacher used to be a student of mine. His school belongs to some Tang-Soo-Do association, I forget which one.

My friend, Richard Byrne, was a Tang-Soo guy on the East coast for a long time. (passed away) He had a lot of schools. I trained in them from time to time, fought in a few of their competitions, too. (only non Tang-Soo guy to do so) I don't know what organization he belonged to)

It's all good stuff, though.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I suspected as much from the color belt progression.

I am not not a fan of time in rank requirements, if they are adopted late in an organization's history.

It creates an unfair inequality between earlier students and current students.

While it is claimed that it helps eliminate McDoJang diploma mills that give a guaranteed BB in X months for only 2000.00.

Unfortunately, it doesn't really guarantee real world self defense ability or accurate/complete transmission of an art.



View attachment 20483

I think they often show up later in an organization's development, because the folks who started it trusted themselves and the standards of those they taught. The more generations away you get, the more they wonder if people are having to work hard enough for rank. So, they turn what was probably their informal guideline for themselves into a formal requirement. I don't have a problem with it (the NGAA has them), but I agree that it doesn't necessarily accomplish the goal of improving output.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The inequality I am referring to is during the 50s-60s and 70s the MDK wasn't really enforcing a previous time in lower rank requirement to promote.

Just being able to pass the arduous testing was enough. In fact back then the MDK had some Dan's double promote.

It is unfair to current students who can pass the same tests, but due to time in rank requirements, are unable to

Ah, I see the point, and it's a good one. IMO, time-in-grade requirements should be guidelines. In exceptional cases, they can be waived (unless they are the main requirement, as with the NGAA's requirements to nidan, in my view). I never needed to - never had anyone who could progress much faster than the requirements.

 

[TSDTexan]

Ah, I see the point, and it's a good one. IMO, time-in-grade requirements should be guidelines. In exceptional cases, they can be waived (unless they are the main requirement, as with the NGAA's requirements to nidan, in my view). I never needed to - never had anyone who could progress much faster than the requirements.

It's one of the reasons a few broke with the MDK, to form other TSD orgs/associationso.

It should be a guideline not a law.

 

[Martial_Kumite]

Unfortunately, it doesn't really guarantee real world self defense ability

I don't think anything can really do this, except for when it actually happens. The time requirements I can see as being "clumsy" and in need of some polishing, but I believe it can have used in helping ensuring concept development. Now, I am not saying it is a garment, because every school, style, and person is difference, but it is a little tool to help with that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't think anything can really do this, except for when it actually happens. The time requirements I can see as being "clumsy" and in need of some polishing, but I believe it can have used in helping ensuring concept development. Now, I am not saying it is a garment, because every school, style, and person is difference, but it is a little tool to help with that.

I agree that as a guideline it can be helpful. I have seen it work backwards, though, with instructors thinking that students SHOULD be ready after the given number of hours/weeks. They end up pushing people forward who haven't gotten the concepts yet.

For the most part, they should end up being irrelevant. A reasonably good instructor will know when people are ready, and that will rarely be any faster than the guidelines. New instructors can use them to see if they are pushing too fast, or perhaps moving too slowly (not even finishing the requisite curriculum within the guideline). And any instructor who routinely promotes faster than the guidelines needs some follow-up. They either have a different view of the progression (and probably don't really belong in the organization), or they have found a method for speeding up the process (and they need to share it), or they are just bad at what they do.

 

[Martial_Kumite]

My Tang Soo Do school has two test to get a Cho Dan. The first one is six hours and is just to check curriculum, spirit, and overall readiness. The second test is the real deal. Both require an invitation (wich usually requires a recommendation) from an instructor. I have seen people make it to the 6 hours, and then get put on "probation" where they have to show improvement in a certain amount of time in order to qualify for the test. It really is stressful, but it makes people who do pass both of these tests believe that they have earned it, while actually putting out well trained Cho days.

 

[TSDTexan]

I agree that as a guideline it can be helpful. I have seen it work backwards, though, with instructors thinking that students SHOULD be ready after the given number of hours/weeks. They end up pushing people forward who haven't gotten the concepts yet.

