Does anyone disagree with belts/ranks? Why? Here's why I like belts:

[FlamingJulian]

You guys may disagree but either way I love the idea of belts/ranks..
I think it's good because even though it may not be a reflection of your skill it is a reflection of how long you've trained which says that a high rank knows more than a low rank. Also if you switch schools they can have a better idea of exactly what you know. Also I think that with years of dedication you should achieve something more than just being able to fight in the street. It's almost like this: if I join the military I'll start off as a private, but eventually, through hard work, I'll rank up. I think it's the same principle. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with not having belts and if my school didn't have belts I wouldn't sulk over it, I'm just saying I like that it does. I know that JKD doesn't have belts and I plan to train in JKD one day. Any other opinions?

 

[Dirty Dog]

It's not really a reflection of of how long you've trained, either.
In our system, it takes 6-8 years, on average, to reach 1st Dan. There are plenty of places, however, where you can reach 1st Dan in a year or two. And places that'll just sell you a belt and certificate outright.
I believe belts only really have meaning within the system that issued them.

 

[KangTsai]

A belt only really matters as much as what it took to earn it. So it's relative. Competitive arts don't really need belts, because you can be ranked through competition; to me, 'black belt' sounds less impressive to me than 'champion.' Of course, again, it's relative.

 

[Justin Chang]

My style doesn't use belts, there are only four levels and honestly you hardly ever know who is at which level. Of course my style is a mixture of various different disciplines and many of the people who attend are a black belt at one or more other arts to begin with and many of the "students" are instructors in various other arts. So for us having a belt system wouldn't show how long you've been studying or your knowledge of skills. In our system everyone has something to offer and to teach and it is through the meeting of people from every different style out there that we can truly test our skills, improve our techniques, see what counters exist, learn what works and what doesn't.

 

[Kickboxer101]

Belts don't reflect skill either. There's plenty of black belts who are awful and it doesn't represent time either some people choose to stay at a certain belt for a very long time

 

[frank raud]

A belt only really matters as much as what it took to earn it. So it's relative. Competitive arts don't really need belts, because you can be ranked through competition.

As the belt ranking system came from judo, that's kind of an awkward statement. "Champion" may sound better to you, but it is extremely rare that someone gets a judo blackbelt strictly from competition .

 

[Red Sun]

The real question is, what happens when you show up at the dojo and refuse to grade? That's how you find out if a belt matters or not (...or your lack of grading fees...)

 

[Balrog]

You guys may disagree but either way I love the idea of belts/ranks..

They have their place. To me, it's about goal management. When you start, you set the goal of making Black Belt. The colored belts are an indicator of your progress toward that goal. As you get closer to the goal, you revise it and start thinking about 2nd Degree, 3rd Degree, etc.

 

[FlamingJulian]

They have their place. To me, it's about goal management. When you start, you set the goal of making Black Belt. The colored belts are an indicator of your progress toward that goal. As you get closer to the goal, you revise it and start thinking about 2nd Degree, 3rd Degree, etc.

Thanks for posting. I agree


-Julian

 

[Justin Chang]

I agree also, and I would say it is especially important for training children.

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk

 

[marques]

It's not really a reflection of of how long you've trained, either.
In our system, it takes 6-8 years, on average, to reach 1st Dan. There are plenty of places, however, where you can reach 1st Dan in a year or two. And places that'll just sell you a belt and certificate outright.
I believe belts only really have meaning within the system that issued them.

Agree.
I just add that in BJJ belts also have a meaning since fakes are detected in competition, which is an important part of the system as far as I know. And I believe belts also have a meaning outside the system, IF they were delivered by a respected organisation or person (so you have a better idea of the level, in case you know the organisation or person...).

In theory, the OP is correct. If I do not have other reference, I will trust more the advise of higher ranks... I will 'copy' them... Also higher rank, higher responsibilities and expectations. It makes clear for the student and instructor what they should know or teach. In practice, the relation belt-skill is not very linear...

 

[marques]

My style doesn't use belts, there are only four levels and honestly you hardly ever know who is at which level. Of course my style is a mixture of various different disciplines and many of the people who attend are a black belt at one or more other arts to begin with and many of the "students" are instructors in various other arts. So for us having a belt system wouldn't show how long you've been studying or your knowledge of skills. In our system everyone has something to offer and to teach and it is through the meeting of people from every different style out there that we can truly test our skills, improve our techniques, see what counters exist, learn what works and what doesn't.

I love the concept. What do you train and where? Thanks in advance.

 

[Justin Chang]

I love the concept. What do you train and where? Thanks in advance.

