omg! a 4 year in training 3rd dan came in yesterday...

[dancingalone]

BJJ blue belts probably take longer than most aikido black belts,

Aikikai black belts (1st dan) are typically earned in 5-7 years. That's very impressive if it takes longer to earn a BJJ blue belt!

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Aikikai black belts (1st dan) are typically earned in 5-7 years. That's very impressive if it takes longer to earn a BJJ blue belt!

I could be mistaken then.

I was under the impression from posts on the web that a BJJ blue belt is like four or five years and assumed (apparently incorrectly) that aikido averaged four to black.

Maybe BJJ doesn't take that long, but the way that BJJ grading is discussed, that was the impression that I got.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

I could be mistaken then.

I was under the impression from posts on the web that a BJJ blue belt is like four or five years and assumed (apparently incorrectly) that aikido averaged four to black.

Maybe BJJ doesn't take that long, but the way that BJJ grading is discussed, that was the impression that I got.

I roll occasionally with a Machado brown belt. I believe he said a blue belt is around 1.5-2 years, which is still a good length of time for attaining the first colored belt. Add to this the fact that BJJ belts are earned rather than given and it is no wonder that even a blue belt is a real accomplishment.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Add to this the fact that BJJ belts are earned rather than given and it is no wonder that even a blue belt is a real accomplishment.

And this, I feel is the primary issue with black belts in many schools: not that the time is too short, but that the belt is not earned.

Daniel

 

[jthomas1600]

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. 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. 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. 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. the bottom line is that tkd is a martial art, its not a dance class, so if someone has a black belt they better be able to defend themself in my opinion.

I don't think it's just practitioners within other arts. As someone who has always had an interest in martial arts, but is new to TKD I can tell you I was very surprised to find out you could get a black belt in 3-4 years. Prior to my involvement in TKD I would have guessed 6-8 yeas to be pretty average. I've taken some BJJ so I knew that was a long haul and I would have guessed most arts were similar.

I've also been somewhat surprised on here to hear so many people talk about "your journey just beginning" at black belt, or "now you've got the basics down". When do the students become aware of this? I really think when people sign up to take TKD the average person thinks a black belt is an expert. Most people are aware that there are dan rankings after black belt, but I still don't think they're under the impression that black belts have just learned the basics. I wonder if this mindset is also unique to TKD. Is it a way to justify promoting to black so fast?

I love TKD. I love the school I train at. I hope my post does not sound overly critical.

 

[andyjeffries]

I was very surprised to find out you could get a black belt in 3-4 years. Prior to my involvement in TKD I would have guessed 6-8 yeas to be pretty average. I've taken some BJJ so I knew that was a long haul and I would have guessed most arts were similar.

I think there are differences and parallels with BJJ grades though.

BJJ - 2 years to blue belt, 2 years to purple belt. It's quite normal to have small clubs run by a purple belt. 2-3 more years to brown and 2-3 years to black. Can promote others to black belt after 8-10 years total training.

TKD - 3-4 years to 1st Dan black belt. Can open a club at 1st Dan. 1 year to 2nd Dan. 2 years to 3rd Dan. 3 years to 4th Dan. Can promote others to 3rd Dan after 9-10 years total training.

Sure, a black belt in BJJ has a longer training time, but if you ignore the mythical black belt and view them in terms of instructor/rank-promoter, they are really pretty similar in terms of time.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Well, your counting is correct. If we split out my jj training from ninpo training, we get to 6 years to BB for ninpo, and 4 years for jujutsu. The ninpo curriculum is bigger and more difficult.

2 exams per year is really about the max you can do. I don't see how it could be different. With every kyu / gup, you get new techniques, kata, throws, etc. Learning those and becoming good at them takes time. During that time, we're also required to keep training older stuff, like rolling and tai sabaki. Passing an exam means that you are good enough to have earned the grade, but you're expected to keep improving those skills.

