How much is new on each belt test?

[Earl Weiss]

I've been training BJJ, and there have been a few times I've been drilling with a black belt who is learning the move right alongside me. These are BJJ black belts with 10-15 years of experience. This has adjusted my thinking from "Black belt must have comprehensive knowledge of curriculum", to "Anything a black belt missed learning as a color belt, they can learn as a black belt."

I think I saw an article recently by a Black Belt entitled something like "Stuff I wish I learned as a color Belt."

 

[skribs]

I think I saw an article recently by a Black Belt entitled something like "Stuff I wish I learned as a color Belt."

It's always easier to know how to learn things when you already know the things.

There's a big debate in the BJJ community right now about drilling vs. eco. Drilling is what we're familiar with in one-steps. The coach demonstrates a technique, the class drills it for 5-10 minutes. Then the coach adds to the sequence or shows a variation, class drills for 5-10 minutes. Then a third. Usually you get 10 minutes of warmup 20-30 minutes of drilling, and then 20-30 minutes of rolling (sparring).

Eco is a constraints-led approach where the coach will start in a specific position and situation and give each player a clear and specific goal to achieve. For example, "Start in the turtle position, bottom player your job is to stand up."

A lot of BJJ colored belts will go from one school to another and wonder why they haven't been training like that the whole time. Drillers will go to an eco school and it's so much easier for them to learn the concepts than when they were focused on individual techniques. Eco guys will go to a drilling school and wonder why their coach couldn't just show them a technique from the start, because there are some details that 99% of folks won't come to on their own.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

In our association, Gup ranks have specific form requirements, overall proficiency standards, and specific breaking techniques for each rank as well as one step and free sparring components to the test. There are no preset one steps after white belt, it is more a demonstration of your understanding and proficiency.

Black belt examinations involve a great deal more, depending on the rank, both physically and mentally. For example being stopped in the middle of a form by the examiner and asked to go backwards back to the beginning of the form. Doing forms at various angle orientation in the dojang, etc. All forms are performed and graded. Self defense against a weapon (typically a knife). multi-station breaking, including pavers. multiple sparring matches. After you're physically exhausted, you present and defend you thesis (topic and length differs depending on rank).

This has always been our association's testing format, and prior to KJN promoting master ranks from within the association, the examining board was comprised of regional Korean masters, including IJ Kim, KW Ahn, JP Choi, and CW Kim. Dr. Chong Woong Kim was my examiner for both my 1st and 2nd dan examination.

 

[skribs]

I'm intrigued. I have a ton of questions because I'd like to know more.

In our association, Gup ranks have specific form requirements, overall proficiency standards,

Are the proficiency standards per-belt or more generally defined? How are they defined?

and specific breaking techniques for each rank as well as one step and free sparring components to the test. There are no preset one steps after white belt, it is more a demonstration of your understanding and proficiency.

What are the one-steps that are learned at white belt? What are expectations of them at higher belts?

For example being stopped in the middle of a form by the examiner and asked to go backwards back to the beginning of the form.

I'm going to have to try this out on myself. I'm not sure how well I'd do with it, and I'm very good at forms.

Doing forms at various angle orientation in the dojang, etc.

I've never had an issue with this. In fact, some of my favorites are to start back-to-back with 4 people with Koryo, and we end all with our hands making a circle with the arc strikes.

Lots of others have issues, and will end up starting at different angles and all finishing facing the same way. I never understood why people have such issue with starting at a different angle.

After you're physically exhausted, you present and defend you thesis (topic and length differs depending on rank).

Can you tell me more about the thesis?

EDIT: Apparently Shift+Enter posts right away, which is why I posted this without all my questions.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Are the proficiency standards per-belt or more generally defined? How are they defined?

Students are allowed 2 mistakes in moves. They are allowed 3 mistakes of fundamentals. (stance, wrapping, hand position, foot position, etc.), obviously the standard slides as the student progresses through rank. For instance, if a white belt is testing, I wouldn't fail the student if they left out a kihap and punched to the up when they should have punched to the middle. However, if more mistakes are made, the student would retest in 3 months (at no fee to retest). If their cat stance is grossly of balance of the 70%-30% weight distribution, and their hidden fist position is sloppy, but the rest of their techniques are acceptable, then it is a passing grade. If 3 or more fundamental issues occur during forms examination, the student will be retested in 3 months. TBH, the responsibility is on the individual school heads to make certain the student is ready to test before they are ever put on the floor for the examination to begin with.

What are the one-steps that are learned at white belt? What are expectations of them at higher belts?

It is my understanding that they are the original 5 white belt one steps ( I originally learned them as 3 step sparring when I was a white belt, but it was reduced to one step sparring in the 1990's for ease of learning). #1: side step parry and punch, followed by a reverse punch. #2 side step parry and punch, followed by a knife hand strike to the jaw. #3 front kick, followed by punch and guard. #4 Side kick followed by punch and guard. #5, side step to the outside, side kick, elbow, spin elbow, back fist to the face, knife hand to the groin. There is no expectation at higher ranks other than maintaining proficiency of the basic 5. At all other ranks, you are expected to have 5 hand defenses, 5 foot defenses, and 5 combination hand and foot defenses. At black belt you are also expected to have an additional 5 take down defenses.

