Rank & Time Tables

[kwanjang]

Greetings,

I don't mind time in grade. But I whole heartedly dis-agree with an "inflated" lenght of unrealistic time based on nothing designed for the sole purpose of holding people back from grade.

A reasonable lenght of time needed to aquire the nessarsary skills. I think two years between Dan levels should act as a minimum and the rest is up to the person and the instructor...

Greetings everyone:
I use the old standard of two years to second, three years to third, four years to fourth etc., and I was quite happy with this formula. It takes me a long time to teach people all the stuff they need for their respective ranks; because, I just don't show them the stuff, I expect them to practice it for quite some time before I show more stuff.

A few years ago, while talking to JR and Geoff at the Jackson seminar, Geoff pointed out something I had not even considered until that time. He asked me a simple question: "how long do you plan to live?" This took me by surprise, and it became obvious in a very short time that, if I kept to my present time table, I would NEVER be able to teach my highest ranking student enough to have him succeed me in carrying on the art I was made guardian of.

So, back to the drawing board it was, and I had to adjust my thinking AND my teaching schedule to better reflect the anticipated life I hopefully have left to live. Good thing I am no longer wild and woolley like I used to be, else I am sure some jealous husband would cause me to take the likelyhood of being shot into consideration as well lol. In any case, it is interesting to see how others look at time lines, and it will no doubt help me with my dilemma. Funny how none of this was a worry to me until my GM passed away and left me with this mess. Much easier not to lead a clan and just have fun on the mat

 

[American HKD]

Greetings everyone:
I use the old standard of two years to second, three years to third, four years to fourth etc., and I was quite happy with this formula. It takes me a long time to teach people all the stuff they need for their respective ranks; because, I just don't show them the stuff, I expect them to practice it for quite some time before I show more stuff.

A few years ago, while talking to JR and Geoff at the Jackson seminar, Geoff pointed out something I had not even considered until that time. He asked me a simple question: "how long do you plan to live?" This took me by surprise, and it became obvious in a very short time that, if I kept to my present time table, I would NEVER be able to teach my highest ranking student enough to have him succeed me in carrying on the art I was made guardian of.

So, back to the drawing board it was, and I had to adjust my thinking AND my teaching schedule to better reflect the anticipated life I hopefully have left to live. Good thing I am no longer wild and woolley like I used to be, else I am sure some jealous husband would cause me to take the likelyhood of being shot into consideration as well lol. In any case, it is interesting to see how others look at time lines, and it will no doubt help me with my dilemma. Funny how none of this was a worry to me until my GM passed away and left me with this mess. Much easier not to lead a clan and just have fun on the mat

Dear Rudy,

I don't believe from my own reseach in Chinese, Korean or Japanese MA student were made to purposely wait any lenght of time to be Instructors or Masters etc.

People may have been made to wait because of mis-trust, or not shown real technique so the Master would always be Top Dog, not just to wait around for nothing etc.

Yes the person should be able to prove he has the skills, but time has nothing to do with it. It's an individual assesment and has no basis on how long you WAIT between grades.

I think this is so simple yet many have trouble dealing with it, because of some old misconceptions or that's how everyone does it or he's to young to be this or that Dan.

Hal

You'll like this I first started my Alarm Company at 26 years old, I was a very we'll trained Electrician with about 8 years learning in a commercial/industrial background. It took me 3 years to make Journeyman grade in my company and it was Union because I really tried hard and the boss knew it and they jumped me up ahaead of schedule why because I could do the job.

People wouldn't hire me a few times on certain big jobs only because I was young therefore they believed I didn't knew my trade or could handle the job.

The same thing is going on here! Time is a factor of sorts but not all that important!

 

[glad2bhere]

OK--- just for fun lets drop the idea of time in grade measured by an arbitrary number of years. Personnally the Kwan I belong to does things not unlike what Rudy is talking about. For myself I don't know that I am going to make it to much more than 7th Dan. For me thats not a problem since I would train in Hapkido whether I had rank or not. But I wonder if we have reached a point where we need to consider using mat hours rather than years for dan ranks much like we use mat hours for gueppies. If this were something to consider, I toss out the following for further consideration.

My students train under the following requirements.

Level One needs 78 mat hours to qualify to test for Level Two

Level Two needs 156 mat hours to qualify to test for Level Three

Level Three needs 234 mat hours to qualify to test for Level Four

Level Four needs 312 mat hours to qualify to test for 1st Dan.

So where would we go from there?

1st Dan needs 390 mat hours to qualify to test for 2nd Dan?

2nd Dan needs 468 mat hours to qualify to test for 3rd Dan?

3rd Dan needs 546 mat hours to qualify to test for 4th Dan?

Seems like this is a bit more tightly regulated than simply telling someone they need "two years" or "three years". Of course it would also make "grandfathering" a bit tougher, but I figure that people who do that are going to do it whether they have a genuine rationale or not. Thoughts? Comments?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

OK--- just for fun lets drop the idea of time in grade measured by an arbitrary number of years. Personnally the Kwan I belong to does things not unlike what Rudy is talking about. For myself I don't know that I am going to make it to much more than 7th Dan. For me thats not a problem since I would train in Hapkido whether I had rank or not. But I wonder if we have reached a point where we need to consider using mat hours rather than years for dan ranks much like we use mat hours for gueppies. If this were something to consider, I toss out the following for further consideration.