To get to black in 2 years, I'd have about 2 months to learn and become skilled at an entire kyu level curriculum. Imo that seems a bit unrealistic.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I've also been somewhat surprised on here to hear so many people talk about "your journey just beginning" at black belt, or "now you've got the basics down". When do the students become aware of this? I really think when people sign up to take TKD the average person thinks a black belt is an expert. Most people are aware that there are dan rankings after black belt, but I still don't think they're under the impression that black belts have just learned the basics. I wonder if this mindset is also unique to TKD. Is it a way to justify promoting to black so fast?

The mindset is not unique to taekwondo, though I think that taekwondo tends to have quicker times to first dan than other arts. Not good or bad; it simply is.

Some of this is due to differences in technique quantity, some due to a different (perhaps the original?) meaning being given to a first dan/black belt.

Funny thing is, and I said this recently on another thread, all of the people here who have been critical of short times to first dan and of the student's time in grade in the OP all have said on other threads that rank is unimportant/meaningless/or doesn't matter.

My only concrete concern with rank relates primarilly to kids. You are correct in your observation that in the west, the black belt is viewed by the layman as an expert fighter.

Because of that, I feel that black belts should not be awarded to kids who will not have the maturity to equate it with just having the basics. Giving an eight year old a black belt has the potential to embolden him with schoolyard bullies that he may not be able to handle himself with, and may also cause the schoolyard bullies to step up their bullying (got a black belt huh? Lets see if you can make me not kick your ____). That, and I see many schools using the black belt as a means of generating more income from parents.

For me, it is mainly an issue of giving a false sense of security, regardless of the intent of the instructor.

Daniel

 

[andyjeffries]

Funny thing is, and I said this recently on another thread, all of the people here who have been critical of short times to first dan and of the student's time in grade in the OP all have said on other threads that rank is unimportant/meaningless/or doesn't matter.

I don't know if this includes me or not, but just to clarify my feelings:

I think less than 3 years is too short for 1st Dan. I think 1st Dan isn't an expert but is just competent in all the basics and ready to learn more. I think rank is somewhat important (but you may feel I've argued the other way sometimes, I sometimes do that to just play devil's advocate) but not the be-all and end-all of Taekwondo.

 

[dancingalone]

The mindset is not unique to taekwondo, though I think that taekwondo tends to have quicker times to first dan than other arts. Not good or bad; it simply is.

Some of this is due to differences in technique quantity, some due to a different (perhaps the original?) meaning being given to a first dan/black belt.

But my contention is that it shouldn't. TKD should be as rich in technique as any art. Despite all the limited tenure in TKD or karate the early TKD men had, we also know that many of them had strong backgrounds in judo and other arts as well. When you consider the whole of their martial knowledge, it certainly seems like any modern curriculum that allows you to grade to chodan in 1-2 years is inherently deficient.

Funny thing is, and I said this recently on another thread, all of the people here who have been critical of short times to first dan and of the student's time in grade in the OP all have said on other threads that rank is unimportant/meaningless/or doesn't matter.

It does not matter to ME at this stage of my career, but I do not expect the person walking into the dojang for the first time to feel the same.

There is the conundrum. It seems you have to be training for a good while before you see rank to be ultimately unimportant compared to the skill and knowledge it is SUPPOSED to represent. And that is where I still care about rank. If its meaning is so shallow, then it has no real meaning at all and thus casts a shadow on my own hard training when others think the debased experience is my experience. As a teacher of others, I obviously would and must take exception with that.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

But my contention is that it shouldn't. TKD should be as rich in technique as any art. Despite all the limited tenure in TKD or karate the early TKD men had, we also know that many of them had strong backgrounds in judo and other arts as well. When you consider the whole of their martial knowledge, it certainly seems like any modern curriculum that allows you to grade to chodan in 1-2 years is inherently deficient.

Now that is a different discussion, and one where I agree with you.

It does not matter to ME at this stage of my career, but I do not expect the person walking into the dojang for the first time to feel the same.

There is the conundrum. It seems you have to be training for a good while before you see rank to be ultimately unimportant compared to the skill and knowledge it is SUPPOSED to represent.

