Is Rank Revokable?

[Flatlander]

If it has no binding power from the organization in which it was issued then, the organization has the right to revoke the rank. There is nothing binding on the individual to stop them from going elsewhere with another group or by themselves. The only binding is the individual to the organization and the organization to the individual. This can be severed for just about any reason.

And the flip side of this would be that if I had never before met Rich, but one day walked into his dojo, and trained a bit with him, he could test me and issue me any rank he saw fit, even though he wasn't the one to teach me my skills in the first place. The only thing standing in my way would be whether or not Rich was in communication with the organization that revoked MY rank. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

 

[loki09789]

Paul,

1. Where is this statment different from what I and others have said?

2. I disagree, it can be taken away. ...Yet, as of a new date, no association or recognition of rank is noted.

3. True, I could open op a CMA school never having had studied CMA other than from Bruce Lee in the Movies. ...In the long run honesty and integrity with this skill people talk about, will let everyone know who is who.

4. I think a person should state that yes I was a Mouseketeer of the 4th order on this date. All ties to the Mickey Mouse associatation were severed on this date. I agree they cannot take away the skill, nor the fact that you had rank at one time. The person did earn it. The also could have had it revoked.

5. I agree 110%, with he addition of what I said above, about being honest and not misleading your students. Tell them where you stand, let them decide if your skill is somethign they truly wish to learn.

6. I agree the rank is earned and owned by the individual.

7. Also, no disrespect to Tom Bolden, I saw those T-shirts, and the attitudes of the students, and it seem to me to just like any other organization out there. Yet, I have to ask would they recognize my skills? In particular since I am not a part of their group and do not do things exactly their way. I know you cannot speak for him. Just curious though.

:asian:

1. The difference is in the mentallity of who 'owns' the rank. Philosophically, ideologically, I say the rank as a DIRECT representation of skill or metaphor, is owned by the earner. Therefore NO ONE can take that way. Some are giving ownership of the rank to the organization instead of the earner.

2. Your confusing the 'status' of the rank and whether it ever was earned. You cannot deny that the rank was awarded or that change the records to say otherwise. No longer recognizing said rank and "taking it away" are two different things.

3. Off topic, honest business practices are not the point. I do agree being straight about your resume is a big thing though.

4. same as #3. But this idea only proves the point that the ownership of rank is in the hands of the earner, especially if that rank is skill.

5. The confusion of 'maintenance' or 'quality' of skill because of lack of training, lay offs or what ever. The point is that they still hold/earned the rank. If they let the skill that earned them that rank slip, then we are moving into other topics of discussion and not revokation or earning of rank.

6. If the individual earner owns the rank, how can anyone take it away/revoke it? Making claims or whether that rank/affiliation is still current isn't the topic.

7. I would say that Tom's group is a cut above some groups. Peter Vargas is a top notch artist/practitioner as well as a fierce fighter. That is one tough guy. Tom Bolden can only take credit for the instructional part, but Peter is a product of Tom's system and instruction and he is great. I have known Tom for a number of years and seen many levels of students that he has produced and every student at every level is a solid artist per his/her rank.

His insistence that Rank is a metaphor for skill is a dedication to quality and a rejection of political or favoritism practices in promotions. Is that devotion to quality/skill common? God, I hope so. The slogan "Skill is Rank" or "Rank is Skill" isn't designed to mean that they are the ONLY group that feels that way but to emphasis that it is what they do hold dear philosophically.

Would they recognize your skills? I don't really know what you are asking and I can't really speak for them, but from working with them, I would say that they would respect the rank you earned and treat you with respect/hospitallity because they are good people.

Skill speaks for itself, so I would guess that they would 'recognize' your skill based on their quality standards (as we all would make assessmentsdo).

If you mean that if someone (not necessarily you specifically) walked in and said "I'm really good" and demonstrated what he thought was "really good" stuff but by their training practices, standards and expectations is was "okay" they would be doing that based on THEIR point of view. Does that mean that you aren't "really good?" No.