I'm going to have to try this out on myself. I'm not sure how well I'd do with it, and I'm very good at forms.

I've never had an issue with this. In fact, some of my favorites are to start back-to-back with 4 people with Koryo, and we end all with our hands making a circle with the arc strikes.

Lots of others have issues, and will end up starting at different angles and all finishing facing the same way. I never understood why people have such issue with starting at a different angle.

In anxiety of the moment it is an easy way to test the calmness of the mind.

Can you tell me more about the thesis?

1st dan is basically a 3 page paper on 3 topics #1, who are you and why did you join? #2 what have you learned mentally and physically from TKD training over the past few years? #3 what are your responsibilities going to be if you pass the examination, how are things going to be different, how are things going to be the same? what are your new goals?

After 1st dan, the thesis topic is a bit more abstract. Pick a topic about tkd, expound upon it. 2nd and 3rd dan tend to be more about technical proficiency, while the higher rank you get, the more about teaching and philosophy the thesis becomes.

The examining board often tries to intentionally twist your own words against you, to see if you can articulate your true intent after being physically exhausted.

EDIT: Apparently Shift+Enter posts right away, which is why I posted this without all my questions.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

For reference, here is the original testing criteria for the Moo Duk Kwan. This specific page is taken from Dan Segarra's book.

Our testing sheet has everything in table 1 and table 2, but I've never witnessed anyone getting double promoted or demoted at a test. Likely, this is due to the fact that, if the instructor is doing their job, the students will test when they are prepared to test.

 

[skribs]

Students are allowed 2 mistakes in moves. They are allowed 3 mistakes of fundamentals. (stance, wrapping, hand position, foot position, etc.), obviously the standard slides as the student progresses through rank. For instance, if a white belt is testing, I wouldn't fail the student if they left out a kihap and punched to the up when they should have punched to the middle. However, if more mistakes are made, the student would retest in 3 months (at no fee to retest). If their cat stance is grossly of balance of the 70%-30% weight distribution, and their hidden fist position is sloppy, but the rest of their techniques are acceptable, then it is a passing grade. If 3 or more fundamental issues occur during forms examination, the student will be retested in 3 months. TBH, the responsibility is on the individual school heads to make certain the student is ready to test before they are ever put on the floor for the examination to begin with.

I know some schools have a specific number of points for each form based on the same types of factors you're talking about, similar to a competition score. So you might get a certain score for each form, and need a certain total on each test.

I'm planning something that involves less grading papers. I've noticed sometimes larger tests end up with the judges spending more time looking down at the papers than actually watching the students. It can sometimes be difficult to assess everyone. My plan is to make it simple: if you break your board, you get your belt. It's more about whether or not you're dismissed before the board break than anything else.

And I plan to make sure that the strength to break the board is not the issue, the only reason someone should fail to break their board is if they simply cannot hit it in the right spot or cannot follow through.

1st dan is basically a 3 page paper on 3 topics #1, who are you and why did you join? #2 what have you learned mentally and physically from TKD training over the past few years? #3 what are your responsibilities going to be if you pass the examination, how are things going to be different, how are things going to be the same? what are your new goals?

After 1st dan, the thesis topic is a bit more abstract. Pick a topic about tkd, expound upon it. 2nd and 3rd dan tend to be more about technical proficiency, while the higher rank you get, the more about teaching and philosophy the thesis becomes.

The examining board often tries to intentionally twist your own words against you, to see if you can articulate your true intent after being physically exhausted.

My old school would have 2 essays per degree. One was usually some sort of academic paper, such as History of TKD or How To Improve Techniques, the other was a more personal story. The personal one would usually be read as a sort of commencement speech. I think I'll do something similar.

For reference, here is the original testing criteria for the Moo Duk Kwan. This specific page is taken from Dan Segarra's book.

Interesting. One thing I've seen in a lot of martial arts is that you should never lose rank. You've earned that rank, it's yours. But you better shape up if you want to improve rank.

This was also in regards to things like demoting kids if they stop trying and lose their attitude.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

There's a big debate in the BJJ community right now about drilling vs. eco. Drilling is what we're familiar with in one-steps. The coach demonstrates a technique, the class drills it for 5-10 minutes. Then the coach adds to the sequence or shows a variation, class drills for 5-10 minutes. Then a third. Usually you get 10 minutes of warmup 20-30 minutes of drilling, and then 20-30 minutes of rolling (sparring).

Eco is a constraints-led approach where the coach will start in a specific position and situation and give each player a clear and specific goal to achieve. For example, "Start in the turtle position, bottom player your job is to stand up."

