Qualities Of A Black Belt
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
I think visible respect and courtesy go a long way in presenting both yourself and the arts as a whole in a positive way.
People have also told me that such behavior also conveys confidence (though I myself don't see it) which is a MAist primary defense. I'da thought just the opposite would be the case, but apparently not so.
People have also told me that such behavior also conveys confidence (though I myself don't see it) which is a MAist primary defense. I'da thought just the opposite would be the case, but apparently not so.
Navarre
Master Black Belt
Most respectfully, MJS, why post this under the Kempo forum? This type of question, like the one about what a black belt means to someone, is applicable to all here.
Sometimes I am reluctant to answer such a question under an art with which I'm not a member because I think perhaps you only want to hear from practitioners of that art. I doubt, however, if this is the case.
But, to answer your question, I was told from the first class that we are all ambassadors of the martial arts. This applies from the lowest white belt all the way to Grandmaster.
Most often a person will only know of martial arts what they see from the media and what they see from us. Considering how distorted the first avenue is, it makes the second even more critical.
The Art will be judged by how we conduct ourselves, both on and off the dojo floor. We must hold this in the highest importance, even if an individual does not know we practice The Art.
Black Belts are held to be the elite of a given art. Therefore, I see black belts as knights. We must uphold all that is true to The Art at all times and extend that teaching as we go.
A black belt must have discipline and exert that disciplined mind into all their activities. We must be honorable, patient, loyal, and kind.
The black belt is defined far more by their conduct in everyday life than by any display of physical prowess. We all know when we are doing the right thing; when our actions lead to the betterment of ourselves and others.
This is what a black belt must exemplify. For only through true martial artists (white belt to Grandmaster) can The Art endure.
Sometimes I am reluctant to answer such a question under an art with which I'm not a member because I think perhaps you only want to hear from practitioners of that art. I doubt, however, if this is the case.
But, to answer your question, I was told from the first class that we are all ambassadors of the martial arts. This applies from the lowest white belt all the way to Grandmaster.
Most often a person will only know of martial arts what they see from the media and what they see from us. Considering how distorted the first avenue is, it makes the second even more critical.
The Art will be judged by how we conduct ourselves, both on and off the dojo floor. We must hold this in the highest importance, even if an individual does not know we practice The Art.
Black Belts are held to be the elite of a given art. Therefore, I see black belts as knights. We must uphold all that is true to The Art at all times and extend that teaching as we go.
A black belt must have discipline and exert that disciplined mind into all their activities. We must be honorable, patient, loyal, and kind.
The black belt is defined far more by their conduct in everyday life than by any display of physical prowess. We all know when we are doing the right thing; when our actions lead to the betterment of ourselves and others.
This is what a black belt must exemplify. For only through true martial artists (white belt to Grandmaster) can The Art endure.
Navarre said:
I was looking to add some new threads to this section, but you're right, this question can apply anywhere.
Don't ever feel like you can't or shouldn't post in an area just because you may not be from that given art. Asking questions is the way we learn new things! For myself, I tend to stay in the areas I'm more familiar with, but I've posted in areas on here in which I am not familiar with.
Thank you for your reply!
Mike
still learning
Senior Master
Hello, Someone who is kind , helpful, physical strong, is a very mature thinking person. Must have a good attitude about everything. Almost a perfect person....don't you think? ..............that is what we expect from our teachers? ..................so should all there Black Belts students be?
Sometimes there is a certain amount of expectations..........some real and some arn't...........it depends on how we were taught growing up .......do you agree? ...................Aloha
Sometimes there is a certain amount of expectations..........some real and some arn't...........it depends on how we were taught growing up .......do you agree? ...................Aloha
Ginsu
Orange Belt
This is something that was shared with me several years ago about this very topic. I agree with some of it and some of it no. However I think it is worth sharing what my friend took the time to share with me.
"Definition of a black belt---for some people, it is easy: If you can do the techniques during your testing, and you've spent the time-in-grade, you are a black belt.
So it is based on what you can do? Let's take taekwondo as an example. TKD has a number of jumping/spinning kicks. I know a 7th dan TKD practitioner who no longer can do those jump-spinning heel kicks. His body simply won't do them anymore. By one definition, he wouldn't be able to pass a 1st dan test. Should he not be a black belt anymore?