Just means that they are working differently and they don't have any sway over your promotions, rank or survivability in a self defense situation so what does it really matter? To me, not a hell of a lot other than maybe to use for intraspection and examination of what I am doing for affirmation or adaptation. I have 'shown my stuff' in front of Tom at different times and he has given me his honest opinion based on his perspective. I listened, tried his suggestions and so on, but if it doesn't fit the larger systematic goal, I don't keep it - and have said so to him as well. Since he isn't 'my boss' it was no big deal. That is honest sharing and growth IMO.

If I was a little more insecure I might be constantly comparing myself/system to others in terms of GOOD BETTER BEST and worry about how "I don't move like them" but I am not and neither does Tom, so the exchanges are pretty productive. He has come right out and stolen....I mean adopted stuff that Jerome, Richard or others have shown him as well because it isn't about Ego or Status but about Art and application for us.

It would be different if you walked in and said that you wanted to join the school and showed them your prior skills and they had to translate where those skills put you in their rank structure. Then you are voluntarily seeking to submit to a different criteria of quality and skill/rank.

 

[Datu Tim Hartman]

Paul-

I think you’re arguing for the sake of arguing. I think if you read ALL of the posts you’ll see that we agree on many of our ideas.

• We agree that you can’t take away knowledge, but people can forget.
• You can’t take away skill, but it can diminish over time.

What is the difference between have a belt being revoked and having your driver’s license revoked? In both cases you still have the knowledge. At a previous job I screwed up and was demoted. I didn’t my knowledge and later not only did I earn my position back, I was also promoted beyond my old position. The thread’s title is “Is rank revokable” I think we have proved that it is. Now if the thread was “Does revoking rank mean anything” many of the points that people brought up would fit better. We could also have a thread “What conditions do you feel that make you revoke someone’s rank”.
:asian:

 

[Datu Tim Hartman]

I never claim to be anything more than what I am. A student of a student of RP. Fine, but that doesn't mean that I don't/didn't keep my finger on the pulse of the organization. Just because I didn't talk to you doesn't mean total ignorance. AND, official affiliations does not mean that MA members post 92 weren't still associates of Jerome's or mine. I really wish you would stop trying to undermine folks and just discuss the points.

I never said you needed to talk to me to know what’s going on. The person you would need to speak to was Remy himself. He made the policies as well as implementing them.

What 'character standards' were specifically included in RP's (please specify WHICH organization as well) rank/instructor charters/code of conduct... that would be used to justify rank revokation?

We are talking about the IMAF while Remy was still alive. He ran the org and made the call on a case by case basis.

You made the point that Rank had expiration dates on it, under which organization and which time? Jerome's rank had no expiration dates from my viewing of the certificates.

I said MOST not all certificates.


Paul, this is a sidebar question. When did you start your Modern Arnis training and when did you get your black belt?
:asian:

 

[loki09789]

I never said you needed to talk to me to know what’s going on. The person you would need to speak to was Remy himself. He made the policies as well as implementing them.



We are talking about the IMAF while Remy was still alive. He ran the org and made the call on a case by case basis.



I said MOST not all certificates.


Paul, this is a sidebar question. When did you start your Modern Arnis training and when did you get your black belt?
:asian:

*Sigh*

As I have said MULTIPLE times, PM or email/phone call please. I am not the topic and neither is MA.

 

[loki09789]

Paul-

What is the difference between have a belt being revoked and having your driver’s license revoked? :asian:

The difference is that a driver operating a vehicle w/o a license can be charged and will get in trouble for doing so because the license MEANS permission and priviledge/right to drive not only the knowledge/skill of driving.

Martial arts rank is skill, if someone has their rank revoked, they can still practice and teach that art without being charged or penalized. Martial arts organizations are not governing bodies. They are businesses with no professional standards or regulations that have to be met (like lawyers and other licensed practices) in order to keep the doors open. As long as you follow the general guidelines of any Rec/Service industry then you can run a martial arts school.

That is the major difference.

Again, my point is that there is no authority or power with rank in MA (on the average). "Revoking rank" or to "annul by recalling or taking back" something that even Rich said 'belongs to the earner' is IMO impossible because it is no longer the organizations. The organization can choose to acknowledge the person's affiliation, kick them out, 'recognize' the rank or anything else but they can not take away something that belongs to the earner.