Indeed. Kind of like the Bruce Lee saying about a punch being just a punch, then he encountered martial arts and learned how a punch was so much more than just a punch, and then becoming advanced, finding that a punch is just a punch.

I'm paraphrasing, but I see the same dynamic. Before martial arts, a black belt is what you wore with black shoes and 'dan' was just my name. After seeing that first Jhoon Rhee commercial and finding out about the supposed rarity of karate black belts from a James Bond movie, the black belt and first dan holder became hugely important, so much more than just a regular fighter. Now that I hold a dan grade higher than first in more than one art, a black belt gathers my dobok quite nicely, matches the color scheme, and is handy for techniques that use a belt or require you to grab a belt. The '___th dan' certificate is just a certificate that certifies that I trained hard and passed a test. My pride is in the training and passing of the test, not in the certificate itself.

And that is where I still care about rank. If its meaning is so shallow, then it has no real meaning at all and thus casts a shadow on my own hard training when others think the debased experience is my experience. As a teacher of others, I obviously would and must take exception with that.

I disagree, though I understand your reasoning.

A degree is just a degree, and degrees from some schools are far more valuable than degrees from others. An ATA four year third dan does not in any way debase my own certifications. His ability, as described in the OP, coupled with the rank awareded him by an ATA school is a reflection on that ATA school, for better or worse.

Another statement made often on MT is that 'rank is only valuable within the school where you earned it.' While I don't fully agree with that, particularly in the context of a larger organization, in principle it is essentially true.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

I disagree, though I understand your reasoning.

A degree is just a degree, and degrees from some schools are far more valuable than degrees from others. An ATA four year third dan does not in any way debase my own certifications. His ability, as described in the OP, coupled with the rank awareded him by an ATA school is a reflection on that ATA school, for better or worse.

Another statement made often on MT is that 'rank is only valuable within the school where you earned it.' While I don't fully agree with that, particularly in the context of a larger organization, in principle it is essentially true.

I think "rank is only valuable within the school where you earned it" is a nice platitude, but it doesn't represent reality. Those of us like you and me who have schools know all too well that the actions of the few (um, many?) inevitably confront us all. And if we earn our bread from teaching, that is a problem.

I do not like having to defend taekwondo as a valid martial art to other martial artists or to lay people who form their impressions of TKD from the McDojo fare. It's all very pure and Zen to say we should just ignore the detractors, but I fear such a perspective is not rooted in day-to-day concerns.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I think "rank is only valuable within the school where you earned it" is a nice platitude, but it doesn't represent reality. Those of us like you and me who have schools know all too well that the actions of the few (um, many?) inevitably confront us all. And if we earn our bread from teaching, that is a problem.

I do not like having to defend taekwondo as a valid martial art to other martial artists or to lay people who form their impressions of TKD from the McDojo fare. It's all very pure and Zen to say we should just ignore the detractors, but I fear such a perspective is not rooted in day-to-day concerns.

I don't think that detractors should just be ignored; I simply don't feel that my certificates or training is debased by some kid with third dan after four years.

I agree that it should not be ignored, though I am choosey about who I take the time to defend the validity of my arts to. As my own private studio is hapkido and kumdo, taekwondo's issues affect me less directly; most lay people don't know what either art is, so defending their validity doesn't really come up.

As for other martial artists questioning the validity of taekwondo as an art, they are the ones that I tend to ignore most often. Most of the time, they question the validity of taekwondo as an art in order to puff themselves up (those here on MT excluded).

I am happy to respond to actual dialogue with other martial arts practitioners, which is mostly what I get here and why I continue to dialogue with people here.

I stopped participating in the the 'my art is so great, your art is for wimps' sites long ago for that reason.

Lay people are so woefully uninformed that most won't even get to the point of questioning taekwondo as a valid art. The armchair masters among the laity I usually ignore, but occasionally, it is fun to engage them to see just how far they'll go with their ridiculous arguments.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

I don't think that detractors should just be ignored; I simply don't feel that my certificates or training is debased by some kid with third dan after four years.

Neither is mine I hope, but I have found myself having to defend my own training. Is that debasement? It depends on the beholder, I guess.

