I know we can say "different arts no comparison" but it appears more and more that tkd is alone on this. I have friends who do hapkido, zendokai, shotokan, bjj, aikido, wing chun and ninjitsu and all of them are taking a hell of a lot longer than 2 years to get a black belt.
Again, different arts, not only from taekwondo, but from each other.
Ninjutsu, hapkido and aikido are not traditionally sporting arts, so competition bracketing is not a factor. BJJ blue belts probably take longer than most aikido black belts, haven't a clue about zendokai, and shotokan is on average four years, but also has more and more elaborate forms, plus bunkai for each form, plus competition.
Wing chun (and CMA in general) doesn't even use belts to my knowledge, so unless enterprising school owners have adopted some form of them (sashes, or whatever), that isn't even a valid comparison. Most CMA practitioners that I know find belts in CMA to be an indicator or McDojoism, accurate or not.
All of them, too, find it laughable that tkd hands them out in 2 years. Its as if all other arts have a belief of what a black belt "should be" that differs so greatly from tkd. It just seems to me that tkd really is the exception to the rule on this.
And I could criticize all of the arts that you just mentioned by enumerating the things that are generally thought about them by outsiders.
Ninjutsu = larpers who cannot defend themselves outside of their dojo.
Aikido = peacenicks who can't defend themseves after years of training
Wing Chun = the same as aikido minus the peacenick part.
People who practice those arts would probably write several paragraphs of rebuttal to those comments or dismiss them as trolling with no thought of changing what they do.
For the record, I do not think that those characterizations are valid, but they are definitely out there.
I know there's the odd karate club out there handing out black belts in 2 years but its not as common as tkd. I just thinks its so frustrating that tkd is becoming the exception to the rule on this. Most students are still tripping over their own feet after 2 years of training and the thought that they can get a black belt in that time frame just doesnt seem right.
If the majority of students are
literally "still tripping over their own feet" after two years of training, I
seriously question the quality of training that they are receiving. If you are employing hyperbole when you say that, then perhaps you can clarify what you really mean.
I can remember where I was at after 2 years training and if Id had to defend myself for real I would have been in real trouble.
If you cannot effectively use the techniques (kicks, punches, and blocks) after two years of training, I would be curious as to why.
Look, I'm not saying that two years should or should not be the norm. But taekwondo techniques are not so arcane or complex that you cannot get a handle on kicks, punches, and blocks after two years, particularly if you are athletic. By two years time (barring medical issues), you should have a solid roundhouse, front, side, and axe kick, should be able to punch correctly, and should be able to block and dodge. Seriously. It doesn't take
that long.
If your teacher is teaching a ton of non martial material along with technique, or is focusing a lot on one or two basic techniqes for a very long time before broadening the curriculum, then that is acceptable, but will also alter the time that it takes to become proficient.
Not good or bad; new kumdo/kendo students spend a lot of their first six months doing a very small set of basic techniques before broadening the technique base. Consequently, the average time to first dan is four year or more, even though there are actually
fewer techniques than there are in taekwondo.
the bottom line is that tkd is a martial art, its not a dance class,
Absloutely, though that has no bearing on belts; belts are not employed in many martial arts.
Martial art does not always equal self defense. I don't carry my katana, bamboo sword or a 39" long cane with me on a daily basis, so it is unlikely that I would use kumdo to defend myself, yet we both agree that it is a martial art, and I have way more than two years of kumdo under my belt, in addition to other sword work.
so if someone has a black belt they better be able to defend themself in my opinion.
Defend themselves what capacity? Beat all comers? Hold their own? In class? On the deadly street? The schoolyard? Against armed opponents?
How do you define being able to defend yourself?
Not being argumentative, by the way (sometimes, I'm not sure if a post is coming across that way or not, so I wanted to clarify), but I am always curious of the context when people say what you just said.
Within your organzation, I gather that the norm is more like four years. I don't know what the norm is in the ITF. ATA, and KKW, from what I have seen, the norm is two years, with some schools being more and some being less. You should really be comparing a school within its own art and organization. If the norm in KKW in the states is two years, then a one year BB is a stand out. If the norm in Korea in KKW taekwondo is one year, then a six month BB would be the oddball. If four years is the average for ITF TKD, then a two year BB is the oddball.
I'm not a proponent (or detractor) of two year first dans. Students should be given actual tests between white belt and colored belt and should not be passed if they don't know the material. Or, if you follow the 'don't test the student till he's ready philosophy' then the school shouldn't be testing unready students for the sole purpose of collecting a fee or placating unruly parents. Some people will be ready more rapidly than others. Each should progress at the pace that is the best for
them. Regardless of art or organization.
Daniel