Is Rank Revokable?

[Tgace]

Rank(1) n.
1. a number of persons forming a sperate class in a social hierarchy or in any graded body.
2. a social or official position or standing, as in the armed forces, the rnk of captain.
3. high postion or station in the social or some similiar scale: a women of rank.
4. a class in any scale of comparison.
5. relative position or standing: a writer of the first rank.
6. a row, line, or series of things or persons: orchestra players arranged in raks.
7. ranks
a. the members of an armed service apart from its officers; enlisted personnel.
b. military enlisted personnel as a group. See Table on next page. (* Table not included in this post *)
8. Usually, ranks. the general body of any party, society, or organization apart from the officers or leaders.
9.orderly arrangement; array

As in an orderly arrangement of skill levels.

 

[Datu Tim Hartman]

Where does your get rank from?

 

[Tgace]

???

 

[loki09789]

Definition from:
Webster's
New Universal
Unabridged
Dictionary

NOTE: All BOLD and ITALIC comments are the same in the book of quote. They are not some attempt to ephasize anything by the poster.

Skill(1): n.
1. The ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well: Carpentry was on of his many skills.


Rank(1) n.
4. a class in any scale of comparison.
5. relative position or standing: a writer of the first rank.
9.orderly arrangement; array
9. alignement.
18. align, range, array


No one I know of has said that skill or knowledge can be revoked.

Yet, by almost ever definition of Rank, I see that it can be revoked. I say almost, as there may be one out there I have no read or seen. So, if someone can find it for me that would be wonderful. Until then I will just assume that Paul Martin and the others stating it is not revokable are arguing just to argue, and or to get the last word. For what reason I do not know.

So, please quote a book, or documented source other than the mentioned "t-Shirt", that has rank equivalent to skill. I will then reconsider my points fo view.

:asian:

Well the above definitions for skill and rank combine well to explain MY TAKE or MY INTERPRETATION of rank in martial arts. There is the link that I would use to support my idea.

If you take skills and order or RANK them in a series. THen your 'rank' is based on 'skill.' Makes sense to me.

I don't care how many books you quote or I quote. I am talking about the meanings within martial arts for the specific application of the terms.

Throw a blanket of definitions all day long and it doesn't mean a thing. Tell me what definitions/meanings and interpretations you are working from IN RELATION to the topic and I might understand better your position. OR, if you really think this is arguing for the sake of arguing....don't comment. Drop it.

I have asked sincere questions that, if people were to simply answer them, will help EVERYONE understand what these terms mean to them. Instead, people are just saying 'yes' or 'no' without substantiation or reason. I won't bother to rewrite them because they are there for those who care to read them.

What is the big deal? Is this dwindling down to a "you're wrong, I'm right" discussion?

We don't agree, so what. Who said we have to agree.

"Last word" Tag your it.

 

[tshadowchaser]

Just as a small tangent. As belts are a fairly recent development in the MA (contributed to Judo if I remember right). What happened before there were belts and a practitioner fell into disfavor with his school/instructor???

1. the practitoner tried to start his own organisation and was eithe sucessful or was shut down by his fomer instructor.
2. the instructor booted him. leaveing him with knowledge but no social standing within the original group and no regonition of skill other than nis physical abilities
3. he joined a nw group and ws evaluated by that group as to his skill and knowledge level


I agree we seem to be debateing between skill and rank.
On rank, I must say that the skill in school "A" may intital you to be a "blue belt" but on school "B" that same skill may intital you to be a black belt. On the other hand it may be the other way aound.

 

[Datu Tim Hartman]

???

Who issues rank?

 

[loki09789]

I agree we seem to be debateing between skill and rank.
On rank, I must say that the skill in school "A" may intital you to be a "blue belt" but on school "B" that same skill may intital you to be a black belt. On the other hand it may be the other way aound.

Agreed, the standards are independent of each other and don't really have to mean "GOOD BETTER BEST" comparisons, only different.

If someone tells you that they hold a 'black belt' you get a mental expectation, laundry list of skills and abilities and a certain quality of performance in your head based on that term...so the 'rank' equates to 'skill' that is my point.

We don't run around quoting our checklist of skills and abilities to people, we say "I am an xyz" belt and that will connote a certain expectation of skill. Skill is rank IMO because we DEFINE/EXPLAIN the meaning of the RANK by detailing what SKILLS/ABILITIES are required for that RANK and what level of performance quality is expected to earn that rank. That is if you are only using it for a curriculum guideline and not an authority thing.

I know folks aren't going to see it my way but oh well. I am not trying to be a smart ASH with the questions I have asked in the past. The responses will help the reader AND the writer clarify what ideas they are using to drive comments.