Higher rankings have different requirements, you might say. Oh, so the higher ranked you are, the less you have to be able to do?
But they aren't physically capable anymore, one might argue. Ok, so now you don't have to be physically capable, you just have to know how to do the techniques? So, in other words, you can get a black belt from reading books and watching videos. After all, I can read a good reference and be able to tell people how to do techniques that way.
You don't think so? Okay, so what is the criterion?
For some people, it is the ability to compete and win, that gives them the "points" necessary to advance to the next rank. (Pardon me for errors in this thinking, I've never actually practiced an art where this was true, though I hear a number of Taekwondoin and Judoka practice this way.) So, if you can do the techniques, show the kata, teach the art----but can't win, you don't count?
What if you consistently win, using two techniques. (Bill Wallace comes to mind here.) You can't do anything else (okay, now we aren't talking about Mr. Wallace anymore) but those two carry you enough to win a number of tournaments. Are you a black belt?
I don't think so.
So, how do you define a black belt? Is it an attitude? Is it physical technique? Is it a levelheadedness with regards to physical confrontations, with emotional control? Is it an ability to teach?
Is it something that you reach once, and after that, don't have to ever demonstrate again?
There are a number of people out there in wheelchairs who are aikido practitioners, some of whom are black belt ranks. The question is, how so? They obviously can't do the footwork, the distance training, entering techniques (based on their physical movement) etc----a large section of their art, they can't do.
And yet, they are ranked. Was someone feeling sorry for them? I don't think so. I think they worked hard, and earned their rank. Does that mean that rank requirements change depending on the person's abilities? So a blind quadrapalegic can get a black belt somehow? That doesn't seem right. So where is the line drawn? (And no, I don't mean to pick on aikido----I just read an article about handicapped martial artists and self-defense, so this example came to mind.)
There was a blind man (well, actually about 17 years old) who had a black belt in TKD (or karate, I'm not certain). I read about him, and once saw him demonstrate a kata and some breaking techniques. He was Impressive. He broke two boards at head height with a jumping back kick, did several kata with power and control, and overall, was very technically oriented.
On the other hand, his sparring was pathetic. He had no distance game (for obvious reasons) and as such, he'd never win a tournament in sparring. Similarly, he'd never be able to teach. A teacher could use him for demonstration, but he could never evaluate students in any meaningful way. And yet, he is ranked as a black belt. Again, is it based on techniques? Is it not? Based on teaching ability? How about on self-defense ability? How do you define a black belt ?
We all say "black belt" and it means different things to all of us---and yet, there are certain things we expect of a person we call "black belt." But what is it? Our requirements, while obviously different for each art and each style, seem to also change based on who we are dealing with.
And yet, we seem to expect many of the same things from our black belts, even though we can't seem to define what those things should be. And of course, people get in arguments as to what a "proper" black belt can do and be.
I think of my instructor, who doesn't kick above the waist anymore, because his back and an injured knee. I think of that blind kid, who had the best jump spinning crescent that I'd ever seen at the time. I remember a guy from Omaha who visited down here one day who was technically proficient, (quite good actually) but wasn't a black belt, and who had the willpower of an unrepentant heroin addict, and the emotional maturity and control of a 14-year-old on cocaine. I'm not even sure how he stuck with it enough to gain that much physical control---but he certainly had it.
A woman I tested with once would just take you apart with her self-defense techniques. Her locks were sharp and solidly in control, her pressure points were precise and effective, and if you grabbed her and tried to restrain her you'd end up a close, personal acquaintance of the floor, wondering if your body was ever going to work correctly again, IF she ever let you up. And yet, none of her breaks worked during that particular test. Not one. She didn't break her bricks, her hand techniques didn't break the boards, and she bruised her heel badly on her spinning heel break. By some testing criteria, if you don't break (if you even miss one) you don't pass.
Should she be a black belt? By what criterion?
My friend and I finally came up with a tortured, mangled, alterable-but-working definition of a black belt, according to us.
