Brian Jones
Blue Belt
Doesn't bother me. I figure they are the ones who have to wear it, and justify it. As long as they have something they can teach me, I don't worry about it.
Should People Wear High Rank?
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
Truthfully I think that we sometimes mess things up in certain ways. As a founder Ed Parker should be beyond the rank irregardless of what he wore as he was the founder of his system. (that is his title) So if his system was created with 10 degrees then anyone else should be able to achieve that if they have the skill. (I am sure that was his intent) Same for Modern Arnis with Remy Presas. Same for any system. If someone founds a system and sets up a certain way of ranking then should not everyone who trains in that system be able to achieve the top rank if they are dedicated and have the skill. :idunno: Irregardless of the art there will always be good, bad and incredible practitioners of that particular system. There will also be practitioners of that system that will also be better over time than the origional founder. That is progress. Within Kenpo you can see that there are several individuals that have passed Ed Parker in skill if not in mental creativeness. Still they owe that skill to Ed Parker's creativeness and of course their own inate talents. So let them wear what they want and if they choose not to want a 10th degree in Kenpo then that is their choice but should not reflect on anyone else who has or deserves a 10th degree based on Kenpo teachings. Just my 02. as always!
MJS, does he refuse to *wear* the 10th stripe rank or refuse to *accept* it?
And Brian brings up a good point - the "founder" of the system would hold a place beyond rank, essentially. I know in some styles 10th degree is reserved for either the founder or the founder's successor.
So ... as to how high a person can go, it seems like everyone could still go just as high as their teacher - if teacher is 8th and student wants to test for 8th, then it is incumbent upon that student's teacher to arrange a test with a 9th degree panel and possibly the head of the system, no?
I dunno ... I earned a 1st degree bb and I rarely even wear *it.*
And Brian brings up a good point - the "founder" of the system would hold a place beyond rank, essentially. I know in some styles 10th degree is reserved for either the founder or the founder's successor.
So ... as to how high a person can go, it seems like everyone could still go just as high as their teacher - if teacher is 8th and student wants to test for 8th, then it is incumbent upon that student's teacher to arrange a test with a 9th degree panel and possibly the head of the system, no?
I dunno ... I earned a 1st degree bb and I rarely even wear *it.*
kidswarrior
Senior Master
Well said, LawDog. And actually you make the point I should have made earlier: it's not self-promotion, but the promotion of the success of others (our students) by which we (instructors) should be judged. Note I did not say, the promotion in rank of our students (external change), but the promotion of their skills, understanding, love of the Arts, and for some, maybe even growth as individuals (all internal). Now that will be a true yardstick of one's work and value to/achievement in the MA.
Good call LD.Good point, Suke, and especially so when working with teenage boys (as I doSukerkin said:
), who usually are very competitive. If I were a basketball coach, instead of MA instructor, for example, and had won a bunch of trophies during my own training days, I would probably keep them around for kids to see, even though doing so might feel gaudy and embarrassing to me; but if they painted a picture of the possibility of success for even a few kids, my discomfort would have been worth it.This is the other side, the reason I hate displaying rank (not that mine is high enough to register on the radar of this discussion
). But with adults, I think the attitudes change and they are better able to discern who is who and what they might achieve without external aids. So I do it for kids; doesn't mean I like it, tho. 
BTW, I'm locked out of the repping center for a few more hours, but will come back later and catch up with a few of the posters here.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
This thread got carried over onto Kenpotalk, and this was my answer there:
__________________________
well, i've laid out my feelings on this in the past, but this thread seems particularly appropriate to do so again, so here goes...
I personally think the whole structure of black belt ranks should be mostly eliminated. I feel the lower levels serve a reasonable purpose in motivating students and measure progress along the way, so I don't see a reason to discard that. But once someone reaches black belt level, I really feel they should no longer need the carrot dangled in front of their face, to motivate their training. If they cannot find their own motivation at that level, then they do not deserve the rank and should go put on their old green belt again.
I feel there should be only two levels of black belt: first level is simply black belt, but without teaching authority. The second is simply black belt, with teaching authority. And once someone receives teaching authority, they then have the authority to promote their own students up to teaching authority. That's it. No more. Of course there is always more to learn, everyone knows who is better and from whom one might learn more and grow, but I think rank and titles beyond that level serve little purpose.
