Promotion stanrdards (Split from Is it disrespectful to ask [...])

[Flying Crane]

Wow that's a very arrogant view...people are motivated by different reasons and there reasons and their reasons are just as legitimate as yours

Of course they are. I shared my opinion, as you have shared yours. It's all good. That's all we are doing here, is sharing opinions. Nobody is changing the world through Martialtalk.com.

I believe belts are a waste and a distraction. You believe otherwise. I don't have a problem with that. Do you?

 

[Tez3]

This discussion about semantics is an insult to both of us

I'm amused by the idea that because someone wrote something you don't like he's 'insulting' himself. He didn't actually insult you either.

I di break some roof tiles once when we were having a demo at a charity fair but what I actually know about breaking is 'hammerfist here' and I broke the tiles so when someone who obviously knows writes about breaking I don't contradict or argue with them. I might ask questions and I will admit I can't see the attraction in breaking wood but that's neither here nor there. When an expert tells you something, you listen and learn, you can try things out for yourself to verify what they say or you can just accept it, which is what I will do when Andy is talking breaking...cos he knows better than I do.

 

[TrueJim]

In my opinion, a large organization like that is often a big part of the problem.

You know, that's actually a great question. The school I attend is relatively large, with nearly 600 students in total (if you count the after-care programs and the summer camp programs, along with the conventional evening taekwondo classes). We have 4 schools here in the US but we're affiliated with about a hundred schools over in South Korea (the "MBA" franchise in South Korea). Our busiest class during the week is the Wednesday evening "All Belts" class in which we can have as many as 80 students in a class. (Though a class size of 30ish is more typical for us.) During our busy classes, the use of belts certainly helps us divide into groups quickly for curriculum practice.

Being a large schools offers us some advantages:

• Of course there's the obvious economic advantages: the economies of scale. We can afford to do things like host big regional tournaments by virtue of our size (the D.C. TKD Open & Kukkiwon Cup is coming up soon) or even have large production runs of our own internal brand of uniforms (네이버 지도).
• We're large enough to have a number of "special teams" that help with longer-term student retention, by maintaining students' interest past black-belt (a demo team, leadership team, competition team, tkd video club, etc.)
• We have a "deep bench" of instructors, so a big chunk of the school can go away (like, to a tournament) while still leaving a good-sized cadre of instructors at home to carry on.
• Our adult population (both practitioners and parents) is so large that we also have a "deep bench" of specialized skills we can draw upon (IT people, EMTs, photographers, etc.) to support our many projects.
• During black-belt testing, our size makes it fairly easy for us to find good panels of outside masters to serve as our judges.
• And of course the large size results in a very social dojang - peopled tend to make many new friends at our school.

Of course a number of things on that list fall outside the core objective of having "good taekwondo". But the question I'm rolling-around in my mind is: do smaller schools inherently have an easier time of achieving good taekwondo? I'm inclined to think that being small would present its own unique set of challenges, when it comes to having "good taekwondo".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Of course they are. I shared my opinion, as you have shared yours. It's all good. That's all we are doing here, is sharing opinions. Nobody is changing the world through Martialtalk.com.

I believe belts are a waste and a distraction. You believe otherwise. I don't have a problem with that. Do you?

Except that when you call them a waste and a distraction, you are saying they serve no useful purpose, and those of us who use them are distracted by them. I've seen little to support that conclusion.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But the question I'm rolling-around in my mind is: do smaller schools inherently have an easier time of achieving good taekwondo? I'm inclined to think that being small would present its own unique set of challenges, when it comes to having "good taekwondo".

I can't speak to TKD, but I know that having a small program brings some specific challenges. There's less variety of who to train/spar with, so you get to know people too well, and don't have to deal with unexpectedness as often. When I (the instructor) am out of town or late getting back in, class doesn't happen. Students are only learning the art from one instructor (this may be the biggest problem, from my point of view).

 

[Axiom]

It's not an insult to either of us, but then maybe you missed the point. You took a word in one language and made it seem as if simply using an approximate translated word in another language means that the area of study (and breaking is an area of studying, I know one late American grandmaster that wrote two whole books on the subject himself) becomes a simple concept. Languages often don't have an exact equivalent, there's an embedded history to how the word was used and is currently used that simply translating between languages without bearing in mind the culture isn't useful.