Black belt: Someone who has a thorough, proficient grounding in the basic techniques of an art, such that they can effectively demonstrate and/or teach those techniques. Additionally, someone who has the mental and emotional control to both use those techniques effectively and appropriately in society.
That seems to cover just about everyone I know that I consider to be a black belt, and disqualifies everyone that has some knowledge but whom I do not consider black belt material. (Hey, I can be subjective---this is my definition, after all.
That blind man----he may not be able to teach, but he certainly can demonstrate. That wheel-chaired black belt----she may not be able to demonstrate footwork, but of all people she understands the concept of effective distance, and can teach it. That woman who couldn't break that day----I've seen her break before, and I'm sure she'll be able to do it again. She is a wonderful teacher, and an excellent practitioner. It just wasn't a good break day.
They are all black belts, and should be.
And that one from Omaha who visited? Nope. "Appropriateness" is a word outside his vocabulary. (Actually, "Duh" was about his limit, but let us not be unkind. Well, not TOO unkind. Ahem.)
The definition of a black belt differs greatly from art to art----and yet, when we say "dan rank," "black sash," or whatever term reflects that particular rank, we expect the practitioner to know certain things, to act certain ways, and to be an example for lower ranks.
We don't always get it----I've seen black belts that I would not let get anywhere NEAR my students, and others that I think need remedial emotional control practice. However, that doesn't change what I expect:
A person with emotional, mental, and physical control, teaching or technical ability, and above all, the capacity to be an example of a good martial artist to lower ranks.
A black belt."
"Definition of a black belt---for some people, it is easy: If you can do the techniques during your testing, and you've spent the time-in-grade, you are a black belt.
So it is based on what you can do? Let's take taekwondo as an example. TKD has a number of jumping/spinning kicks. I know a 7th dan TKD practitioner who no longer can do those jump-spinning heel kicks. His body simply won't do them anymore. By one definition, he wouldn't be able to pass a 1st dan test. Should he not be a black belt anymore?
Higher rankings have different requirements, you might say. Oh, so the higher ranked you are, the less you have to be able to do?
But they aren't physically capable anymore, one might argue. Ok, so now you don't have to be physically capable, you just have to know how to do the techniques? So, in other words, you can get a black belt from reading books and watching videos. After all, I can read a good reference and be able to tell people how to do techniques that way.
You don't think so? Okay, so what is the criterion?
For some people, it is the ability to compete and win, that gives them the "points" necessary to advance to the next rank. (Pardon me for errors in this thinking, I've never actually practiced an art where this was true, though I hear a number of Taekwondoin and Judoka practice this way.) So, if you can do the techniques, show the kata, teach the art----but can't win, you don't count?
What if you consistently win, using two techniques. (Bill Wallace comes to mind here.) You can't do anything else (okay, now we aren't talking about Mr. Wallace anymore) but those two carry you enough to win a number of tournaments. Are you a black belt?
I don't think so.
So, how do you define a black belt? Is it an attitude? Is it physical technique? Is it a levelheadedness with regards to physical confrontations, with emotional control? Is it an ability to teach?
Is it something that you reach once, and after that, don't have to ever demonstrate again?
There are a number of people out there in wheelchairs who are aikido practitioners, some of whom are black belt ranks. The question is, how so? They obviously can't do the footwork, the distance training, entering techniques (based on their physical movement) etc----a large section of their art, they can't do.
And yet, they are ranked. Was someone feeling sorry for them? I don't think so. I think they worked hard, and earned their rank. Does that mean that rank requirements change depending on the person's abilities? So a blind quadrapalegic can get a black belt somehow? That doesn't seem right. So where is the line drawn? (And no, I don't mean to pick on aikido----I just read an article about handicapped martial artists and self-defense, so this example came to mind.)
There was a blind man (well, actually about 17 years old) who had a black belt in TKD (or karate, I'm not certain). I read about him, and once saw him demonstrate a kata and some breaking techniques. He was Impressive. He broke two boards at head height with a jumping back kick, did several kata with power and control, and overall, was very technically oriented.