I suppose someone who founds a new style would be the recognized founder, but they would still just be black belt with teaching authority.
I think this just assumes that people need to take ownership of their material and their training at that level. People should perhaps be less beholden to others, and have the freedom to own the material and do with it as they will, because ultimately that is what one must do. If you don't trust you student to do that, then don't give them the rank yet. But once the rank is given, a certain amount of control must be given up.
__________________________
well, i've laid out my feelings on this in the past, but this thread seems particularly appropriate to do so again, so here goes...
I personally think the whole structure of black belt ranks should be mostly eliminated. I feel the lower levels serve a reasonable purpose in motivating students and measure progress along the way, so I don't see a reason to discard that. But once someone reaches black belt level, I really feel they should no longer need the carrot dangled in front of their face, to motivate their training. If they cannot find their own motivation at that level, then they do not deserve the rank and should go put on their old green belt again.
I feel there should be only two levels of black belt: first level is simply black belt, but without teaching authority. The second is simply black belt, with teaching authority. And once someone receives teaching authority, they then have the authority to promote their own students up to teaching authority. That's it. No more. Of course there is always more to learn, everyone knows who is better and from whom one might learn more and grow, but I think rank and titles beyond that level serve little purpose.
I suppose someone who founds a new style would be the recognized founder, but they would still just be black belt with teaching authority.
I think this just assumes that people need to take ownership of their material and their training at that level. People should perhaps be less beholden to others, and have the freedom to own the material and do with it as they will, because ultimately that is what one must do. If you don't trust you student to do that, then don't give them the rank yet. But once the rank is given, a certain amount of control must be given up.
I quite agree, Mike, particularly about the 'motivation' aspect.
I don't keep turning up to iai week in and week out so that I can make the next grade - I do it because I love the art.
I'm obviously biased because it's the way I think but I do believe that that is the only motivation which persists.
I don't keep turning up to iai week in and week out so that I can make the next grade - I do it because I love the art.
I'm obviously biased because it's the way I think but I do believe that that is the only motivation which persists.
Jdokan
Black Belt
Great point smade...Well said, LawDog. And actually you make the point I should have made earlier: it's not self-promotion, but the promotion of the success of others (our students) by which we (instructors) should be judged. Note I did not say, the promotion in rank of our students (external change), but the promotion of their skills, understanding, love of the Arts, and for some, maybe even growth as individuals (all internal). Now that will be a true yardstick of one's work and value to/achievement in the MA.
Good point, Suke, and especially so when working with teenage boys (as I do
This is the other side, the reason I hate displaying rank (not that mine is high enough to register on the radar of this discussion
BTW, I'm locked out of the repping center for a few more hours, but will come back later and catch up with a few of the posters here.
We are what are children turn out to be....most the time...
HKphooey
Senior Master
I respect the Man or the Woman, not the belt. Rank has always been a gauge for my own progress, but not the ulitmate satisfaction.
I will bow in respect to any teacher or student. If you do not bow back, your issue - not mine.
To each his or her own.
But think where our miltary would be without rank insignia. There would be some happy privates and petty officers! Drinks at the officers' club!
I will bow in respect to any teacher or student. If you do not bow back, your issue - not mine.
To each his or her own.
But think where our miltary would be without rank insignia. There would be some happy privates and petty officers! Drinks at the officers' club!
Kosho-Monk
Green Belt
Speaking of titles, here is part of a letter I wrote to a martial arts teacher living in Japan for many years now and his reponse.
Mark Groenewold Sensei,
...I have had several teachers and all of them seem to have different ideas and thoughts about Japanese titles. Sensei, Shihan, Hanshi, Soke, Renshi, etc.
I was wondering if you could provide me with some information about proper usage of titles, according to Japanese traditions. I would like to understand this once-and-for-all.
Domo Arigato, John Evans
Dear John,
...let me take a little space here and try to define what these words mean, how they are used, and how they ought to be used.