How can you take way or revoke something that, according to some other posters too, belongs to the earner?

If the basic agreement is that rank is skill, or that rank is symbollic of skill and that it belongs to the earner then the organization can choose to recognize, honor or to cut the earner from the pack. But the rank/skill belongs to the earner of that rank.

Yup, the thread is "IS RANK REVOKABLE" and my answer is no based on my philosophical position on the topic.

Now, there are obviously those who are giving different answers. The interaction makes clarification and reasoning possible. If, in a debate style, that means back and forth ON THE TOPIC where we clarify, articulate and explain our rationale so be it. So far, I haven't seen any rebuttals that have caused me to change my position on it, but that is only 'so far.'

I am learning from the exchanges What's the problem?

Let me put this out there. If we are telling student's in school that "Teacher's don't give you grades, you earn grades" and "You own your success" and other statements about self reliance/direction and credit for accomplishments, how can we say that a 'grade' or rank can be 'taken' from you after you have passed the test, graduated the level or what ever in martial arts?

How can you 'own' your success if someone can revoke it?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I believe grades have been revolked in the past, as well as diplomas, etc.

 

[tshadowchaser]

The organization can choose to acknowledge the person's affiliation, kick them out, 'recognize' the rank or anything else but they can not take away something that belongs to the earner.

I disagree with this statement.
The rank was earned and given in that organisation for that organisation, therefor if the organisation deems a person unfit to hold that rank they have the authouity to revoke it. By takeing away the rank in their organisation they nullify that rank completly because that is the only place that it was ligitimate.

 

[Tgace]

What is the "argument" here??

 

[Tgace]

I think I see the divide here...What I think Paul is saying (he will have to say if Im right) is that MA rank "IS" skill in his philosophy.

For example, say a new student comes into your school and says he has experence in your art. You evaluate him, run him through some tests and see that he has the skills/techniques of a Blue belt so you make him a blue belt. Its just a symbol of what he knows.

Now say you have a chain of schools that are ran by an organization and you have to be a 3rd degree BB to teach for that org. Now that rank confers something other than skill. All "revoking" that rank does is remove that power (within that org. only). Hes still a 3rd degree BB in that art in terms of what he knows.

I think the debate is... does the Rank represent some sort of Authority or Power within an organization separate from skill. Yes the organization could "revoke" the rank=authority to keep that person from attaining some sort of position within that org. I dont think its possible to revoke rank=skill.

 

[Tgace]

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???

 

[Cruentus]

Hi folks.

I have some opinions on the subject here, and I have a unique approach to the subject. Inspired by this thread, I actually wrote an article titled "Rank, Standards, and Practices in the Martial Arts" that I have submitted to "Sharp" Phil Elmore's "The martialist." If Mr. Elmore feels that the article is something he would publish, then I'll let you all know. If not, then I'll post it on my E-zine so you guys can see how I feel.

So, keep your eyes open and I'll keep you informed. I hope to offer a unique approach to the subject of how to view rank in todays martial arts industry that my fellow self-defense advocates, martial artists, and martial craftsmen might both enjoy and find useful.

Thanks,

Paul

 

[loki09789]

Thanks Tom. My point is that ACCORDING TO THE IDEA THAT RANK IS SKILL and not an indicator of title, priviledge or power/responsibility it can not be 'revoked.'

Remember folks that Revoke means to take away. If your skill is your rank, no one can take your skill therefore no one can take your rank. I know some are saying that "We are saying the same thing, what is the big deal" but the point is that we are not saying the same thing. I am saying that because skill is rank and earned, it belongs to the earner/student and can not be taken away.

Others are saying that an organization 'owns' rank and can 'revoke' it or take it away. So, basically some people view training as something given and others view it as something earned. I personally 'own' all of my skills and rank that I earned. Are they all current because of affiliation, status or what ever? No. Are they still something that I can put on bios, resumes/history sheets? YES. If an organization can 'revoke' or take away rank that means that you can't put it on your bio sheet or claim that you made that accomplishment. Since any of us can do that and do it all the time in conversation (Well I left at Green Belt....) I say we own our rank because we had the skill.