For the most part, they should end up being irrelevant. A reasonably good instructor will know when people are ready, and that will rarely be any faster than the guidelines. New instructors can use them to see if they are pushing too fast, or perhaps moving too slowly (not even finishing the requisite curriculum within the guideline). And any instructor who routinely promotes faster than the guidelines needs some follow-up. They either have a different view of the progression (and probably don't really belong in the organization), or they have found a method for speeding up the process (and they need to share it), or they are just bad at what they do.

It also has to do with hours trained
Twice or three times a week for an hour and a half (suburban mall dojo) vs 3 hour classes 6 nights a week ( Osan Air Base )

 

[JR 137]

It also has to do with hours trained
Twice or three times a week for an hour and a half (suburban mall dojo) vs 3 hour classes 6 nights a week ( Osan Air Base )

There's so many time in grade posts, I didn't know which one to quote...

I think some people focus too much on the time in grade rule that they forget the intent of it.

I think the intent is for the MAist to have sufficient experience, and not solely on whether he/she can perform the syllabus sufficiently.

There's no substitute for experience. But there are people who may have previous experience, and there are also people who attend class far more than average.

The organization I'm in does minimum classes attended rather than calendar time in grade for kyu ranks. Dan promotions are different. There are guidelines for minimum time in grade, but the main criteria is if the CI recommends the student for promotion. Then the student is tested by our founder rather than by the CI. If the student isn't up to standards, it's a reflection of the CI. Most CIs have had students fail dan tests. It happens, but if it repeatedly happens it's another story.

Time in grade should be a strict-ish guideline, not an unchangable rule. If a CI feels the student is ready earlier and is willing to put his/her reputation on the line in front of his/her teacher, have at it.

All IMO.

 

[TSDTexan]

I mean, I understand the point you're making but I'm not bothered by it. It also happened 40 years ago. Standardization and consistency seem like reasonable goals and minimum times seem like reasonable steps to achieve this. The tradeoff is that some really dedicated people have to wait longer or ship off to somewhere else.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

I wouldn't go so far as to say that I am bothered by it. But as I said: I am no fan of changing regs wrt time in rank.

You said:
Standardization and consistency seem like reasonable goals and minimum times seem like reasonable steps to achieve this.

My response:
Standardization is good.
Consistency is good.

Being inconsistent about what standards and organization employs isn't good.

Having a rank progression track for slow learners in addition to a fast learner track is ideal.

There are things like private lessons that accelerate one student ahead of his peers.

Then, you have schools that have retreats/monastic locations that class time is a 14 to 18 hour day for many months in duration.

If a student attends such a place he is going to advance far beyond a normal slow learners track.

The problem of a one size fits all students, is that gifted and talented individuals who truely learn the curriculum faster suffer emotionally and can walk away because of a ranking system that doesn't flex.

Now a really good CI will teach him beyond his rank, if the student has really demonstrated competence in the material.

But then you run into classmate disharmony as other equal ranked students see a fellow Beltrank, working on advanced material that they are not being given access too.

Keeping the gifted challenged is an instructor's silent nightmare.

 

[Mark Lynn]

@Mark Lynn, was this another mis-click, or was there something you actually didn't like in this one?

I was wondering that too.
And to which part did he dislike?

Again I apologize, as I was reading a few minutes ago on my phone, I noticed your messages, after I was done eating I came to the library to do some work BUT I thought I had better answer you all first after I booted up the lap top.

This particular quote I believed that I had removed the disagree or whatever negative symbol I accidentally posted on it right after I clicked on it. I clicked remove as I recall.

Anyway a few minutes ago while scrolling through the thread and eating my phone screen goes dark and I tap the screen to brighten it and once again on this thread another icon pops up like I was agreeing, liking, reporting, disagreeing, or something with a post. The post was fine, it was a mistake. I once again clicked remove. I didn't care what it was, I didn't want to click on those icons at the bottom of the post. SO I apologize to you two and to the person who's post I might have just rated again. Actually trying to read MT on my phone is a pain in the rear, I don't really visit here that often anymore, and it's usually only on my phone when I don't have my lap top to keep me busy. Scrolling through the pages it's hard for me to read and I'm not all of that coordinated when it comes to texting/typing or whatever on the phone. Heck if I'm accidentally posting stuff on people's posts, then....... that makes it even worse.