Basically, this idea of Rank revokation is an educational/training philosophical point. My point with the comments and discussion is to really understand the teaching/training philosophy that others are operating with and maybe, if they have not really articulated it for themselves, let the discussion be a way for people to do just that for themselves. If they decide to stick to it after they have really looked at it, fine. If they change, fine... the point isn't attack or 'right/wrong' but learning and growth.....

This was the worst part of the teacher training as well. We had to outline our educational philosophy and the Prof. critiqued it with questions and examination FOR THE PURPOSE of making us really examine what assumptions, ideas and values we were working from.

I don't presume to be the "teacher" here as much as a "fellow" but the process and purpose is what I am applying.

 

[loki09789]

Who issues rank?

Who earns rank? Who owns rank when it has been earned? Once rank has been awarded because of meeting or exceeding the standards set, who sees that rank as legitimate?....

Come on Tim, if you aren't going to address questions that have been put before you (by me or anyone else), why should anyone answer yours?

 

[Rich Parsons]

Second question. Is the point of this thread to discuss or come to a mutual agreement? I dont think the latter is always possible.

Well to point is is for the discussion. Yet to have a discussion, usually it turns into an arguement, if both sides do not at least acknowledge the other sides point of view.

To my knowledge, Mr. Martin has never acknowledged any point of view other than his own. Mr. Education; Mr. Should have skill and knowledge in teaching before you open a school; Mr should have some form of psych training. Yet, in all his comments he seem unable to acknowledge anothers point of view. Yet, comments that people should be open to concepts.

We choose to disagree. I acknowledged that I could see how a person could see Rank as skill. Personally I see Skill as rank if you were to make an arguement or proof of the matter. Yet, I acknowledged his point. He just keeps making teh same statmetns over and over again like if you say it wnough, people will believe it.

Then he demands to know what definition you are using? I quote the definitions I was using. DUH? Guess, I am stupid, I should go back and dissect his post, and counter point each item. This way he has conflict in his life. This way he can be put upon by me or make statements that teh MT Staff is against him. Yet, you see I try to make a point, and stay on topic. I acknowledge his point, I make my point. He restates his point like everyone is stupid for not believeing in his definition. Then he makes comments about how he needs to know what definition I and maybe others are working form. I speak English, I use the English language, and when I am not sure, I go to a dictionary to clarify.

Guess, I need to get a copy of the dictionary that Mr. Martin is using. Do you think he would be so kind as to send me a copy, post a link to it? or at least give me a definition of EVER word he posts. I need to know what point of view he is coming from. Since he obviously is so far out there, that he cannot use a definition from a dictionary. He redefines things. Therefor I have no idea what else he has redefined. I need a complete reference for every word and for that matter let us start with letters.

Do you think Mr. Martin is using the standard alphabet? Is here some form of cryptography going on? I do not know. I need to know before I can continue with this discussion with him.

After the alhpabet, I need to confirm we are using a specific language. I assumed English(Modern or that of Today, used in the U.S.A.). Yet It could be Old English or Middle English. I really do not know.

After the alphabet and then which language and which version, let us begin with the simple words of one, two and three letters. I need to learn this language, that Mr. Martin is communicating in. For you see, obviously we cannot communicate, and it must be a language behaviour. He states he needs the definitions I am working from. I spent 30 minutes reading and typing in mine. Then he states, that no matter what I quote his definition stands for the use with MA, and then asks for mine. This is arrogance in my opinion. This is a person arguing just to argue and to not loose a point. He even will not even consider teh acknowledgement of anothers as this might be considered a whole in his armor and and thereby be considered a loss.

If you think I am being absurb, I am not. I am 100% serious. I have stated my definitions. He is grasping, and trying to link and draw conclusions. I noted that I could see the relationship, yet beleived that Rank is removable by the organization, and that the skill is owned by the individual. Yet, Mr. Martin continues to state I have not made my case. I need to post defintions.

Very frustrating dealing with someone who claims to be mature, and yet, is acting so childish. Yes my opinion.


:asian:

 

[Tgace]

Cant we all just get along?

"We" all know the problem extends beyond any "issue" or "argument method" here, be honest now. Apparently the buttons are too big and shiny to resist pressing them. (on each side)

 

[loki09789]

Cant we all just get along?

"We" all know the problem extends beyond any "issue" or "argument method" here, be honest now. Apparently the buttons are too big and shiny to resist pressing them. (on each side)

"Basically, this idea of Rank revokation is an educational/training philosophical point. My point with the comments and discussion is to really understand the teaching/training philosophy that others are operating with and maybe, if they have not really articulated it for themselves, let the discussion be a way for people to do just that for themselves. If they decide to stick to it after they have really looked at it, fine. If they change, fine... the point isn't attack or 'right/wrong' but learning and growth.....