My students train under the following requirements.

Level One needs 78 mat hours to qualify to test for Level Two

Level Two needs 156 mat hours to qualify to test for Level Three

Level Three needs 234 mat hours to qualify to test for Level Four

Level Four needs 312 mat hours to qualify to test for 1st Dan.

So where would we go from there?

1st Dan needs 390 mat hours to qualify to test for 2nd Dan?

2nd Dan needs 468 mat hours to qualify to test for 3rd Dan?

3rd Dan needs 546 mat hours to qualify to test for 4th Dan?

Seems like this is a bit more tightly regulated than simply telling someone they need "two years" or "three years". Of course it would also make "grandfathering" a bit tougher, but I figure that people who do that are going to do it whether they have a genuine rationale or not. Thoughts? Comments?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Your still missing the point. NO TIME just skill however long or short it takes.

Why is that not the essense?

Individual Merit is all that counts that's freaking you'll out.

 

[glad2bhere]

".......Your still missing the point. NO TIME just skill however long or short it takes.

Why is that not the essense?

Individual Merit is all that counts that's freaking you'll out......."

Actually, time IS the point. We are participating in the practice and promotion of an art. The definition of an art ("the ability to make something or follow a plan") is based on accumulated skill rather than simply demonstrating a body of knowledge. In this way an artist demonstates not that they simply know how to do something (say, draw a face) but to do it at a distinct level of quality. The ability to do this, excepting prodigies, is commonly a function of how much time a person spends diligently polishing their skills.

So, just exactly how does one maintain quality within the context of an art? If you don't want to use time in grade, and if certificates and rank can be falsified, and in a world where people have avowed that Hapkido can be whatever people say it is, how, exactly, does one maintain the integrity of the art? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

".......Your still missing the point. NO TIME just skill however long or short it takes.

Why is that not the essense?

Individual Merit is all that counts that's freaking you'll out......."

Actually, time IS the point. We are participating in the practice and promotion of an art. The definition of an art ("the ability to make something or follow a plan") is based on accumulated skill rather than simply demonstrating a body of knowledge. In this way an artist demonstates not that they simply know how to do something (say, draw a face) but to do it at a distinct level of quality. The ability to do this, excepting prodigies, is commonly a function of how much time a person spends diligently polishing their skills.

So, just exactly how does one maintain quality within the context of an art? If you don't want to use time in grade, and if certificates and rank can be falsified, and in a world where people have avowed that Hapkido can be whatever people say it is, how, exactly, does one maintain the integrity of the art? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Simple the "human factor" everyones capabilities are different and can't be put into a box [time frame].

You and I both learn at varying levels, speeds, absorbtion rate. We maintain or forget what we learned that way as well.

To judge one based on anything but the individual qualities is a mistake and very inhuman.

I've been teaching two guys one had a yellow belt for a year and trained 3 times a week consistantly [a very normal person by all accounts mind you]
but had trouble absorbing and easily forgot.

The 2nd guy took 3-4 months and came 1 or twice a week they were what they were and passed the test when they were each ready.

Time is meaningless.

The end.

 

[glad2bhere]

Then I think you need to explain how you can continue to participate in an activity based on a hierarchy. You yourself have a rank. Maybe you can explain to me what that means.

Maybe you can explain to me how one maintains the integrity of the art with nothing more than a subjective evaluation of where a person is at any given time?

If I were to begin to pull things together across a range of posts what I think I am hearing is something close to the following.

Hapkido is whatever a person says it is though preferably that material should relate to Ji.

There is no actual set criteria, and what criteria there is is constantly in flux.

There is no amount of time over which one is expected to develope, nor a standard regarding what it is that they are suppose to know, nor an identified level of performance consistent across the range of practitioners.

Excuse me, Stuart, but I think a person could be forgiven to wondering just what it is that you are advocating.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

Bruce now were getting somewhere!..........Then I think you need to explain how you can continue to participate in an activity based on a hierarchy. You yourself have a rank. Maybe you can explain to me what that means.

Its means I have a mind and can use it. Rank mean nothing in the end what rank did any MA founder have when they started thier own thing
Someone elses. Dont worry I'm not starting anything.

Maybe you can explain to me how one maintains the integrity of the art with nothing more than a subjective evaluation of where a person is at any given time?

It's only up to the teacher has in the old days.

If I were to begin to pull things together across a range of posts what I think I am hearing is something close to the following.

Hapkido is whatever a person says it is though preferably that material should relate to Ji.

That's a little to ridig for me, but related to Ji and Choi of course

There is no actual set criteria, and what criteria there is is constantly in flux.

Every thing must be flexable and bend to live

There is no amount of time over which one is expected to develope, nor a standard regarding what it is that they are suppose to know, nor an identified level of performance consistent across the range of practitioners.

It's all on an individual basis using a core of techniques and principles in which an ivdividual can use to discover, explore, create.