 

[TSDTexan]

Again I apologize, as I was reading a few minutes ago on my phone, I noticed your messages, after I was done eating I came to the library to do some work BUT I thought I had better answer you all first after I booted up the lap top.

This particular quote I believed that I had removed the disagree or whatever negative symbol I accidentally posted on it right after I clicked on it. I clicked remove as I recall.

Anyway a few minutes ago while scrolling through the thread and eating my phone screen goes dark and I tap the screen to brighten it and once again on this thread another icon pops up like I was agreeing, liking, reporting, disagreeing, or something with a post. The post was fine, it was a mistake. I once again clicked remove. I didn't care what it was, I didn't want to click on those icons at the bottom of the post. SO I apologize to you two and to the person who's post I might have just rated again. Actually trying to read MT on my phone is a pain in the rear, I don't really visit here that often anymore, and it's usually only on my phone when I don't have my lap top to keep me busy. Scrolling through the pages it's hard for me to read and I'm not all of that coordinated when it comes to texting/typing or whatever on the phone. Heck if I'm accidentally posting stuff on people's posts, then....... that makes it even worse.

My phone wrecks posts with autocorrect typos, that are auto-incorrect all the time, on this forum.

 

[Mark Lynn]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that I am bothered by it. But as I said: I am no fan of changing regs wrt time in rank.

You said:
Standardization and consistency seem like reasonable goals and minimum times seem like reasonable steps to achieve this.

My response:
Standardization is good.
Consistency is good.

Being inconsistent about what standards and organization employs isn't good.

Having a rank progression track for slow learners in addition to a fast learner track is ideal.

I agree with your statements about Standardization and Consistency is good, but I believe it should apply to the students and not just to the curriculum as a whole. What I mean is that not everyone will be a great kicker, not everyone will be able to do the flying (insert any of the more advanced jumping, aerial type) kicks. As people come into the art at different stages in their life as well as having different physical and learning challenges.

From my perspective my best students are often times the ones who have or face difficulties, these are also the students I learn the most from. Teaching two martial art systems; Americanized TKD/Karate (ATK) and Presas Arnis (Modern Arnis and Kombatan Arnis blend) (PA) my ATK system is way easier to Standardize and for the gifted students to move through. There the students who I refer to as "Rocket Ships" can easily cruise through kata, they can because they are gifted physically they can demonstrate the high kicks etc. etc. But during regular class they just kind of cruise on auto pilot until the month before the exam then they kick it into gear. Other students I refer to "Airplanes" they take off and slowly climb always moving upward with effort, till they reach the cruising altitude and then it's time for the exam.

Out of the two I'd prefer to have the "airplanes" any day. They keep climbing regardless as long as they know there is a destination to be reached (the next rank). They work harder because it takes them more effort and work to get there.

In the PA program it is harder to have consistency because everyone has different skills and abilities; some really like learning drills, some disarm better, some like to spar, some like locks and take downs. So I have to look at their overall skill and understanding. How they react as they are being fed different techniques, can they problem solve. With so many different variations of locks, blocks, strikes, footwork, etc. etc. it's hard to sit back and say well you need to do this disarm to demonstrate that you are this rank, what happens if he doesn't show that one but instead over the course of his test demonstrated 10 others?

In regards to having two tracks I think the ideal way is just to have some flexibility built in the system. For instance I had a young 7 yr old who for his next rank he needed to learn two forms, he took it upon himself to watch the higher ranked students whom he was in class with and learned two belts a head, then he comes to me and says "is this right?" he actually had the lower form backwards, and the highest form he had 90% (we are talking the major moves, not fine tuning the form) correct. Well I straighten out both forms and at test time to award his good effort, I promoted him two ranks (not three, but two). I used him as the example that other students should follow as in putting forth extra effort and so on.