A lot of BJJ colored belts will go from one school to another and wonder why they haven't been training like that the whole time. Drillers will go to an eco school and it's so much easier for them to learn the concepts than when they were focused on individual techniques. Eco guys will go to a drilling school and wonder why their coach couldn't just show them a technique from the start, because there are some details that 99% of folks won't come to on their own.

Personally, I think that the ecological and the drilling approaches work better in tandem then they do separately.

The problem with just drilling a technique and then sparring is that often the students won't end up in a position to use whatever technique they were just drilling in that class. In fact, the opportunity to use that technique might not come up in sparring for weeks, by which time the students will have forgotten most of the details.

The problem with the pure ecological approach is that only the most naturally talented students will figure out crucial details quickly. You're basically putting them in the position of having to re-invent the art from scratch based on the situations you put them into. Some people will probably never make much progress in any reasonable time.

But combined, the two methods work well. Some approaches I've tried:

1. Teach 1-3 techniques relevant to a particular position or situation, then limit the sparring rules to a context which allows them to use that technique. For example, teach a mount escape, then all sparring starts with one partner mounted and the other trying to escape. Teach a single leg finish, then sparring starts with one student having already picked up their partner's leg before going live with one partner trying to finish the takedown and the other trying to escape or reverse the takedown.
2. Start with an ecological approach challenge (ex. - partner on bottom of guard trying to stand up, partner on top trying to hold them down). Watch for a couple of rounds to see what the most common problems are. Give a tip or two (anything from a complete technique to a simple tactical idea) to help address those problems. Watch a couple more rounds, to see how the new information changes the results. Repeat.
3. Show a technique, but don't get into every detail. Give the students some rounds under constrained rules that give them the opportunity to use the technique. Watch to see which missing details are causing the most difficulty in making the move work. Take a break to show those details or cover common "what-ifs" that students might encounter while sparring. Give them more rounds with the new information. Repeat.

 

[skribs]

Personally, I think that the ecological and the drilling approaches work better in tandem then they do separately.

The problem with just drilling a technique and then sparring is that often the students won't end up in a position to use whatever technique they were just drilling in that class. In fact, the opportunity to use that technique might not come up in sparring for weeks, by which time the students will have forgotten most of the details.

The problem with the pure ecological approach is that only the most naturally talented students will figure out crucial details quickly. You're basically putting them in the position of having to re-invent the art from scratch based on the situations you put them into. Some people will probably never make much progress in any reasonable time.

But combined, the two methods work well. Some approaches I've tried:

1. Teach 1-3 techniques relevant to a particular position or situation, then limit the sparring rules to a context which allows them to use that technique. For example, teach a mount escape, then all sparring starts with one partner mounted and the other trying to escape. Teach a single leg finish, then sparring starts with one student having already picked up their partner's leg before going live with one partner trying to finish the takedown and the other trying to escape or reverse the takedown.
2. Start with an ecological approach challenge (ex. - partner on bottom of guard trying to stand up, partner on top trying to hold them down). Watch for a couple of rounds to see what the most common problems are. Give a tip or two (anything from a complete technique to a simple tactical idea) to help address those problems. Watch a couple more rounds, to see how the new information changes the results. Repeat.
3. Show a technique, but don't get into every detail. Give the students some rounds under constrained rules that give them the opportunity to use the technique. Watch to see which missing details are causing the most difficulty in making the move work. Take a break to show those details or cover common "what-ifs" that students might encounter while sparring. Give them more rounds with the new information. Repeat.

Different coaches at my gym do things differently, but the typical class is:

1. Warmup with the entry for the technique of the day.
2. Drill 2-3 techniques, (as said above, either variants, reads, or a sequence).
3. Pass/sweep or pass/sweep/submit from the position.
4. Live roll to submission, start in the position.
5. Live rolls from the feet until the end of class.

Typically we get 2-3 rounds from the feet.

I think it's a nice progression.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Pass/sweep or pass/sweep/submit from the position.

My preferred version of this is pass/sweep/stand up or pass/sweep/submit/stand up. Standing up is a win condition for the partner on bottom and generally the preferred one. This has several advantages:

1. It forces the top player to be both more technical and aggressive with their passing, because the bottom player doesn't just accept being on the bottom.
2. It actually opens up more opportunities for the bottom player to sweep or submit, because the top player has to come forward with more commitment in order to stop the stand up.
3. It's a much safer tactical approach for both self-defense and MMA, while still being functional in sport grappling competition.

 

[skribs]

My preferred version of this is pass/sweep/stand up or pass/sweep/submit/stand up. Standing up is a win condition for the partner on bottom and generally the preferred one. This has several advantages:

1. It forces the top player to be both more technical and aggressive with their passing, because the bottom player doesn't just accept being on the bottom.
2. It actually opens up more opportunities for the bottom player to sweep or submit, because the top player has to come forward with more commitment in order to stop the stand up.
3. It's a much safer tactical approach for both self-defense and MMA, while still being functional in sport grappling competition.

I agree with all of your points, but my Professor is a dirty guard puller.

Some of the other coaches do games like this, but it's usually an eco game as a warmup, and not a part of the positional work.