Does your school misrepresent the black belt?

[Flying Crane]

Otherwise, you are teaching for your instructor as an assistant. If I am a 2nd Dan teaching a class 500 miles from my instructor, it is still considered his class. It is not my class until I make 4th Dan.

hmmm.... i just find that a strange way to look at it. If you are 500 miles away, and he rarely or never shows up to watch you teach and critique your students and your teaching style, then I'd say that's your class. You teach the material, you run the training drills, you decide when students are ready to test, etc. Sure, you recognize that you are under your teacher, he is the authority that you turn to with questions and this relationship will probably continue after you reach 4th. But if he isn't present, it's your class regardless of how you want to look at it.

 

[Flying Crane]

There is another way of looking at this. Why SHOULDN'T the general public think a black belt is an expert? It's the general public.

Exactly, and why should we even care what the general public thinks about it? Why would we even consider it a misrepresentation simply because it is not what the general public expects? The GP is not educated on the topic. Let them think what they want. It doesn't matter. The opinion of someone uneducated on the topic doesn't count for anything.

 

[stickarts]

Exactly, and why should we even care what the general public thinks about it? Why would we even consider it a misrepresentation simply because it is not what the general public expects? The GP is not educated on the topic. Let them think what they want. It doesn't matter. The opinion of someone uneducated on the topic doesn't count for anything.

I agree. Misrepresentation is to profess one thing and actually deliver another. For myself, we advertise the benefits you may receive by training in martial arts. I see other schools doing the same. I don't see any misrepresentation there. I must add that the public does seem to get what they expect when they enroll.

 

[Rich Parsons]

In the thread What does having a blackbelt mean?many people continue to weigh in on what they believe a black belt signifies. Very interesting discussion.

What I also think is interesting is the disparity between what seems to be the consensus and what I believe is "common knowledge."

Can you define Common Knowledge? I want to make sure we are both using the terms the same way.

What I mean is, the overwhelming consensus on this board seems to be that a black belt doesn't mean more than that the student has learned the basics. Some even went so far as to suggest that a person with limited practical skill could be a black belt, if they possessed other desirable traits such as leadership or dedication.

To me a black belt is a statement of a series of techniques that a student can perform and teach. These techniques are the basics of the system.

However, ask the average person on the street, any country, regardless of demographic, the question, "What is a black belt?" What do you think the answer would be? I think that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would answer other than that a black belt is a martial arts "expert."

Well I would ask, why did Hollywood proclaim the Black Belt so awesome. I would ask why did some of the initial people with Black Belts in this country make such a big deal about it and try to use it to posture and intimidate others.

I believe there's a huge gap, and so I'm wondering where that gap came from. Has it always been there? Did Kano award black belts for other than demonstrable skill? Did the teachers of other arts as they adopted the belt system in the early 1900's? Are modern MA schools actively contributing to the misunderstanding?

I wonder. Did the perception come first or do the projection come first. As for Kano, you bring him up for giving out Belts and his initial reference.

I think some are contributing as they allow people to project their own insecurities and try to cover them up.

If you study in a school where you believe that the 1st degree/dan black belt is not an indicator of expertise, does your school actively or passively misrepresent the black belt to the public? Is your black belt deferred to by using honorifics? Is there a "black belt club"? Is a 1st dan black belt in your style able to open his/her own school? Would a member of the general public, viewing a demonstration or watching a class, get the impression that the black belt is considered other than an "expert" in the art.

Black Belt is basic instructor.
An Expert is someone else with more skill.
A Master is someone else with even greater skill.

But in any case no matter the skill set, it never meant they were untouchable. It meant they could be hit. No one is perfect.

Why do you presume that a black belt is an expert?


I could defend myself before I was trained and before I also obtained the rank of black belt. I got hit before and after.

What's the history of the "black belt" in the different styles? Was the black belt the same thing 20 years ago? 30? 50?

20 years ago there were people who thought black belts could float and dodge bullets. The perception in this case is not reality.

 

[kidswarrior]

But in any case no matter the skill set, it never meant they were untouchable. It meant they could be hit. No one is perfect.

Why do you presume that a black belt is an expert?


I could defend myself before I was trained and before I also obtained the rank of black belt. I got hit before and after.

You, too, huh?

 

[Rich Parsons]

You, too, huh?

I bet a lot more are out there as well.

 

[terryl965]

I bet a lot more are out there as well.

I been hit before and after and probaly when I am dead as well.

 

[kidswarrior]

I been hit before and after and probaly when I am dead as well.

Yeah, I've heard Post Whores Extreme lead a hard existence. But enough of my drift! Returning to topic....