On the other hand, his sparring was pathetic. He had no distance game (for obvious reasons) and as such, he'd never win a tournament in sparring. Similarly, he'd never be able to teach. A teacher could use him for demonstration, but he could never evaluate students in any meaningful way. And yet, he is ranked as a black belt. Again, is it based on techniques? Is it not? Based on teaching ability? How about on self-defense ability? How do you define a black belt ?
We all say "black belt" and it means different things to all of us---and yet, there are certain things we expect of a person we call "black belt." But what is it? Our requirements, while obviously different for each art and each style, seem to also change based on who we are dealing with.
And yet, we seem to expect many of the same things from our black belts, even though we can't seem to define what those things should be. And of course, people get in arguments as to what a "proper" black belt can do and be.
I think of my instructor, who doesn't kick above the waist anymore, because his back and an injured knee. I think of that blind kid, who had the best jump spinning crescent that I'd ever seen at the time. I remember a guy from Omaha who visited down here one day who was technically proficient, (quite good actually) but wasn't a black belt, and who had the willpower of an unrepentant heroin addict, and the emotional maturity and control of a 14-year-old on cocaine. I'm not even sure how he stuck with it enough to gain that much physical control---but he certainly had it.
A woman I tested with once would just take you apart with her self-defense techniques. Her locks were sharp and solidly in control, her pressure points were precise and effective, and if you grabbed her and tried to restrain her you'd end up a close, personal acquaintance of the floor, wondering if your body was ever going to work correctly again, IF she ever let you up. And yet, none of her breaks worked during that particular test. Not one. She didn't break her bricks, her hand techniques didn't break the boards, and she bruised her heel badly on her spinning heel break. By some testing criteria, if you don't break (if you even miss one) you don't pass.
Should she be a black belt? By what criterion?
My friend and I finally came up with a tortured, mangled, alterable-but-working definition of a black belt, according to us.
Black belt: Someone who has a thorough, proficient grounding in the basic techniques of an art, such that they can effectively demonstrate and/or teach those techniques. Additionally, someone who has the mental and emotional control to both use those techniques effectively and appropriately in society.
That seems to cover just about everyone I know that I consider to be a black belt, and disqualifies everyone that has some knowledge but whom I do not consider black belt material. (Hey, I can be subjective---this is my definition, after all.
That blind man----he may not be able to teach, but he certainly can demonstrate. That wheel-chaired black belt----she may not be able to demonstrate footwork, but of all people she understands the concept of effective distance, and can teach it. That woman who couldn't break that day----I've seen her break before, and I'm sure she'll be able to do it again. She is a wonderful teacher, and an excellent practitioner. It just wasn't a good break day.
They are all black belts, and should be.
And that one from Omaha who visited? Nope. "Appropriateness" is a word outside his vocabulary. (Actually, "Duh" was about his limit, but let us not be unkind. Well, not TOO unkind. Ahem.)
The definition of a black belt differs greatly from art to art----and yet, when we say "dan rank," "black sash," or whatever term reflects that particular rank, we expect the practitioner to know certain things, to act certain ways, and to be an example for lower ranks.
We don't always get it----I've seen black belts that I would not let get anywhere NEAR my students, and others that I think need remedial emotional control practice. However, that doesn't change what I expect:
A person with emotional, mental, and physical control, teaching or technical ability, and above all, the capacity to be an example of a good martial artist to lower ranks.
A black belt."
I think a quality a blackbelt should have is to be a motivation to others.
Sean
(I couldn't edit the title. I tried)
Sean
(I couldn't edit the title. I tried)
I can too kick above the waist, so long as they are very, very short. Thanks for sharing Steve!
-Michael
-Michael
Black Belt Jedi
Blue Belt
The qualities of a black belt is to be registered as a lethal weapon and to style and profile wooooooooooo!!! :ultracool
In seriousness, I will never forget receiving my Shodan on November 2009, it was a great milestone for me. The qualities of being a black belt is to be humble, not giving into ego, being a role model and showing leadership for students. Always motivative to others, being knowledgeable in the arts. I also say staying in good shape because it shows students that you are still training instead of just teaching and sitting on a throne like the King of England.