This was the worst part of the teacher training as well. We had to outline our educational philosophy and the Prof. critiqued it with questions and examination FOR THE PURPOSE of making us really examine what assumptions, ideas and values we were working from.

I don't presume to be the "teacher" here as much as a "fellow" but the process and purpose is what I am applying."

I have asked you NOT to attack or slander me publically and I would do the same. If you don't like me or my methods, don't play with me.

I guess this discussion is reverting to 'right/wrong' instead of 'philosophical position' or 'growth through articulation' or what ever I am seeing it to be.

Now, the question becomes do I continue because I don't want 'them' to think they drove me off or do I just drop it because the intent and purpose is no longer possible given the unproductive environment?

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. "

I guess I will drop it.

 

[Tgace]

Rich,

Please dont take offense, Im not really interested in pointing fingers and hope my "tone" here is friendly....but IMHO things were going along "fairly" smoothly up till this point....

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6706&page=11&pp=15

Not that your ponts were invalid, but from there on things took a confrontational turn...theres too much "fault" to go around to place it all on one persons shoulders here.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Rank != Skill.

If Rank truely = Skill then everyone would have to test for their rank.

Not get "Time In" promotions.
Not get "cross ranked". (Sorry, but a 3rd in Judo doesn't mean you're a 3rd in Kendo, etc)
Not get "political promotions" for ones marketing efforts, or giving the most seminars to the GM, or buying the most books.
Not get the "Ol Boy" promotions from all the Joke'-Soke' boards, and cert mills.

If your 'rank' was just handed to you, it has nothing to do with ones 'skill'. I know of numerous high ranking folks who had their ranks handed to them, where they jumped levels (like from 3rd to 5th to 10th) in a few short years.

If rank = skill then that 15yr old BB should be comparable to the 30 yr old BB, but they aren't are they?

How many people past 3rd degree actually get on the floor and show their stuff before being promoted? Almost none from what I understand. So, if the difference between the 3rd and the 6th is 10 years and 10,000 miles....what does either have to do with their martial skill?

You can buy rank.
You can't buy skill.

I can bribe my way to a pilots licence...it don't mean I have the skills to fly a plane.
I can buy my blackbelt ($15, including cert, $300 to have it 'reconized'), but that doesn't mean I know the difference between a wrist watch and a wrist lock, now does it?)

I can earn my degree in Chemisty...that doesn't mean that 10 years later I can actually still tell you the recipe for water though does it? But, I still have my 'degree'.

Rank is not skill. I've chased blackbelts off the floor while sparring with them...as a yellow belt. They had 5+ years on me...I still wiped the floor with them. Time in don't mean skill. Rank don't mean skill. Hell, rank != rank!
Only skill = skill. You will never convinve me otherwise.

You can revoke my paperwork, but it doesn't revoke my ability.
Only I can do that.

Cant we all just get along?

Nope...sadly I don't see that happening.

 

[Tgace]

All very good points. Goes back to a question posted earlier....what is ranks purpose? Originally (check my posts a page or so back) its intention was just to be a skill marker to aid an instructor in tracking student skills/advancement.

What is its purpose now?

 

[loki09789]

Rank != Skill.

If Rank truely = Skill then everyone would have to test for their rank.

Not get "Time In" promotions.
Not get "cross ranked". (Sorry, but a 3rd in Judo doesn't mean you're a 3rd in Kendo, etc)
Not get "political promotions" for ones marketing efforts, or giving the most seminars to the GM, or buying the most books.
Not get the "Ol Boy" promotions from all the Joke'-Soke' boards, and cert mills.

If your 'rank' was just handed to you, it has nothing to do with ones 'skill'. I know of numerous high ranking folks who had their ranks handed to them, where they jumped levels (like from 3rd to 5th to 10th) in a few short years.

If rank = skill then that 15yr old BB should be comparable to the 30 yr old BB, but they aren't are they?

How many people past 3rd degree actually get on the floor and show their stuff before being promoted? Almost none from what I understand. So, if the difference between the 3rd and the 6th is 10 years and 10,000 miles....what does either have to do with their martial skill?

You can buy rank.
You can't buy skill.

I can bribe my way to a pilots licence...it don't mean I have the skills to fly a plane.
I can buy my blackbelt ($15, including cert, $300 to have it 'reconized'), but that doesn't mean I know the difference between a wrist watch and a wrist lock, now does it?)