 

[ralphie]

As some have said already, yes a BB is the beginning not the end. My understanding, from TKD, anyway, is that a BB is supposed to be representative of a student's mastery of basic technique and skills, and readiness to 'bring it all together' as he learns the true potential of the art.
I see a close analogy to the modern academic educational system: The colored belts are like grammar school and getting your high school diploma. The black belt, with it's multiple dan levels, is like higher learning -- putting together everything you learned in the last 12 years, and focusing your education towards an undergraduate, masters, and even a doctoral degree.

If that's the case, BB is not a certification of expertise, but rather a certification of one's ability to become an expert. And of course, 'expert' is always relative, because learning and improving never really ends. That said, I personally believe anyone with a black belt should also be able to "compete" -- whether for points in a tournament, or for life in self-defense -- against virtually any opponent. If everyone shared this thought, this would eliminate awarding black belts to kids, and possibly even lengthen the time between belts.

 

[tshadowchaser]

Exactly, and why should we even care what the general public thinks about it? Why would we even consider it a misrepresentation simply because it is not what the general public expects? The GP is not educated on the topic. Let them think what they want. It doesn't matter. The opinion of someone uneducated on the topic doesn't count for anything.

For once I disagree.
If the general public is mislead by someone calling themselves a black belt or if the person actually passed a test in some school the passes out black belts like they where candy at Halloween then when the general public wants to learn they may become totally disillusioned with the martial arts if they study with one of these folks.

Those who have a standard so low that it is a joke to the rest of the martial arts practitioners give ALL martial artists a bad name. The public at large may not know a good instructor from a bad one but if they study with a bad one and become disillusioned then they will tell everyone and bring down those who are really good instructors with their complaints about the bad one.

 

[kidswarrior]

The public at large may not know a good instructor from a bad one but if they study with a bad one and become disillusioned then they will tell everyone and bring down those who are really good instructors with their complaints about the bad one.

OK, fair point. But let me muddy the water. What about the public who studies with a good instructor and has a *bad* experience, e.g., finds out it's just a lot of hard work instead of whatever their perception was. After all, what percentage who start out actually make it to black belt, even with a good instructor? Or even make it to the one-year point? Again, you make a good point, but I'm just thinking of another What if? that might get by us.

 

[Steve]

Exactly, and why should we even care what the general public thinks about it? Why would we even consider it a misrepresentation simply because it is not what the general public expects? The GP is not educated on the topic. Let them think what they want. It doesn't matter. The opinion of someone uneducated on the topic doesn't count for anything.

This is well and good until it becomes, as I mentioned in the OP, a misrepresentation, whether intentional or not, explicit or implied.

If a school uses the general perception of a black belt as an expert to recruit and retain students, it matters very much what the GP thinks. Where styles confer honorifics such as 'master' or what have you on a black belt, defer to the black belt as a teacher, and PAY that black belt money for what I presume is "expert" instruction in a martial art, the opinions of the GP matter a great deal.

 

[Steve]

Can you define Common Knowledge? I want to make sure we are both using the terms the same way.

In this case, a shorthand to something that I think we can all agree on, that there is a gap of understanding between a general, lay definition of "Black Belt" and what seems to be a consensus understanding of the term among martial artists.

Well I would ask, why did Hollywood proclaim the Black Belt so awesome. I would ask why did some of the initial people with Black Belts in this country make such a big deal about it and try to use it to posture and intimidate others.

I think these are good questions, but the "why" of the definition wasn't really my intent. In this thread, I'm more interested, accepting that the gap of understanding exists, what's being done about it, if anything. Are schools encouraging the misunderstanding or not? I believe that in many schools, there are often conflicting signals at best, and in some cases active misinformation.

I wonder. Did the perception come first or do the projection come first. As for Kano, you bring him up for giving out Belts and his initial reference.

I did, because Kano is the source of the belt system.

I think some are contributing as they allow people to project their own insecurities and try to cover them up.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you explain it a little further for me?

Black Belt is basic instructor.
An Expert is someone else with more skill.
A Master is someone else with even greater skill.

But in any case no matter the skill set, it never meant they were untouchable. It meant they could be hit. No one is perfect.

Why do you presume that a black belt is an expert?

In my style, a black belt is an expert. They can still be caught, are not untouchable and not perfect.

I'm trying to be as transparent as I can. I think that you're confusing my use of the term "expert" with something mystical, and that's not the case."
[quote\I could defend myself before I was trained and before I also obtained the rank of black belt. I got hit before and after.

20 years ago there were people who thought black belts could float and dodge bullets. The perception in this case is not reality.[/quote]Is that how your style defined black belt? I'm not sure what your response has to do with the question you answered. Giving some amount of credit to my parents' generation for being remotely intelligent, I'm not sure I would accept that anyone believes (or believed) that black belts could float or dodge bullets.