I'm happy to keep discussing this whole topic with you as we've had different experiences and have different points of view, but if you say something that isn't valid/useful (and I explain why I feel that way) and you just reply with "I will leave it at that. Sad is all", then there's not much point in engaging in the discussion.

I feel we hit a low-point by arguing what annihilation entails. When Taekwondo instructors starts resembling lawyers in defending their interpretation of perfectly clear concepts like destruction/annihilation in such a convoluted way, I bow out. The only argument applicable to the case in point, is if the board were to later suffer a heart attack from the unsuccessful breaking attempt.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I feel we hit a low-point by arguing what annihilation entails. When Taekwondo instructors starts resembling lawyers in defending their interpretation of perfectly clear concepts like destruction/annihilation in such a convoluted way, I bow out. The only argument applicable to the case in point, is if the board were to later suffer a heart attack from the unsuccessful breaking attempt.

You were the one who asked for the definition. And Andy is right about the difficulty in translating, espe

 

[Axiom]

You were the one who asked for the definition. And Andy is right about the difficulty in translating, espe

No. I was simply double-checking if it had an alternative meaning in Korean. As it turned out, the exact Korean wording was even stronger than the English translation.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No. I was simply double-checking if it had an alternative meaning in Korean. As it turned out, the exact Korean wording was even stronger than the English translation.

I might also point out that you are the one treating it like a law - requiring the test meet the letter of what is written, rather than the intent. Andy has pointed out that test isn't (and probably shouldn't be) about breaking a board. There's something that breaking exam is testing for, and the instructor's job is to ensure that's there. If the board breaks on bad technique (weak board), would you just pass the student? They met the wording of the phrase, but not the intent behind the test. And if they get enough of it right (let's say they get 80% right, but no break), well, if the passing "score" (in the instructor's mind, what it takes to pass the test) is met, then they pass.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's labelled breaking! What is the Korean translation of breaking in KKW?

Here. You didn't ask for an alternative. You asked for the translation. Translations are not often effectively literal.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Some random thoughts ...

For those who are annoyed to read someone say something like "I will get my black belt a year from now", are you also annoyed to hear a junior in college say "I will graduate with my bachelor's degree a year from now"?

If not, what is the difference? The latter case doesn't necessarily indicate any kind of low standards. Suppose the junior is studying engineering at MIT? I can guarantee you she's putting in a lot more work and being judged more severely than most candidates for a TKD black belt. It's always possible she could flunk some senior classes or be expelled before graduating, but you'd be considered pretty rude if you were to point that out any time someone mentioned their graduation date.

The main difference I see is that in college the requirements for graduation are explicitly defined in detail, there is an expected timeline, and students are expected to prioritize their schooling so they can fulfill those requirements in a timely fashion. In martial arts, the requirements and timeline for promotions are often more vague and most students are hobbyists who are more likely to drop out or slack off as other aspects of their life take priority. However if you have a martial arts school where the promotion requirements are clear and the timeline is reasonably attainable by a normal student and the student knows they can maintain the commitment to keep to that timeline, then I don't see anything wrong with the student expecting to get their promotion on schedule.

This raises the question of what the advantages and disadvantages would be for martial arts schools to have this sort of clearly defined timeline for progression. Right now it seems like the schools most committed to that sort of model are the "Mcdojos" with low standards, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. MIT doesn't display low standards by expecting their students to graduate in 4 years.

There are a few difficulties I see with maintaining high standards, but also having an expected timeline.

Firstly, most martial arts students are hobbyists with limited time to devote to the art. That time may reasonably be expected to vary as other aspects of the student's life intrude. Most martial arts schools cannot reasonably expect their students to put in the same full time commitment that college takes. Perhaps you could get around that by tracking the actual number of classes the student attends and basing the timeline on class hours rather than months or years, but that doesn't pick up "homework" time and it rewards attendance rather than actual achievement.