I can earn my degree in Chemisty...that doesn't mean that 10 years later I can actually still tell you the recipe for water though does it? But, I still have my 'degree'.

Rank is not skill. I've chased blackbelts off the floor while sparring with them...as a yellow belt. They had 5+ years on me...I still wiped the floor with them. Time in don't mean skill. Rank don't mean skill. Hell, rank != rank!
Only skill = skill. You will never convinve me otherwise.

You can revoke my paperwork, but it doesn't revoke my ability.
Only I can do that.


Nope...sadly I don't see that happening.

That is my point Bob! I am not trying to convince you. You are making a stand and explaining it and maybe because of the discourse understanding your own position better because you have had to explain it to someone else and make sure it is clear...just like teaching can make a better martial artist "if you really want to learn something well, teach it to someone else"...

We don't agree, big whoop.

I notice that you are basing your position more on a "historical practice" sort of position. It has been done in the past so it is. I am saying that 'in Paullie land' of values, it is not possible - at least in situations, like martial arts, where skill is the indicator of your rank and promotability. Under other circumstances and situations 'rank' may have a different contextual meaning that includes authority and power (like military 'rank' would).

It is a shame that the circumstances you describe happen. They definitely cheapen any 'ranking' system when a persons aptitude, skill and talent are not the primary mover for promotion in martial arts.

Now some of the situations/arenas of 'rank' still are somewhat authority or licensure situations and not skill based situations but, even there 'bought' or 'conned' gains only hurt the recievers of the service because they won't get the quality that honest promotion or 'rank' that is skill based would provide.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Tom,
I see it as a way to keep score, and to aid an instructor in knowing where his students are. It's also good for a student to measure their own progress.

Oh, and for people to endlessly fight over on message boards. It seems to also be less offensive when people whip out their belts and count the stripes, then what they used to do...which involved very small rulers...and a fear of a cold spell....:rofl:

 

[Tgace]

Tom,
I see it as a way to keep score, and to aid an instructor in knowing where his students are. It's also good for a student to measure their own progress.

Oh, and for people to endlessly fight over on message boards. It seems to also be less offensive when people whip out their belts and count the stripes, then what they used to do...which involved very small rulers...and a fear of a cold spell....:rofl:

Well, Im off work today and marking time till I have to leave for my "second front" job.......its is kind of chilly now that you mention it.

But to the point...in your deinition, what would revocation accomplish?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Revocation, IMHO is a punishment.

For the student, revoking a rank says 'You have done something wrong'.
It can be that they didn't meet the requirements any longer. (Ie got the belt, but stopped going to class...therefore they must prove they still qualify at that level before being allowed to resume training)
It can be that they violated a requirement.
(Keep in mind that many arts include ethical standards in their ranks, Kenpo for example has color belt 'sayings' or 'pledges')

In the case of Black belts,
- They left the reconizing body
- They stopped being active
- They violated the ethics of the reconizing body.

 

[loki09789]

Revocation, IMHO is a punishment.

For the student, revoking a rank says 'You have done something wrong'.
It can be that they didn't meet the requirements any longer. (Ie got the belt, but stopped going to class...therefore they must prove they still qualify at that level before being allowed to resume training)
It can be that they violated a requirement.
(Keep in mind that many arts include ethical standards in their ranks, Kenpo for example has color belt 'sayings' or 'pledges')

In the case of Black belts,
- They left the reconizing body
- They stopped being active
- They violated the ethics of the reconizing body.

There are still punitive actions that can be taken within my "Paulie Land" view of Rank revokation even.

If they violate some conduct clause they are at fault because they knew the rules and broke them anyway (people sign a "class conduct" sheet as part of the initiation package) so they are kicked out (if it is bad enough) and will not be reimbursed for any advance payments because they breached the agreement in the form of a conduct agreement. That hurts.

They will not recieve any favorable endorsement from me for future teachers that may ask about them. I will be confidential because of my own values, but I will also not say "Yeah, great!"

Honestly, beyond that there really isn't much that can happen unless the situation warrants civil or criminal action.

And, even within the 'rank revokable' school of thought, what does that really do? THey can still run their own business, practice what they know and do what they want with what they have.

I don't care so much about 'Punishment' as keeping quality people in and removing the poor quality people from my program. I will distance myself (by kicking out) people who are not going to be good representations of what the group stands for. Beyond that I don't have any real power over other people.

 

[Datu Tim Hartman]

RANK IS SKILL.

Rank is skill? No, it is only part of the equation. Rank is Skill, Knowledge and Character. If you think that rank is only skill then you must have missed something during your training. If character is part of rank then what haves when people do things that are lacking character?