SENSEI: A word meaning ĀteacherĀ, and is used for anyone who is the head of your class. If there are several teachers standing together and you need the attention of the head teacher all you need say is ĀSenseiĀ and that person will look at you. Otherwise you should use the surname of the person you want to talk to like, ĀYoshioka-SenseiĀ or ĀMori-SenseiĀ. SHIHAN: This word is commonly meant to have the meaning of Āmaster teacherĀ and is supposed to be reserved for ranks above 5th or 6th dan. Just like the word ĀSenseiĀ, it can never be self-referential. Taniguchi-Sensei is not a big fan of people calling him ĀShihanĀ, and I have never heard him use it as a term to describe someone else either. RENSHI: This word is supposed to mean ĀpolishedĀ or ĀmasterĀ instructor. It is a term used for those who are in the 5th and 6th degree black belt strata of martial arts hierarchy. Personally, I have never heard this word used in Japan in reference to anyone. HANSHI: This term is supposed to mean ĀmasterĀ and is someone who apparently has been kicking around the martial arts for some time. Confirmed on a select few in the 8th and 9th degree category. This word, just like Renshi, is a term I have never heard used here in Japan. SOKE: This term is supposed to have to have a ĀspiritualĀ or even ĀancestralĀ element to it as the ĀfounderĀ or Āancestral seatĀ of a particular style. I have never heard this term used to describe anyone in karate circles in Japan. Here are a few more for what it is worth. And some of them you might actually use:
YUDANSHA: People who are black belts and act as instructors or assistant-instructors. MUDANSHA: People who are still at the kyu levels of karate. HASHA: Not used often, but referred to with Tanaka-Sensei in his video, Densho. It means Āsupreme championĀ or ĀrulerĀ. It is a little too Āover-the-topĀ for my tastes. But to each his own, I suppose. KYOSHI: Instructor. I like this term above all. It sounds very collegial in karate. Kyoshi-tachi means ĀinstructorsĀ, and is a very nice equalizing term to use when describing the group of black belt instructors, assistants, and leaders. Now whether or not this is the Āonce-and-for-allĀ solution that you were looking for remains to be seen. I hope that I have translated these words adequately for you. I realize that in the West we try to ĀauthenticateĀ what words we use to describe and attribute to our seniors in karate, but realize as well that the best teachers would hate to be called any of these titles, with the exception of ĀsenseiĀ. But even there the term can never be self-referential.
Speaking of which, please just call me ĀMarkĀ.
One of the coolest things I ever saw was when Kagawa-Sensei (super-human karate man) was giving us a seminar for a couple of days. The first words out of his mouth when he addressed us in class was, ĀI don't really know a lot about karate, but I have a few ideas how to make some fundamentals work. Let me show you a couple of things.Ā Such a man would never say, ĀHi, I'm Kagawa. Please call me Hanshi.Ā That would be completely inappropriate and out of character. People would think that he is a megalomaniac. And they would be right to think so, too.
Hope this helps a little!
Mark
Mark Groenewold Sensei,
...I have had several teachers and all of them seem to have different ideas and thoughts about Japanese titles. Sensei, Shihan, Hanshi, Soke, Renshi, etc.
I was wondering if you could provide me with some information about proper usage of titles, according to Japanese traditions. I would like to understand this once-and-for-all.
Domo Arigato, John Evans
Dear John,
...let me take a little space here and try to define what these words mean, how they are used, and how they ought to be used.
SENSEI: A word meaning ĀteacherĀ, and is used for anyone who is the head of your class. If there are several teachers standing together and you need the attention of the head teacher all you need say is ĀSenseiĀ and that person will look at you. Otherwise you should use the surname of the person you want to talk to like, ĀYoshioka-SenseiĀ or ĀMori-SenseiĀ. SHIHAN: This word is commonly meant to have the meaning of Āmaster teacherĀ and is supposed to be reserved for ranks above 5th or 6th dan. Just like the word ĀSenseiĀ, it can never be self-referential. Taniguchi-Sensei is not a big fan of people calling him ĀShihanĀ, and I have never heard him use it as a term to describe someone else either. RENSHI: This word is supposed to mean ĀpolishedĀ or ĀmasterĀ instructor. It is a term used for those who are in the 5th and 6th degree black belt strata of martial arts hierarchy. Personally, I have never heard this word used in Japan in reference to anyone. HANSHI: This term is supposed to mean ĀmasterĀ and is someone who apparently has been kicking around the martial arts for some time. Confirmed on a select few in the 8th and 9th degree category. This word, just like Renshi, is a term I have never heard used here in Japan. SOKE: This term is supposed to have to have a ĀspiritualĀ or even ĀancestralĀ element to it as the ĀfounderĀ or Āancestral seatĀ of a particular style. I have never heard this term used to describe anyone in karate circles in Japan. Here are a few more for what it is worth. And some of them you might actually use:
YUDANSHA: People who are black belts and act as instructors or assistant-instructors. MUDANSHA: People who are still at the kyu levels of karate. HASHA: Not used often, but referred to with Tanaka-Sensei in his video, Densho. It means Āsupreme championĀ or ĀrulerĀ. It is a little too Āover-the-topĀ for my tastes. But to each his own, I suppose. KYOSHI: Instructor. I like this term above all. It sounds very collegial in karate. Kyoshi-tachi means ĀinstructorsĀ, and is a very nice equalizing term to use when describing the group of black belt instructors, assistants, and leaders. Now whether or not this is the Āonce-and-for-allĀ solution that you were looking for remains to be seen. I hope that I have translated these words adequately for you. I realize that in the West we try to ĀauthenticateĀ what words we use to describe and attribute to our seniors in karate, but realize as well that the best teachers would hate to be called any of these titles, with the exception of ĀsenseiĀ. But even there the term can never be self-referential.