In my PA class I have more flexibility in that if a student is in a class and I'm teaching a more senior drill or skill than generally the lower ranked student gets to learn it along side of the more senior students, so they are always being challenged. Come test time it is based more on their overall skill than having learned this drill over that one or whatever.

There are things like private lessons that accelerate one student ahead of his peers.

Then, you have schools that have retreats/monastic locations that class time is a 14 to 18 hour day for many months in duration.

If a student attends such a place he is going to advance far beyond a normal slow learners track.

I agree on both accounts, although I've never run into a student who came from one of those places. However if someone came from one then there should be a way to have them get up to speed in the art that is being taught.

The problem of a one size fits all students, is that gifted and talented individuals who truely learn the curriculum faster suffer emotionally and can walk away because of a ranking system that doesn't flex.

Now a really good CI will teach him beyond his rank, if the student has really demonstrated competence in the material.

I don't think they suffer emotionally, they get bored. So the goal is give them something they can hold onto to keep their interest. One of the good things about being more independent is that I'm free to do what I want in regards to my curriculum. So I teach two main arts the ATK and PA and then also teach Kobudo as a bridge art. So if the student is getting bored then they can switch to another art and see if that art fits them better.

On top of this I also bring over concepts from the PA to the ATK system interchanging drills, especially empty hand drills, etc. etc. For instance I have two young students (one of them is the student who learned the forms on his own) and they both have expressed learning weapons; I don't take students under 10 (usually) in the PA program but I started teaching them some basic double stick flow drills and then the stick form or two. Now if they ever choose to cross over into the other system they will be ahead, as it is the drills and forms they are learning are keeping them interested in class.

But then you run into classmate disharmony as other equal ranked students see a fellow Beltrank, working on advanced material that they are not being given access too.

Keeping the gifted challenged is an instructor's silent nightmare.

This is so true but...... it can be handled. Normally I don't have the students working in advanced material in the same class as their classmates. For instance the students I referenced above train in a separate class after the others on one day of the week, Saturday. My Kobudo class is reserved for advanced belts (under black), there if my students show up to learn weapons (They are both to young for the Kobudo class) I work with them on the side while the other instructors work with the other students. So in their normal class during the weeknights they would not be working on disarms off to the side etc. etc. However when getting ready for a tournament then they get some envious looks from the other kids when they demonstrate their weapons forms and the others are only doing empty hand forms.

But that is also the time that I let everyone know they are working extra outside of their classes and are keeping up with their "test" material in class. That then generally settles everyone down.

My silent nightmare is dealing with parents who think their child should be testing when I don't think they are ready.

 

[Mark Lynn]

I am not not a fan of time in rank requirements, if they are adopted late in an organization's history.

It creates an unfair inequality between earlier students and current students.

Unfortunately, it doesn't really guarantee real world self defense ability or accurate/complete transmission of an art.

I am not a fan of time in rank requirements either, but not because they are adopted late in an organizations history. When MDK first started out I'm sure there was plenty of things to work out, and over time those things changed as the art changed and grew. It evolves, and I believe that any organization or martial art has the right to modify and change as it grows. If I don't like it so be it.

I'm not a fan of time in rank if it is so structured that it is not flexible to benefit the student while still helping the art that it was meant to serve. But that has nothing to do with when it was implemented because it is the general overall principle of inflexibility or a rule that ultimately holds someone back that I object to.

I disagree that it creates inequality with anyone. The art over time I'm sure has changed. Take other styles of TKD, I know the ITF forms were created during the mid 60's, as teachers started adapting those forms did anyone have the right to say "No stop, that creates in equality, I didn't have to earn that form for this rank so the students going forward should have to either" Chungi wasn't the first form created in the ITF, I think if I remember it was a mid brown belt form, so I'm using that as an example. If at the beginning they didn't feel they needed time in rank, and now they do so be it. If you don't like it no problem but it should be because of the principle behind it and not because of when it was introduced.

As to time in rank creating real world self defense or correct transmission of the art. Well it was never designed to; it was implemented probably for quality control, and as a business practice.

The inequality I am referring to is during the 50s-60s and 70s the MDK wasn't really enforcing a previous time in lower rank requirement to promote.

