How much of what is taught is on the belt test

[Buka]

1,2 and 3. Plus some stuff they’ve never seen. Causing them to figure them out based on what they’ve already learned.

 

[Hot Lunch]

1,2 and 3. Plus some stuff they’ve never seen. Causing them to figure them out based on what they’ve already learned.

In a perfect world, this would be the biggest part of the test. If I were to invent my own system, it would be.

Martial arts should be like math, where as long as you know how to solve the problem, you can figure out the answers to math problems you've never seen before all day.

Rather than other subjects where you have to remember a whole bunch of facts that you have to repeat back on the tests.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Martial arts should be like math, where as long as you know how to solve the problem, you can figure out the answers to math problems you've never seen before all day.

Right. This is what one should be developing in the first couple of grades of black belt - being able to compose and improvise on the fly.

Rather than other subjects where you have to remember a whole bunch of facts that you have to repeat back on the tests.

But this has to be mastered BEFORE one can do the above. This is where hours and years of practice and drills come into play. The "facts"/basics have to be ingrained and understood in not just the mind, but most importantly the body. This leads to be able to "figure out" what to do without thinking. Now one is approaching mastery of the art. It's a step-by-step process.

 

[Balrog]

For those that attend/run a school with belt tests, how much of what is taught in class falls into each of these three categories:

1. Directly on the test, either through rote memorization (i.e. forms, memorized 1-steps) or through similar methods (i.e. sparring).
2. Supports testing items, such as kicking drills to prepare for sparring.
3. Is not on the test, for example if you learn grappling skills as self-defense, but those skills are not tested. These things improve your martial arts skills, but don't necessarily support the test.

In the schools I've been a part of, it's heavily skewed towards 1 and 2, with there being a large amount of items on the test, and the vast majority of class time is devoted to that. I'm wondering how normal it is to do something different.

When I was running my school, anything and everything that we taught in class was eligible to be tested on. We tested on forms, sparring, weapons, board breaks and leadership skills. We took the highest three scores from the first four, and if the student was in the leadership program, they had to correctly answer questions about what they were taught during the cycle, and sometimes questions from previous cycles and how the material related to the current cycle,

 

[skribs]

When I was running my school, anything and everything that we taught in class was eligible to be tested on. We tested on forms, sparring, weapons, board breaks and leadership skills. We took the highest three scores from the first four, and if the student was in the leadership program, they had to correctly answer questions about what they were taught during the cycle, and sometimes questions from previous cycles and how the material related to the current cycle,

I think that works pretty well with traditional teaching. For example, at my school, you tested:

• Techniques through memorized combos (i.e. #1-8 punches, #1-8 kicks)
• Forms
• Self-defense through memorized sequences (#1-5 punch defense, #1-5 kick defense, etc.)

Sparring isn't memorized, but it's dynamic enough and creative enough to allow the students to freely demonstrate their techniques.

I think it's harder to do if you have a more open curriculum. For example, if you run different punch defense sequences every week, "demonstrate an example of a punch defense" or quickly describing a sequence and expecting it to be followed exactly. I think these situations set folks up for failure, based on my experiences of trying things like this with a relatively untrained friend.