Speaking of which, please just call me ĀMarkĀ.
One of the coolest things I ever saw was when Kagawa-Sensei (super-human karate man) was giving us a seminar for a couple of days. The first words out of his mouth when he addressed us in class was, ĀI don't really know a lot about karate, but I have a few ideas how to make some fundamentals work. Let me show you a couple of things.Ā Such a man would never say, ĀHi, I'm Kagawa. Please call me Hanshi.Ā That would be completely inappropriate and out of character. People would think that he is a megalomaniac. And they would be right to think so, too.
Hope this helps a little!
Mark
Kosho-Monk
Green Belt
Here's a link to a good article about the use of Japanese titles....
http://www.dragon-tsunami.org/Cfa/Pages/CFAGrades.htm
http://www.dragon-tsunami.org/Cfa/Pages/CFAGrades.htm
kidswarrior
Senior Master
Naw, more like the other way around. Some happy admirals and generals because they could then pose as Gunnies and Chiefs, and actually get something done.I respect the Man or the Woman, not the belt. Rank has always been a gauge for my own progress, but not the ulitmate satisfaction.
I will bow in respect to any teacher or student. If you do not bow back, your issue - not mine.
To each his or her own.
But think where our miltary would be without rank insignia. There would be some happy privates and petty officers! Drinks at the officers' club!
Truthfully I think that we sometimes mess things up in certain ways. As a founder Ed Parker should be beyond the rank irregardless of what he wore as he was the founder of his system. (that is his title) So if his system was created with 10 degrees then anyone else should be able to achieve that if they have the skill. (I am sure that was his intent) Same for Modern Arnis with Remy Presas. Same for any system. If someone founds a system and sets up a certain way of ranking then should not everyone who trains in that system be able to achieve the top rank if they are dedicated and have the skill. :idunno: Irregardless of the art there will always be good, bad and incredible practitioners of that particular system. There will also be practitioners of that system that will also be better over time than the origional founder. That is progress. Within Kenpo you can see that there are several individuals that have passed Ed Parker in skill if not in mental creativeness. Still they owe that skill to Ed Parker's creativeness and of course their own inate talents. So let them wear what they want and if they choose not to want a 10th degree in Kenpo then that is their choice but should not reflect on anyone else who has or deserves a 10th degree based on Kenpo teachings. Just my 02. as always!
Good points. I think in this case though, there were many who slapped on the double bars once Parker passed on. I dont know if those folks were 'tested' IFO a panel or if they just chose to do it.
In my opinion, house rules should apply. The Shihan and Renshi who train my daughters are fine martial artists and fine human beings. They do wear rank - it is their dojo and they can do what they wish.
On the other hand, one of the deadliest instructors I had almost never wore anything that would ID him - inside or outside of class - as a sifu or martial artist. In fact, he taught it as a survival skill - don't let on to attackers that you can fight... no poses or stances... act casual or frightened, even.... and, at the last moment, explode into them.
To each his own.
On the other hand, one of the deadliest instructors I had almost never wore anything that would ID him - inside or outside of class - as a sifu or martial artist. In fact, he taught it as a survival skill - don't let on to attackers that you can fight... no poses or stances... act casual or frightened, even.... and, at the last moment, explode into them.
To each his own.