Secondly, students come in with widely varying levels of pre-existing ability. It took me about 15 years to earn my black belt in BJJ. A friend of mine recently was awarded his after a bit over 5 years. His promotion was entirely deserved, but I don't think he was putting in 3 times the weekly practice time that I was. In addition to being a smart guy with a great attitude and work ethic, he is also much more naturally talented than I am. In contrast, we have another student at our school who has been showing up and putting in good work with a good attitude for 4-5 years and has yet to earn his blue belt. His natural talent is on the other end of the scale.

Colleges get around this issue by only admitting students who they think have the ability and preparation to succeed in the normal timeline. Those who get in but turn out not to have that ability or preparation may end up failing out. Very few martial arts schools follow this system. It might be a decent approach for developing a winning fight team, but it cuts out those who may need martial arts the most - the people who don't have natural talent or advanced physical attributes.

Given these discrepancies in natural talent and time to commit that may exist between different students, perhaps it's unrealistic to define any sort of expected timeline for students to progress. (At least if you are measuring functional ability rather than memorization of a set curriculum.) BJJ has typically gone with the approach that you are ready whenever you get there, whether it takes 2 years or 20.

Still as an instructor, I don't want to just put everything onto the student. If a student shows up and trains with a good attitude, but doesn't progress nearly as fast as I think they should be able to in a certain span of time, I start wondering what I could do better to help them develop their skills more effectively.

 

[Axiom]

I might also point out that you are the one treating it like a law - requiring the test meet the letter of what is written, rather than the intent. Andy has pointed out that test isn't (and probably shouldn't be) about breaking a board. There's something that breaking exam is testing for, and the instructor's job is to ensure that's there. If the board breaks on bad technique (weak board), would you just pass the student? They met the wording of the phrase, but not the intent behind the test. And if they get enough of it right (let's say they get 80% right, but no break), well, if the passing "score" (in the instructor's mind, what it takes to pass the test) is met, then they pass.

While I agree that a formally incorrect technique might still break the board, it has not been established how a correct one wouldn't.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

More thoughts:

The severity or laxity of requirements for belt ranking has no necessary link to the quality or intensity of training.

Suppose I open my school of Tony-Do and establish a system where you test for a colored belt rank every 5 years and can't get your black belt until you've been training for 30 years.

Then across town I open a school for my other art, Dismukes Ryu, and in that system you automatically earn your black belt in 1 year without any test and then automatically get another degree on your black belt every year afterwards, topping out at a maximum of 50th dan.

Now tell me - which school offers better training?

Based on what I've told you, there is no way to know. It's true that a purple belt in Tony Do might be the equivalent of a 10th dan in Dismukes Ryu, but that's just labels. The real question is - if you go to one school and put in a couple years of hard work and your identical twin goes to the other school and puts in an equal degree of hard work there - which one of you will have learned more? That's what matters, not what titles are awarded in recognition of that progress.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

While I agree that a formally incorrect technique might still break the board, it has not been established how a correct one wouldn't.

I remember reading a few posts already answering this question including; wet/damp board, thicker board then it was supposed to be, the holders not holding it properly, and an injury preventing the kicker from putting full power even if the technique is accurate. From what I remember, your response was essentially "if they did everything correct the board would break no matter what." So it was established how correct technique wouldn't break the board, you just chose to dismiss it.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

You know, that's actually a great question. The school I attend is relatively large, with nearly 600 students in total (if you count the after-care programs and the summer camp programs, along with the conventional evening taekwondo classes). We have 4 schools here in the US but we're affiliated with about a hundred schools over in South Korea (the "MBA" franchise in South Korea). Our busiest class during the week is the Wednesday evening "All Belts" class in which we can have as many as 80 students in a class. (Though a class size of 30ish is more typical for us.) During our busy classes, the use of belts certainly helps us divide into groups quickly for curriculum practice.