I agree that it should not be ignored, though I am choosey about who I take the time to defend the validity of my arts to. As my own private studio is hapkido and kumdo, taekwondo's issues affect me less directly; most lay people don't know what either art is, so defending their validity doesn't really come up.

If you ever decide to open a more public studio and you decide to teach TKD, I suspect it will be more of an issue for you.

As for other martial artists questioning the validity of taekwondo as an art, they are the ones that I tend to ignore most often. Most of the time, they question the validity of taekwondo as an art in order to puff themselves up (those here on MT excluded).

I am happy to respond to actual dialogue with other martial arts practitioners, which is mostly what I get here and why I continue to dialogue with people here.

I stopped participating in the the 'my art is so great, your art is for wimps' sites long ago for that reason.

It's not just on the internet, I'm afraid. I'm part of a multidisciplinary practice group. We meet every couple of months. It's where I met that Machado brown belt I roll with. TKD bashing happens there from time to time, and I always have to take a few minutes to explain and demonstrate what good TKD is. I also get a few comments occasionally in my karate class or in my TKD class that our training is nothing like what XYZ McDojang offers. The comments both reassure and disgust me at the same time.

Lay people are so woefully uninformed that most won't even get to the point of questioning taekwondo as a valid art. The armchair masters among the laity I usually ignore, but occasionally, it is fun to engage them to see just how far they'll go with their ridiculous arguments.

To me, it's not a matter of laughing and scoffing at them. Their negative feelings towards taekwondo didn't appear out of thin air. They are rooted in something negative that happened either to them or to an acquaintance who was only too happen to spread their dissatisfaction to others.

To me, it's a matter of self-respect to address their incomplete picture of TKD in a positive fashion. Not berating them or beating them up. Not screaming shrilly that my kung fu is the best! Instead, I think it important to take the time to gently show them a different picture that they have never seen before and hopefully help change negative opinion with one person at a time.

 

[puunui]

There is the conundrum. It seems you have to be training for a good while before you see rank to be ultimately unimportant compared to the skill and knowledge it is SUPPOSED to represent. And that is where I still care about rank. If its meaning is so shallow, then it has no real meaning at all and thus casts a shadow on my own hard training when others think the debased experience is my experience. As a teacher of others, I obviously would and must take exception with that.

Funny but prospective students don't ask me what my rank is. In fact, I don't think any of my students actually know what rank I am. It just never comes up. The instructors of the two largest Taekwondo schools here don't put up their dan certificates on the wall. People criticize Taekwondo all the time. It really doesn't affect me in any shape form or fashion, and it certainly doesn't affect the students since they seem to keep coming in droves. The people who complain and criticize Taekwondo tend to be practitioners of other arts. Frankly, who cares what they say. I know I don't, and never really did. If they don't see the value in Taekwondo, then that is their problem, not mine.

I told this story before, but I will say it again. I had a student who was studying kenpo for I think a year, and after a year, he was still a white belt. He was short, 5'3" and would get beat up in sparring all the time. So he came to me because he wanted to learn kicks. I told him come train hard for three months, we would spar after every class for ten or fifteen minutes, and after that, you can go back and spar those kenpo students. I focused on stance, the four basic steps and back leg roundhouse kick with him. After three months, he went back told his kenpo class mates that he was also studying korean martial arts, which they were cool about. they snickered and made comments about it, but they shut their mouths after sparring with him. He beat everyone in sparring, 10-0, except for one golden gloves boxer assistant instructor who was a foot taller than him. After that he was instantly promoted to purple belt. He probably could have medaled at nationals in finweight, if he wanted to, but he didn't want to. He just wanted to get back at his kenpo classmates. He eventually made it to 1st Dan, then quit because of work and school obligations. I miss him because he was my best Hapkido counterattack partner. We would go back and forth for an hour or more and it was so smooth we looked like were on Dancing with the Stars. Oh well.

But I wouldn't worry about what others say if I were you. In the big scheme of things, it really doesn't matter.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Neither is mine I hope, but I have found myself having to defend my own training. Is that debasement? It depends on the beholder, I guess.