Tom is also correct in the difference between 'authority' that rank might imply (and that is why Instructor certs are great to have as separate things from belt rank) because you can revoke or take away someones 'authority' to do business as teacher, treasurer, administrator.... in your organization.

I used the analogy of a token reward system when I was talking about this before outside of this forum. If you see rank as an indicator of skill only, then it is a 'token' reward for the man hours, sweat, understanding, sacrifices that you made in the process of earning that rank. It is like a 'paycheck' that an employee earns for their labor in a business.

If you fire someone, you can revoke their authority/power that they had based on their job description and affiliation with your company but you can not take away the paychecks they earned during that time - at least the fairly earned portions of the money.

So, if the way we 'earn our paycheck' of rank/promotion is based on our labor in the dojo/studio only, no one can take that 'money' from you.

If there is more than rank wrapped up in what the 'rank' means (instructor status, decision making powers...) then yes you can 'revoke' rank because you have combined what that 'rank as skill' with authority.

We are not all saying the same thing, I hope this clarifies what I am trying to say.

 

[loki09789]

I disagree with this statement.
The rank was earned and given in that organisation for that organisation, therefor if the organisation deems a person unfit to hold that rank they have the authouity to revoke it. By takeing away the rank in their organisation they nullify that rank completly because that is the only place that it was ligitimate.

If the rank was earned based on skill and knowledge, I would say that it was 'legitimate' in the eyes of the earner as well.

Martial arts Organizations (if you see them as learning institutions and NOT governing bodies) set standards, run assessments/tests, communication expectations, train people as students and instructors.

Again, I think that clarifying what both "rank" means and what a martial arts organization is would help clarify these issues.

to me, Rank is skill. You perform to standards and you are awarded the appropriate rank. We don't even where the belts on the floor. They only serve as curriculum goals and outline skill progression.

There was an issue of "Martial Fantasy" and how the belt ranking system was a 'bad' thing and added to the problem of "martial fantasy." I made the point there that I don't see the problem with the ranking system per se. I have a problem with people who see it as some kind of status symbol instead of a metaphor for skill. You are not a better person because of a martial arts promotion, you don't "Get the Glow" when you become a black belt. You simply have demonstrated the skill and ability (which may but does not have to be an indicator of dedication/maturity/integrity....) to meet the standards of that rank. I expect the highest standards of cooperation, teamwork, integrity and honor of students at everyrank. If they grow as people because of that environment AND happen to make it to BB, the growth is probably due to regular and long term exposure to the environment NOT because they got a BB.

We have a separate instructor training track because teaching is a separate skill set that needs to be trained as diligently as the art itself. To be elligible for certain instructor promotions there is a specific skill level/rank requirement but that does not mean that if you are of that rank you automatically are awarded 'instructor' responsibility.

Martial arts organizations IMO are commercial businesses that operate as learning institutions not governing bodies that regulate behavior or daily practices. There is no real 'authority' held by the organization that they can give or take away like a Government body.

 

[Datu Tim Hartman]

I disagree with this statement.
The rank was earned and given in that organisation for that organisation, therefor if the organisation deems a person unfit to hold that rank they have the authouity to revoke it. By takeing away the rank in their organisation they nullify that rank completly because that is the only place that it was ligitimate.

Sheldon, you hit the nail on the head with this one!

 

[loki09789]

I gotta laugh at the irony of how much folks who seem to generally take a "Democratic" or "bottom up" view on political organizaiton are arguing and endorsing the more "Republican" or "top down" sort of organization in a martial arts organization....hmmmmmm

This is just an observation not a criticism folks, I know the heat could come from something like that.

 

[loki09789]

Sheldon, you hit the nail on the head with this one!

So the question remains: Is rank earned or given? The answer to that can explain who you think is the 'power' in martial arts development. Are we 'facilitators of martial training and education' or are we 'ruling bodies?'

I tend to work from the 'personal empowerment' benefit idea of martial training. Based on that, I can't take away something that was earned. I can kick them out and no longer allow them to affiliate or endorse what they have earned but I can't take it away.