Should rank matter no does rank matter yes, it is the cornerstone to building wealth in the martial arts and will always be. This is why we can never ever get pass all the BS inside or outside of a dojo or dojang, I beleive that rank means very little anymore and if you need to have it to make you feel better than go for it. I for one feel that silence is a golden rule rank is meaningless but skill and knowledge is everything.
kenpostudent
White Belt
Rank would not be such a touchy subject if it was actually objective. Think of college degrees. A board of regents sets up very objective criteria for one to be awarded a bachelor's, masters, or terminal degree. If you meet those standards, you are awarded the degree...period. If martial arts could set up a system similar to a board of regents within each system (which many styles have...TKD, HKD, Aikido, ect.) then these petty squabbles over rank can be averted. The only rub is, like boxing, if someone doesn't like an current organization, they just start another. So, now there are too many boxing champions to count...just like there are more kenpo 10th dans than I can name.
It goes back to objective criteria. The "contribution to the art" standard for rank beyond 5th dan is tenous because of the inherent subjectivity. Does writing a book or releasing a set of tapes constitute enough of a contribution to the art to put on the next rank? Some will agree, others won't. How about a set number of students or schools? Then the McDojos would certainly have a high concentration of "Masters", "Renshis", and "Hanshis."
I personally believe that we should require a formal education for rank beyond 5th black. Set up a university of martial arts for each system. This way aspiring teachers can earn a doctorate in the art they choose. Continuing professional education would be mandatory after a degree was conferred (just like the medical, legal, and accounting professions). There would be no dispute of rank in that event. You would essentially have a potent regulatory body that could control quality and issue standards for a given style (akin to the SEC or the Financial Accounting Standards Board).
It goes back to objective criteria. The "contribution to the art" standard for rank beyond 5th dan is tenous because of the inherent subjectivity. Does writing a book or releasing a set of tapes constitute enough of a contribution to the art to put on the next rank? Some will agree, others won't. How about a set number of students or schools? Then the McDojos would certainly have a high concentration of "Masters", "Renshis", and "Hanshis."
I personally believe that we should require a formal education for rank beyond 5th black. Set up a university of martial arts for each system. This way aspiring teachers can earn a doctorate in the art they choose. Continuing professional education would be mandatory after a degree was conferred (just like the medical, legal, and accounting professions). There would be no dispute of rank in that event. You would essentially have a potent regulatory body that could control quality and issue standards for a given style (akin to the SEC or the Financial Accounting Standards Board).
kidswarrior
Senior Master
Deleted by poster.
Doc
Senior Master
My take on the issue is somewhat unorthdox but works for those in my lineage. First we wear no stripes at all. For us it is unnecessary. When you go into an academic classroom, no one wears a badge or sign that says professor or student. Students do what students do. They learn. Professors do what professors do. They teach. If you walked into a classroom cold, you'd know who is who without having to be told. So it is in my classrooms.
Second of all, administratively we make a distinction between "numerical rank," and "academic rank and titles." The two do not correlate with each other. That is, if you are a 3rd black, that doesn't automatically make you a "full Instructor."
All numerical ranks are emeritus or honorary. Academic rank titles are specifically linked to ability and knowledge and teaching certification levels. Therefore a person who has trained for an extended period for personal reasons may gain numerical rank. It does not allow, or bestow any academic titles whatsoever. These are earned separately and rigorously exclusive once again of numerical designations.
Second of all, administratively we make a distinction between "numerical rank," and "academic rank and titles." The two do not correlate with each other. That is, if you are a 3rd black, that doesn't automatically make you a "full Instructor."
All numerical ranks are emeritus or honorary. Academic rank titles are specifically linked to ability and knowledge and teaching certification levels. Therefore a person who has trained for an extended period for personal reasons may gain numerical rank. It does not allow, or bestow any academic titles whatsoever. These are earned separately and rigorously exclusive once again of numerical designations.
kenpostudent
White Belt
All numerical ranks are emeritus or honorary. Academic rank titles are specifically linked to ability and knowledge and teaching certification levels. Therefore a person who has trained for an extended period for personal reasons may gain numerical rank. It does not allow, or bestow any academic titles whatsoever. These are earned separately and rigorously exclusive once again of numerical designations.[/QUOTE]
Interesting concept. How are "academic rank titles" earned as opposed to "numerical rank?"
Interesting concept. How are "academic rank titles" earned as opposed to "numerical rank?"
Similar threads