I would say that one's certificate would be debased it it was found to be fraudulent; say, for instance a GM fakes KKW certs and you find out that your cert is bogus after the fact.

Or that the instructor who issued it was fraudulent in some way that would create some foundational flaw in your training; such as having training in some other art and then deciding to teach taekwondo because that is where the money is without ever actually learning taekwondo (saw someone do this with Tai Chi recently).

But the rank gymnastics of other schools does not debase yours. If anything, it actually makes yours more valueable.

If you ever decide to open a more public studio and you decide to teach TKD, I suspect it will be more of an issue for you.

If I ever end up teaching taekwondo, I expect, based on what I see at local TKD schools, that the majority of my students will be teens and children who won't care about my rank.

It's not just on the internet, I'm afraid. I'm part of a multidisciplinary practice group. We meet every couple of months. It's where I met that Machado brown belt I roll with. TKD bashing happens there from time to time, and I always have to take a few minutes to explain and demonstrate what good TKD is.

The fact that they bash the art that one of the people with whom they roll practices says more about them than it does about taekwondo. If they respect you enough to roll with you regularly, it would seem that they would respect your art.

I also get a few comments occasionally in my karate class or in my TKD class that our training is nothing like what XYZ McDojang offers. The comments both reassure and disgust me at the same time.

Your classes are geared to a different clientelle.

To me, it's not a matter of laughing and scoffing at them. Their negative feelings towards taekwondo didn't appear out of thin air. They are rooted in something negative that happened either to them or to an acquaintance who was only too happen to spread their dissatisfaction to others.

Actually, I think most of them read it on the internet and just regurgitate it. Some people are just negative and they do all that they can to spread it around. And people, for whatever reason, feed on negativity. If they didn't, the news networks, tabloids, and most reality television would be out of business.

To me, it's a matter of self-respect to address their incomplete picture of TKD in a positive fashion. Not berating them or beating them up. Not screaming shrilly that my kung fu is the best! Instead, I think it important to take the time to gently show them a different picture that they have never seen before and hopefully help change negative opinion with one person at a time.

To be clear, I don't berate or beat them up. But I am sometimes amused by the preposterous arguments that people put forth. Sometimes it takes getting them to that point and then posing a logical counter argument to get them to think for themelves (most spout arguments that are not their own) and look at things objectively.

In many cases, however, the individual doesn't want a complete picture of taekwondo, as his incomplete picture is supporting some other strongly held belief that is dependent upon the picture he has of certain things.

Daniel

 

[Balrog]

It is what his parents told me. One year to first, said he trained every day, one to second and two to third.

Sad to say, we have some schools in the ATA that are belt factories. He apparently attended one.

That's just embarrassing.

 

[dancingalone]

If I ever end up teaching taekwondo, I expect, based on what I see at local TKD schools, that the majority of my students will be teens and children who won't care about my rank.

I was addressing the reputation of TKD on the whole and the prospects therein of losing serious students to other arts.

The fact that they bash the art that one of the people with whom they roll practices says more about them than it does about taekwondo. If they respect you enough to roll with you regularly, it would seem that they would respect your art.

The group changes faces quite frequently since you're asked to bring someone new each time with you if possible. It's also no gi. Often people have no idea what martial art you practice unless you volunteer it.

Your classes are geared to a different clientelle.

Indeed. Yet if I buy a commercial dojang, they will not be.

Actually, I think most of them read it on the internet and just regurgitate it. Some people are just negative and they do all that they can to spread it around. And people, for whatever reason, feed on negativity. If they didn't, the news networks, tabloids, and most reality television would be out of business.

To be clear, I don't berate or beat them up. But I am sometimes amused by the preposterous arguments that people put forth. Sometimes it takes getting them to that point and then posing a logical counter argument to get them to think for themelves (most spout arguments that are not their own) and look at things objectively.

In many cases, however, the individual doesn't want a complete picture of taekwondo, as his incomplete picture is supporting some other strongly held belief that is dependent upon the picture he has of certain things.