Just being able to pass the arduous testing was enough. In fact back then the MDK had some Dan's double promote.

It is unfair to current students who can pass the same tests, but due to time in rank requirements, are unable to

OK I get that, but times change, standards change as the art changes. For instance the art was being taught in the early 60's at military bases not shopping malls, it was taught to adults not kids, they trained 5-6 hours a day (since they didn't do anything else in their spare time on the base) (I'm lucky if my students are training 5-6 hours a week ), and the service men were training for combat their life could have depended on their empty hand skills, it's different now.

(I'm sitting in a library and I just asked if they had his book, and they don't so going off of memory)
Speaking of tests have you read of Chuck Norris's account of his first test? As I remember reading about it, the general idea was it was held in the winter with very little heat (if any) so it was very cold. They sat in sezia (kneeling or with legs crossed) for a long time as everyone was testing. (with no warm up) He got up cold to do his form with another student and blanked out (he forgot) and he was dismissed. Now I don't remember if prior to that he had to do some really hard exam but it seemed pretty basic from what I recall in his book. I'm not saying he wasn't tough, he wasn't good or any of that. My point is should tests done today be done just like then?

Speaking as an instructor I have had students blank out on exams before, I have blanked out on exams and forgot my kata. While I'm not proud that I did that it happens, I am proud that neither I nor my instructors have failed me for blanking out in a kata.

And back then it wasn't uncommon for a soldier/airman/marine to rotate out at 18 months with a shodan rank.

But there are other reasons for this and it isn't as simple as it seems.

• They (the Korean masters) wanted to spread the art, what better way than to have young service men spread the art for them.
• On base there wasn't a lot for soldiers to do so many styles would have instructors teach on the bases or they located schools just out side of the bases to teach and earn $$.
• The styles were just developing, it was pretty basic, as tournaments became more pronounced techniques became more sophisticated more advanced and they got taught to lower ranks. So the MDK of the 50's-60's might not have been the MDK of the 70-80's. Again look to Chuck Norris as a competitor he changed his fighting style and learned from others therefore his base or primary art changed.
• Joe Lewis got his black belt in 9 months from an Okinawan Karate instructor so your point about not spending years earning a black belt is valid and I don't disagree with it. But the Okinawans (and I'm sure the Koreans and Japanese) looked at it that these guys would come back and learn more from the instructors. They would promote them in hopes to spread the art, and then often times the GIs wouldn't return. So where the black belts the same? They certainly didn't think so. (I've read interviews with Japanese and Okinawan instructors who have said this.)

When "Chuck" Norris failed his first shodan test in front of HWANG Kee, and JC Shin and others on the exam board in Seoul, he had about a month to correct what failed him and retested and passed before rotation back to the US.

Less than 18 months to shodan test back then...

Actually I think it was about a month to hear why he failed and then he tested a couple of months later. However if he knew he failed because of blanking out on a form this isn't as big of a deal as you kind of make it out to be. I mean I have kids who blank out and then do the form fine next week.

The training methods used in Korea, didn't work out in the US. Ask Robert Cheezicwhat happened in his first couple schools...

100 dropout rate. The common complain was the training was too hard.

He like many others had to dial it back.

I don't doubt it, times have changed. I mean my instructor's instructor use to hit his students with a shinai, should we do that to today's students? Did it really make the student better?

The problem is, that for those who are able and dedicated enough to train like the old guys at the tempo and intensity they did... the MDK won't even give them the opportunity to test.

OK I come back to agreeing with you with how I feel it is wrong to be inflexible but..... would this make me stop training in TSD or MDK if that is what goes on? Not really if I really enjoyed the art. To be honest, I haven't let belt rank or lack of belt rank, nor how long it took to get belt rank stop me yet from training in the arts.

Library is closing.

 

[TSDTexan]

My silent nightmare is dealing with parents who think their child should be testing when I don't think they are ready.

This...
This is why I never
A: wanted a really big school
B: accepted minors as students (among a few other reasons)

 

[PhotonGuy]

Keeping the gifted challenged is an instructor's silent nightmare.

It can be done. Everybody has weaknesses, including the gifted.