In seriousness, I will never forget receiving my Shodan on November 2009, it was a great milestone for me. The qualities of being a black belt is to be humble, not giving into ego, being a role model and showing leadership for students. Always motivative to others, being knowledgeable in the arts. I also say staying in good shape because it shows students that you are still training instead of just teaching and sitting on a throne like the King of England.
MasterPain
White Belt
Hmmm... let's see..... I suppose what I expect from a black belt is a man (or woman) traveling from village to village, town to town, or city to city, searching out the local martial arts schools and challenging all their masters to fight, a fight where people lose their limbs and continue fighting anyway....until the wanderer has proven that his or her style is superior to all others.
just kidding.
Honestly, all the attributes that have already been mentioned (respectful, dignified, kind, courteous, loyal, humble, patient, honorable, etc.) I expect from every human being regardless of belt rank or no belt at all. What can I say, I have high expectations.
Consequently, I would like to agree with my buddy stevebjj in that black belts should be able to show competence in their art. And, they should show a competence of depth and breadth, not just superficial.
Thanks for opportunity to express my opinion.
just kidding.
Honestly, all the attributes that have already been mentioned (respectful, dignified, kind, courteous, loyal, humble, patient, honorable, etc.) I expect from every human being regardless of belt rank or no belt at all. What can I say, I have high expectations.
Consequently, I would like to agree with my buddy stevebjj in that black belts should be able to show competence in their art. And, they should show a competence of depth and breadth, not just superficial.
Thanks for opportunity to express my opinion.
Black Belt Jedi
Blue Belt
I would also like to add, that being black belt means that you should have a passion for teaching students. Passing down your knowledge to the next generation. I love teaching. When I started out teaching in my first months of black belt, I thought I would be only teaching adults and kids in between the ages of 11-15 mainly because I felt more comfortable teaching that group other than kids inbetween the ages of 4 and 10 because they can be a tough crowd to control. However, gradually I was willing to teach the little kids. Then in a twist of fate when my senior black belts were unable to teach their respective classes because of other priorities and so forth, I was willing to fill in their positions permanately. Why? Because a wise man I knew on the internet told me and other peers that "That all Black Belts cannot be instructors if they are not willing to teach all ages." In a way it looked like my seniors just passed the torch down to me.
I remember when I was kyu belt, I didn't even want to go in and assist the 4-7 year olds because they misbehave so often. But when I got to black belt the children were beginning to grow on me. I was voluntering my time, teaching classes for all ages and I love doing it. I love teaching kids, and being interactive with them. Recently, my Sensei gave me the title of Sempai because I was the most committed student teaching classes while he was absent so often because of work.
The qualities of a black belt is always being a father fiqure. I remember a grandmother told me that her grandson that I teach don't have so many father figures and that he lost his father. And one girl who always hugs me before or after class or anytime I'm here. I give her a piggy back many times. Her parents are divorced and she lives with her mother. There are some kids I am teaching have parents who are seperated or divorced so I step in to be that father figure to them.
I remember when I was kyu belt, I didn't even want to go in and assist the 4-7 year olds because they misbehave so often. But when I got to black belt the children were beginning to grow on me. I was voluntering my time, teaching classes for all ages and I love doing it. I love teaching kids, and being interactive with them. Recently, my Sensei gave me the title of Sempai because I was the most committed student teaching classes while he was absent so often because of work.
The qualities of a black belt is always being a father fiqure. I remember a grandmother told me that her grandson that I teach don't have so many father figures and that he lost his father. And one girl who always hugs me before or after class or anytime I'm here. I give her a piggy back many times. Her parents are divorced and she lives with her mother. There are some kids I am teaching have parents who are seperated or divorced so I step in to be that father figure to them.
Cyriacus
Senior Master
This is also Subjective.
As this would Imply that a Personal Willingness to Teach were Universally a Requirement for Understanding the Meaning and Application of Techniques and Proficiencies in a Martial Art.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
While a desire to teach is a laudable trait to have, I don't see it as being necessary for a black belt. Thinking back on my own experience, some of the best lutadors were TERRIBLE teachers.
Teaching is a skillset completely unrelated to martial arts. In order to be a great teacher, you have to be credible and competent in what you're teaching, but that's just the beginning.