I don't run into a lot of the internet machismo types. However I have been asked on several occasions if qualify self-defense is indeed a focus in my school as opposed to exercise or 'building leaders'. This makes me think the schools that do focus on these other activities are creating flak for the schools that indeed want to teach TKD as a fighting art foremost.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I was addressing the reputation of TKD on the whole and the prospects therein of losing serious students to other arts.

I see commericalism as the biggest issue facing taekwondo. The whole sport/SD or length of time to black belt are distractions. Lack of focused training, promotion of unready students, regardless of time frame, and making students into teachers before they are really ready for the responsibility are all a result of commercialism. Unfortunately, if you're the biggest, you tend to end up with the highest amount of commericialization.

Nobody criticizes judo for not being a striking art. Nobody criticizes boxing for lack of kicks or grapples. Taekwondo should be trained hard in every school and students should not get passed along just because the check cleared.

I suspect that if you run your program as you have described that losing serious students will not be an issue for you.

The group changes faces quite frequently since you're asked to bring someone new each time with you if possible. It's also no gi. Often people have no idea what martial art you practice unless you volunteer it.

Once again, if someone is participating in a group of MAists from different backgrounds, those backgrounds should be respected and art bashing has no place.

Indeed. Yet if I buy a commercial dojang, they will not be.

How will you address that common clientelle if you buy the dojang?

I don't run into a lot of the internet machismo types. However I have been asked on several occasions if qualify self-defense is indeed a focus in my school as opposed to exercise or 'building leaders'. This makes me think the schools that do focus on these other activities are creating flak for the schools that indeed want to teach TKD as a fighting art foremost.

Then you have a perfect opportunity to tell these people that your studio offers something that they are looking for.

For the record, I think that the exercise/leadership crowd, the sport/athlete crowd, and the SD/tradition crowd can all be accomodated in taekwondo. If good, solid training and a high standard of performance is the basis of your program, you can build towards any of those goals without sacrificing quality and without losing students.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

I see commericalism as the biggest issue facing taekwondo. The whole sport/SD or length of time to black belt are distractions. Lack of focused training, promotion of unready students, regardless of time frame, and making students into teachers before they are really ready for the responsibility are all a result of commercialism. Unfortunately, if you're the biggest, you tend to end up with the highest amount of commericialization.

Agreed.

Nobody criticizes judo for not being a striking art. Nobody criticizes boxing for lack of kicks or grapples.

That's because neither judo nor boxing has super-duper fanciful techniques that are more for display than actual usage. Some of the criticism about TKD is merited, though certainly again it's an issue of individual schools running amuck

Taekwondo should be trained hard in every school and students should not get passed along just because the check cleared. I suspect that if you run your program as you have described that losing serious students will not be an issue for you.

It's not losing students I have already that worries me. I do wonder however if some potential martial artists never even consider TKD to begin with because of its reputation as a kiddie sport. Maybe these people never even set into a dojang to try it out. They might be going straight to other arts.

Once again, if someone is participating in a group of MAists from different backgrounds, those backgrounds should be respected and art bashing has no place.

I related the anecdote as an example of how I have had to defend TKD in the past. Whether the bashing should have happened is another matter.

How will you address that common clientelle if you buy the dojang?

I don't entirely know. It would definitely need to be a key part of my business plan otherwise I'd be setting myself up for failure from the onset.

Then you have a perfect opportunity to tell these people that your studio offers something that they are looking for.

Well, yes, and I do, but that doesn't get at the point of what we are discussing, i.e., the actions of some reflecting poorly on the rest of us.

For the record, I think that the exercise/leadership crowd, the sport/athlete crowd, and the SD/tradition crowd can all be accomodated in taekwondo. If good, solid training and a high standard of performance is the basis of your program, you can build towards any of those goals without sacrificing quality and without losing students.

I'm not so sure about that. A huge part of the problem is that all those factions use the name 'taekwondo' causing exactly the same problems of identity/goal confusion I describe above. You once said the sport side should call their stuff something like 'tae do'. Have you changed your mind about that?