I train in KAPAP. I was taking classes here in Rochester, NY but my instructor closed the school and instead travels the world offering seminars. For now I attend seminars in New Hampshire which is now the top school in the US for the style of KAPAP I study when my work schedule allows me to.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You guys may disagree but either way I love the idea of belts/ranks..
I think it's good because even though it may not be a reflection of your skill it is a reflection of how long you've trained which says that a high rank knows more than a low rank. Also if you switch schools they can have a better idea of exactly what you know. Also I think that with years of dedication you should achieve something more than just being able to fight in the street. It's almost like this: if I join the military I'll start off as a private, but eventually, through hard work, I'll rank up. I think it's the same principle. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with not having belts and if my school didn't have belts I wouldn't sulk over it, I'm just saying I like that it does. I know that JKD doesn't have belts and I plan to train in JKD one day. Any other opinions?

I like them and hate them. When I was building the curriculum for Shojin-ryu, I seriously considered having no ranks, having white and black only, etc. In the end, I reduced the number of ranks from what I came up through (4 kyu ranks vs 6, 3 dan ranks vs 6).

Ranks and belts are certainly not necessary. For some people they are a distraction. They can also serve useful purposes:

• Creating milestone for people to work toward (many studies have shown that people are more likely to stick with any activity if they have a specific goal they are working toward).
• Creating some useful measuring stick inside the school (in mainline NGA, I can tell you what techniques a person knows reasonably well by the color of their belt).
• Creating some method of aligning between schools in an association, though this will be more variable than within the school. I used this when someone would transfer into the school from another school in the NGAA, so I just had to help them polish up the bits that were different at our school.

 

[FlamingJulian]

I like them and hate them. When I was building the curriculum for Shojin-ryu, I seriously considered having no ranks, having white and black only, etc. In the end, I reduced the number of ranks from what I came up through (4 kyu ranks vs 6, 3 dan ranks vs 6).

Ranks and belts are certainly not necessary. For some people they are a distraction. They can also serve useful purposes:

• Creating milestone for people to work toward (many studies have shown that people are more likely to stick with any activity if they have a specific goal they are working toward).
• Creating some useful measuring stick inside the school (in mainline NGA, I can tell you what techniques a person knows reasonably well by the color of their belt).
• Creating some method of aligning between schools in an association, though this will be more variable than within the school. I used this when someone would transfer into the school from another school in the NGAA, so I just had to help them polish up the bits that were different at our school.

Thanks for answering. And if I had a belt system I think it would be White, Yellow, Green, Blue, Red, Chodan, Black or something like that. Pretty cool that u teach Shojin-ryu[emoji854]


-Julian

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Agree.
I just add that in BJJ belts also have a meaning since fakes are detected in competition, which is an important part of the system as far as I know. And I believe belts also have a meaning outside the system, IF they were delivered by a respected organisation or person (so you have a better idea of the level, in case you know the organisation or person...).

In theory, the OP is correct. If I do not have other reference, I will trust more the advise of higher ranks... I will 'copy' them... Also higher rank, higher responsibilities and expectations. It makes clear for the student and instructor what they should know or teach. In practice, the relation belt-skill is not very linear...

The belts won't always have useful meaning outside the association, even if they are good, valid belts. I've known associations that considered black belt to be a very early starting point, and it wasn't unusual to achieve it in a year or two. They were very strict on their requirements, but simply had a different viewpoint of what BB meant. Their BB would be equivalent to perhaps blue belt or green belt in mainline NGA. That doesn't make them worse, they just used the color for something different, and it only has real meaning inside that association.

 

[FlamingJulian]

It's not really a reflection of of how long you've trained, either.
In our system, it takes 6-8 years, on average, to reach 1st Dan. There are plenty of places, however, where you can reach 1st Dan in a year or two. And places that'll just sell you a belt and certificate outright.
I believe belts only really have meaning within the system that issued them.

Well you have a good point. I think 6-8 years is quite some time but maybe it's just cause I'm 16. Lol. If hate to have to wait another 3-5 years for my 1st Dan which I get this coming October


-Julian

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well you have a good point. I think 6-8 years is quite some time but maybe it's just cause I'm 16. Lol. If hate to have to wait another 3-5 years for my 1st Dan which I get this coming October


-Julian

6-8 years is about right for NGA. I took more - closer to 14 years.

 

[FlamingJulian]

A belt only really matters as much as what it took to earn it. So it's relative. Competitive arts don't really need belts, because you can be ranked through competition; to me, 'black belt' sounds less impressive to me than 'champion.' Of course, again, it's relative.

Well I agree that champion is an impressive term. And personally I'm not looking for a tittle. But I'm so dedicated to martial arts and I practice so much that I feel like it's only fair that I get my black belt this coming October.


-Julian

 

[FlamingJulian]

6-8 years is about right for NGA. I took more - closer to 14 years.

Oh my goodness lol! That's a long time


-Julian