 

[Steve]

For once I disagree.
If the general public is mislead by someone calling themselves a black belt or if the person actually passed a test in some school the passes out black belts like they where candy at Halloween then when the general public wants to learn they may become totally disillusioned with the martial arts if they study with one of these folks.

Those who have a standard so low that it is a joke to the rest of the martial arts practitioners give ALL martial artists a bad name. The public at large may not know a good instructor from a bad one but if they study with a bad one and become disillusioned then they will tell everyone and bring down those who are really good instructors with their complaints about the bad one.

OK, fair point. But let me muddy the water. What about the public who studies with a good instructor and has a *bad* experience, e.g., finds out it's just a lot of hard work instead of whatever their perception was. After all, what percentage who start out actually make it to black belt, even with a good instructor? Or even make it to the one-year point? Again, you make a good point, but I'm just thinking of another What if? that might get by us.

Interesting points. Consider this. I walk into a school in whatever style you guys are involved with, and a solid 1st Dan is the instructor, is it reasonable for me, as a consumer, to presume this person to be an "expert?" I'm not saying right or wrong. I'm asking you to be objective and remember the first time you walked into a school, unfamiliar with martial arts. If they are NOT an expert, does the school in your style make this clear to me as a consumer? Does the school hide it from me either actively or passively?

 

[Kacey]

Interesting points. Consider this. I walk into a school in whatever style you guys are involved with, and a solid 1st Dan is the instructor, is it reasonable for me, as a consumer, to presume this person to be an "expert?" I'm not saying right or wrong. I'm asking you to be objective and remember the first time you walked into a school, unfamiliar with martial arts. If they are NOT an expert, does the school in your style make this clear to me as a consumer? Does the school hide it from me either actively or passively?

An I Dan is, in my association, a qualified instructor of color belts. Does that automatically make an I Dan an expert? Not to me. I agree that the consumer, upon walking into the facility, needs to be aware of where an I Dan is in the rank order, and who else is available for more advanced students - but I don't have a problem with an I Dan being the instructor; I know some incredibly good I and II Dan instructors. But then, part of our required knowledge for yellow belt is knowing the rank system - so if they don't know when they come in, they'll learn really fast.

A question for you: what rank teaches beginners in your style? Are people who come in off the street aware of the differences in rank? If not, how do you inform them?

Something to consider, as well: when I started TKD in 1987, there was only 1 IX Dan in the ITF (Gen. Choi). My instructor was an I Dan; his instructor was a IV Dan. The highest ranked person in the USTF (which is where I started) was a VII Dan - and his senior student was a IV Dan (my instructor's instructor) - and there weren't many people his rank around. Who would you have teach, at that point? There were a very few IV Dans, some III Dans, and a gaggle of I and II Dans - so guess who taught the junior classes? The I and II Dans; the III and IV Dans taught the I and II Dans - and as people were promoted, then yes, the rank of the instructors gradually increased. But that doesn't make I Dans incompetent, either.

Yes - there are more senior ranks available now - but without those I and II Dans running classes back when I started, there wouldn't be any students coming up behind them for a long, long time, because there weren't enough instructors to go around.

 

[Steve]

A question for you: what rank teaches beginners in your style? Are people who come in off the street aware of the differences in rank? If not, how do you inform them?

All good points, Kacey. Since you ask, I'll try to explain as best I can how it works in my style. In BJJ, under very rare circumstances, a blue belt will run classes. This is usually when there are no alternatives in the area. Uncommon, but not unheard of, are schools where a purple belt will teach classes. Brown belts run schools fairly often, and of course, most schools are run/owned by black belts.

The belt system very roughly equates to most arts like this: Blue=high Brown, Purple= 1st to 2nd Dan BB, Brown/Black = 3rd to 5th Dan. This is definitely not intended to be precise (how could it be?), but I'm basing it on explanations of how each rank is described in many arts. Where a purple belt is expected to be proficient and competent at all stages of the style, etc.

A key distinction, in my opinion, is that the black belt in BJJ is, without exception, expected to be an expert. It wouldn't be stretching things too far to say the same about most of the Brown Belts, as well. So, when a student, even someone with no prior knowledge of BJJ, comes into a school, they may not know where the purple belt is in the heirarchy, but they will know he's not a black belt. This obvious visual cue would lead to a discussion about rank, the purple belt's instructor, and how things work. From the outset, there would be no misunderstanding.

So, once again, given that most styles are different from this, has it always been so in the style? If not, when and why do you think things changed and do you believe that your style appropriately represents the changing significance of each rank?