Being a large schools offers us some advantages:

• Of course there's the obvious economic advantages: the economies of scale. We can afford to do things like host big regional tournaments by virtue of our size (the D.C. TKD Open & Kukkiwon Cup is coming up soon) or even have large production runs of our own internal brand of uniforms (네이버 지도).
• We're large enough to have a number of "special teams" that help with longer-term student retention, by maintaining students' interest past black-belt (a demo team, leadership team, competition team, tkd video club, etc.)
• We have a "deep bench" of instructors, so a big chunk of the school can go away (like, to a tournament) while still leaving a good-sized cadre of instructors at home to carry on.
• Our adult population (both practitioners and parents) is so large that we also have a "deep bench" of specialized skills we can draw upon (IT people, EMTs, photographers, etc.) to support our many projects.
• During black-belt testing, our size makes it fairly easy for us to find good panels of outside masters to serve as our judges.
• And of course the large size results in a very social dojang - peopled tend to make many new friends at our school.

Of course a number of things on that list fall outside the core objective of having "good taekwondo". But the question I'm rolling-around in my mind is: do smaller schools inherently have an easier time of achieving good taekwondo? I'm inclined to think that being small would present its own unique set of challenges, when it comes to having "good taekwondo".

From the viewpoint of a student, I feel that I've learned a lot more from smaller classes. I can't even imagine a class of 80, but I enjoy the smaller atmosphere, am more motivated, and get to see more of what the people with more experience/better technique than myself have.

My best experience was at a school that was small, but had a lot of visitors. So the class size would never be more than 10 (at the very most), but it was new people every month or so that were friends of the instructors visiting NYC from all kinds of backgrounds, and I got to experience people from all the different backgrounds. I have no idea how that worked financially, but as a student I loved it.

 

[Steve]

Of course they are. I shared my opinion, as you have shared yours. It's all good. That's all we are doing here, is sharing opinions. Nobody is changing the world through Martialtalk.com.

I believe belts are a waste and a distraction. You believe otherwise. I don't have a problem with that. Do you?

It just happens that your opinion is ignorant and bigoted. When you share an opinion that is ignorant and bigoted , it's not all good, and you should expect to be challenged.

Where the heck is @Tez3? She should be the one calling you out on this, because this is kind of her wheelhouse. I hope she shows up with that meme of hers she likes to post when people propose idiotic opinions.

 

[Steve]

More thoughts:

The severity or laxity of requirements for belt ranking has no necessary link to the quality or intensity of training.

Very true, and I agree with the rest of your post. And also, situations like this create a lot of uncertainty, stress and unnecessary confusion because your standards are not aligned with your expectations.

 

[Axiom]

From the viewpoint of a student, I feel that I've learned a lot more from smaller classes. I can't even imagine a class of 80, but I enjoy the smaller atmosphere, am more motivated, and get to see more of what the people with more experience/better technique than myself have.

My best experience was at a school that was small, but had a lot of visitors. So the class size would never be more than 10 (at the very most), but it was new people every month or so that were friends of the instructors visiting NYC from all kinds of backgrounds, and I got to experience people from all the different backgrounds. I have no idea how that worked financially, but as a student I loved it.

As I already mentioned, the board wasn't wood, it was one of those you piece together after breaking it (another sign of a Mcdojo). And they did make several adjustments for her with no improvement in her performance.

 

[Tez3]

While I agree that a formally incorrect technique might still break the board, it has not been established how a correct one wouldn't.

I was going to say use your imagination and think of all the ways a board might not break but Kempodisciple has very kindly given some reasons. I have seen demos where the board didn't break because the holder let go as soon as the person just about touched it. It wouldn't break because it didn't get the full force. I've seen the holder move the angle of it as well, it's a flinch reflex which means that while the 'attack' on the board is correct the board doesn't get the full impact. I wouldn't volunteer to hold a board, I think you need someone with a bit of experience.

I remember reading a few posts already answering this question including; wet/damp board, thicker board then it was supposed to be, the holders not holding it properly, and an injury preventing the kicker from putting full power even if the technique is accurate. From what I remember, your response was essentially "if they did everything correct the board would break no matter what." So it was established how correct technique wouldn't break the board, you just chose to dismiss it.

 

[Tez3]

As I already mentioned, the board wasn't wood, it was one of those you piece together after breaking it (another sign of a Mcdojo). And they did make several adjustments for her with no improvement in her performance.

Really? or perhaps it's the sign of people who are thrifty and/or don't want to use wood to help the environment. Get a grip man, you far too judgemental without any reasons to be.