Excuse me, Stuart, but I think a person could be forgiven to wondering just what it is that you are advocating..........

Nothing but being real!

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Stuart:

I may be misunderstanding what you are suggesting or perhaps I am beginning to understand but am curious at how you are pulling things together.

Remember that old adage about "there is no "I" in t--e--a--m?" I think you may be working to do just that. What I am reading is a strong argument for making what you are doing in Hapkido more oriented to the individual. As far as I can see there is nothing wrong with this. In fact it is a huge part of the Kwan approach in that the teacher develops each individual to the best of their potential within the context of the kwan. In return for this mentoring, the student responds with unqualified respect and support. Its a pretty basic system.

Now, the trouble that I think you and I are having is that you ALSO subscribe to a hierarchical organization. Such organizations by definition require that the individual subvert or surrender part or all of their individual agenda to the authority of the leader. (BTW: In a Kwan the individuals likewise surrender much of their individuality but this is more voluntary--- and in return they are cared-after by the teacher or mentor.) If I am hearing correctly, on one hand you want the organizational benefit of having a rank, a place in the organization, and a leader to make decisions coordinating among the various practitioners. On the other hand you wish to eschew selective bits of the organizational policies and protocols which you find unacceptable or irritating.
I think its this desire to "have it both ways" thats confusing me. If you like the Kwan approach I would recommend that you particiapte in Hapkido from this side of things. If you like the organizational ("corporate") approach I would suggest you stay with that. I think you will confuse yourself (and others) trying to have it both ways. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

Bruce wrote..........

Dear Stuart:

I may be misunderstanding what you are suggesting or perhaps I am beginning to understand but am curious at how you are pulling things together.

Remember that old adage about "there is no "I" in t--e--a--m?" I think you may be working to do just that. What I am reading is a strong argument for making what you are doing in Hapkido more oriented to the individual. As far as I can see there is nothing wrong with this. In fact it is a huge part of the Kwan approach in that the teacher develops each individual to the best of their potential within the context of the kwan. In return for this mentoring, the student responds with unqualified respect and support. Its a pretty basic system.

Yes that's right! Good

Now, the trouble that I think you and I are having is that you ALSO subscribe to a hierarchical organization. Such organizations by definition require that the individual subvert or surrender part or all of their individual agenda to the authority of the leader.

Yes and the Organization doesn't alway have the individual needs in mind. Only the Instructor can!

(BTW: In a Kwan the individuals likewise surrender much of their individuality but this is more voluntary--- and in return they are cared-after by the teacher or mentor.) If I am hearing correctly, on one hand you want the organizational benefit of having a rank, a place in the organization, and a leader to make decisions coordinating among the various practitioners.

Good so far.

On the other hand you wish to eschew selective bits of the organizational policies and protocols which you find unacceptable or irritating. I think its this desire to "have it both ways" thats confusing me. If you like the Kwan approach I would recommend that you particiapte in Hapkido from this side of things. If you like the organizational ("corporate") approach I would suggest you stay with that. I think you will confuse yourself (and others) trying to have it both ways. Thoughts? ..............

I think any teacher wants the best for thier students good instruction and do whats best for the students indivdually (personal) and good recognition from peers (corporate).

Important point
The teacher should be the bottom line in all of this and the corporate should be a support to us not the other way around!

 

[glad2bhere]

The teacher should be the bottom line in all of this and the corporate should be a support to us not the other way around!

Very Nice! Then, actually, we are very much more in agreement than I probably realized from the start. I wholeheartedly support the kwan approach and have had problems with most people only because there was more than a little difficulty in keeping the typical membership organization distinct from the kwan. To my way of thinking the organization "should" serve the interests of the kwan and its members. Unfortunately my experience is that most organizations lead a parasitic existence siphoning off resources without ever giving anything back. Organizations giving paper for the kwan is actually redundant, since, as you point out it is the teacher and not the organization who knows the student best. From the way that you describe it, this all makes perfect sense to me the way I understand Korean traditions coming together.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

Very Nice! Then, actually, we are very much more in agreement than I probably realized from the start. I wholeheartedly support the kwan approach and have had problems with most people only because there was more than a little difficulty in keeping the typical membership organization distinct from the kwan. To my way of thinking the organization "should" serve the interests of the kwan and its members. Unfortunately my experience is that most organizations lead a parasitic existence siphoning off resources without ever giving anything back. Organizations giving paper for the kwan is actually redundant, since, as you point out it is the teacher and not the organization who knows the student best. From the way that you describe it, this all makes perfect sense to me the way I understand Korean traditions coming together.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Bruce,

That's it.

Government always thinks it's superior to the people who support it and that's totally backwards.

I would totally support people or an Organization who understands this.
That's what missing with the KHF as we all just expirienced.

Ji doesn't seem to bother with all this at all. He's for the individual growth of the Instructor and could care less about any corporate. Its really hard for the other leaders to deal with this because he doesn't try to control us and has no Organization to set controls.

In fact he's very encouraging about doing your own thing and Sin Moo is the Core system.

HE GETS IT!