 

[Rich Parsons]

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.
2. competent, excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity; The dances performed will skill.
3. a craft, trade, or job requireing manual dexterity or special training in which a person has competence and experience; the skill of cabnetmaking.
4. Obs. understanding; discernment.
5. Obs. reason; cause [1125-75; ME < ON skil distinction, difference; c. D geschil difference, quarrel. See SKILL (2)]
---Syn. 1. proficent, facility. 2. deftness, cleverness,
---Ant. 1. inability.

Skill(2) v.i. archaic
1. to matter.
2. to help; avail. [1150-1200 ME skilen < ON skilja to distinguish, divide, akin to skil (SEE SKILL (1)), OE scylian to seperate, Goth Skilja butcher, Lith Skilti to split]

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
10. a line of persons, esp. soldiers, standing abreast in close-order formation (distinguished from file).
11. Brit. a place or station occupied by vehicles available for hire; stand: a taxi rank.
12. Chess. one of the horizontal lines of squares on a chessboard.
13. a set of organ pipes of the same kind of tonal color.
14. Also called determinant rank. Math. the order of the nonzero determinant of greatest order that can be selected from a given matrix by the elimination of rows and columns.
15. Mining. the classification of coal according to hardness, from lignite to anthracite.
16. break ranks
a. to leave an assigned position in a military formation.
b. to disagree with, defect from, or refuse to support one's collegues, party or the like.
17. pull rank (on), to make use of one's superior rank to gain an advantage over (someone). Also, pull one's rank (on). --v.t.
18. to arrange in ranks or in regular formation: The men were ranked according to height. He ranked the chess pieces on the board.
19. to assign to a particular position, station, class, etc.: She was ranked among the most admired citizens.
20. to outrank: The Colonel ranks all other officers in the squadron.
21. Slang. to insult; criticize. ---v.i.
22. to form a rank of ranks.
23. to take up or occupy a place in a particular rank, class, etc.: to rank well ahead of the other students.
24. to have rank or standing
25. to be the senior in rank: The colonel ranks at tis camp.
26. Slang. to complain. [1560-70; < F ranc (n., obs. OF renc, ranc, rang row, line < Gmc, akin to RING (1)] ---Rank'less, adj.
---Syn.
3. distinction, eminence, dignity
6. range, tier.
9. alignement.
18. align, range, array

Rank(2) adj. -er,-est.
1. growing with excessive luxuriance; vigorous and tall of growth: tall rank weeds.
2. producing an excessive an coarse growth, as land
3. having an offensively strong smell or taste: a rank cigar.
4. offensively strong, as a smell or taste.
5. utter; absolute; a rank amatuer; rank treachery.
6. highly pffensive; disgusting; a rank sight of carnage
7. grossly coarse, vulgar, or indecent: rank language
8. Slang. inferior; contemptible [bef. 1000; ME; OE ranc bold, proud; c. ON rakkr straight, bold]
---rank'ish, adj.
---rank'ly, adv.
---rank'ness, n.
---Syn.
1. abundant, exuberant
5. complete, sheer, entier.
6. repulsive, repellent, See flagrant.
7. foul.



I personally do not see where one can get the meaning of one word to be the other. Can someone find a defintion or link I am missing.


This is like arguing in two different languages, or worse yet two base languages trying to comunicate in a common third language, where there is no translations.

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:

 

[Tgace]

What is the point of "rank" in martial arts? What is its purpose?

http://martialarts.about.com/cs/martialarts101/a/Belts_2.htm

The use of the belt to signify the rank of a martial arts practitioner is not a very old practice, in terms of martial arts history. It can be traced back to Jigoro Kano, the founder of Kodokan Judo. Initially, Kano used only black or white belts to signify rank amongst his students. The most commonly given reason for the belts is to enable recognition of which students could take part in which activities... Best not to throw a student who doesn't have the proven ability to handle being thrown.
Shortly after Kano introduced this innovation, extra colours of belts were integrated.

It has proven to be a useful way of telling at a glance generally what level of knowledge and ability a student has. Other teachers adopted the system, or variations on it. Some of these included Tae Kwon Do, Karate, and even teachers of Chinese styles

More details on the origin of MA rank at...
http://www.judoinfo.com/obi.htm

 

[Tgace]

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