 

[Rich Parsons]

In this case, a shorthand to something that I think we can all agree on, that there is a gap of understanding between a general, lay definition of "Black Belt" and what seems to be a consensus understanding of the term among martial artists.I think these are good questions, but the "why" of the definition wasn't really my intent. In this thread, I'm more interested, accepting that the gap of understanding exists, what's being done about it, if anything. Are schools encouraging the misunderstanding or not? I believe that in many schools, there are often conflicting signals at best, and in some cases active misinformation.I did, because Kano is the source of the belt system. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you explain it a little further for me?
In my style, a black belt is an expert. They can still be caught, are not untouchable and not perfect.

I'm trying to be as transparent as I can. I think that you're confusing my use of the term "expert" with something mystical, and that's not the case."
[quote\I could defend myself before I was trained and before I also obtained the rank of black belt. I got hit before and after.

20 years ago there were people who thought black belts could float and dodge bullets. The perception in this case is not reality.

Is that how your style defined black belt? I'm not sure what your response has to do with the question you answered. Giving some amount of credit to my parents' generation for being remotely intelligent, I'm not sure I would accept that anyone believes (or believed) that black belts could float or dodge bullets.[/quote]

Did Kano start with Black Belts only? So it was nothing and then some training with no rank and then Black Belt or did hehave colored belts from day one?

I am not not making the term expert anything mystical.

As I stated it is someone with more knowldge then the average person and a master has mroe than an expert. My point though is that terms or not only what is written in dictionary but the emotions that people carry with those words that help them define what it means to them. Hence my questions. And I am being open and honest, but I wonder to your reason for asking. Are you trying to change the world or change your club or made at how other people perceive you or how other clubs do not meet your definition(s)? Because some of these could lead to being unrealistic. I mean if I applied my definitions to arts then I could look down or questions those that do not cover weapons. And those that do cover weapons in such an ill fashion manner that people could get hurt. I could get all preacher like and tell people they are wrong and they need to change. But why would I do that? What are my motives? Personally I know many who train for exercise andothers who train for the sport and a small few who actually train for self defense and even fewer who train for just the beauty of the art and to be able to learn it and then pass it on to others in the future.

 

[Laus]

The question of what a black belt is or should be is a difficult one. A lot depends on both the instructor and the art in question. At the very least, a 1st degree black belt should be a master of the basics of the style and be capabale of handling instructing a class in a manner appropriate to to school.

Beyond that, it becomes particular. Is the school grounded more in the physical or in the spiritual? Is knowing how to execute the moves enough or do you need to be committed to a philosophy? I don't believe there is a right answer, or that what is right for one of us is right for all of us. Life doesn't work like that.

What the outside world thinks of us is another matter entirely. Not a lot of people realize that dan ranks have degrees. We might know that a first degree black belt is really just the first step in a much longer journey, but they don't. Besides, as was said earlier what the public thinks isn't really relevant to what we do anyways. They aren't on the floor with us. I suppose there is a certain utility in mainting some degree of myth. At the very least it certainly makes for some humorous conversation.

But back to what a black belt should be. My thoughts on that are both a bias of the way I was trained early on and the way I developed as an individual martial artist much later. There are no absolutes. That I don't agree with the way a school awards its dan ranks doesn't make them wrong or make their black belts any less of a black belt than I am. Who am I to judge that?

Beyond a basic proficiency in the style, my personal opinion is that "black belt" is ultimately state of being. It transcends simply knowing how to perform specific movements and being able to recite the tenets of the art that I practice. Being able to take whatever life brings, seeing the my internal chatter for what it is, learning how to live in a way that is right for me, to keep moving forward...these are things I learned how to do over years of training. Does that make them essential to "being a black belt"? Maybe, maybe not. There are plenty of people in the world who can do these things who have never seen the inside of a dojo. But I would I "feel like" a black belt if I couldn't do these things? Absolutely not.

 

[Blade96]

I've no idea if my school misrepresents the bb. what i do know, however, is that we have bb's in our association who seem to think that cause they have a shodan they are the bees knees. and yes, that they know everything already.

Is that misreprenting the bb? maybe. Because it means they've just finished the kyus. thats all.

 

[James Kovacich]

The belt system very roughly equates to most arts like this: Blue=high Brown, Purple= 1st to 2nd Dan BB, Brown/Black = 3rd to 5th Dan.

I know this is a really late post for an old post but I would have to say that you're comparing your art to some really crappy styles and schools. I cross-trained in BJJ in the '90's for a few years and I definately would not compare or equate BJJ purlples to blacks from any decent schools and brown/blacks are very good but think about it. A 10 year black belt in BJJ= master, no. Also nobody with only 10 years training gets master ranking from any good instructor.

So the above description is a bit biased for BJJ, a great art, but as an art, not a "complete art" as most arts are not.