The point of testing students

[Danny T]

but no matter how you dress it up,, if you are good at MARTIAL arts you are good at fighting. If your not good at fighting your not good at martial arts, to pretend otherwise is fantasy,

I do know and have seen even more who are excellent and excel in some aspects of the martial arts but are poor fighters.

 

[jobo]

I do know and have seen even more who are excellent and excel in some aspects of the martial arts but are poor fighters.

well they are not good at the martials,arts then, they may be good at dancing or yoga or flower arranging, but that isn't the purpose of the ma

 

[Danny T]

They are good at different aspects of martial arts. There is more to Martial Arts than just fighting.
Look I understand your premise and understand 'your' consideration as to what the martial arts are...to you.
What you don't or won't consider is the Martial Arts as a whole is more than fighting or being able to fight.
I don't like that there persons who are high level martial artist who can not fight but that is a fact.

 

[JR 137]

but no matter how you dress it up,, if you are good at MARTIAL arts you are good at fighting. If your not good at fighting your not good at martial arts, to pretend otherwise is fantasy,

But you don't have to be a good fighter to be a good teacher. Cus D'Amato trained 3 hall of fame boxers - Floyd Patterson, Jose Torres, and Mike Tyson. He also mentored at least two great trainers - Teddy Atlas and Kevin Rooney. Rooney had some success as a pro, Atlas didn't. D'Amato never fought professionally.

If boxing is a martial art, D'Amato, Rooney and Atlas are great martial artists. Yet none of them were great fighters.

 

[jobo]

But you don't have to be a good fighter to be a good teacher. Cus D'Amato trained 3 hall of fame boxers - Floyd Patterson, Jose Torres, and Mike Tyson. He also mentored at least two great trainers - Teddy Atlas and Kevin Rooney. Rooney had some success as a pro, Atlas didn't. D'Amato never fought professionally.

If boxing is a martial art, D'Amato, Rooney and Atlas are great martial artists. Yet none of them were great fighters.

no they are great trainers, you don't have to be a great runner to train runners, but on n the other hand if you train a great runner, that doesn't make you a great runner or even any sort of runner, just a great trainer

 

[Gerry Seymour]

you added your ridder on the the end of my sentence on advancement, of ma ability

Pointing out what else it was applicable to.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no, I'm just declining to take them, I'm aware of my progress or lack of it, the test has no value to me

As I said, you'll still be examined, regardless of whether you take a test or wear a colored belt. The test is just an extra tool for your instructor. If you choose to forego that tool, I'm not sure why you're training at that school.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It is less formal, there is no belt and no rank. It's just, "ok, come here, let me show you something..." like any other training day.

I understand. There concept is the same. When I awarded my students their belts, there was nothing formal about it. I actually strangled each with their new belt in a demonstration during class, then told them to go change it before they rejoined the class.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And that decision is base on the student being ready.
As my Sifu has impressed upon me "Give them what they need when they are ready for it. Let them see some of what they want but only give them what they need until they are ready for more."

I think the only difference is the "ready" applies to a single piece of information in his case, and to a "next" group of information when talking about tying curriculum to rank and/or tests.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes. And? I don't understand what is revolutionary about any of this...

There's nothing revolutionary about it. I think that's the point. The process is pretty similar, belts/tests or no.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sure. But I was getting the impression some folks were trying to equate the fact that sifu decided when it is time to teach something new, with a test and a promotion.

It is most definitely not the same thing.

I see it as very similar. I do both in my program. I determine when a student is ready for their next bit of information. And from time to time, I decide they are probably ready for the next group of bits of information. When I decide the former, they get something new. When I decide the latter, they get a test where I look for any systemic issues I want to fix before they move to the next group of bits.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

but no matter how you dress it up,, if you are good at MARTIAL arts you are good at fighting. If your not good at fighting your not good at martial arts, to pretend otherwise is fantasy,

That depends how people define "martial arts". Many folks include arts derived from martial/combat/fight training, even if combat/fighting is no longer a focus.

 

[JR 137]

That depends how people define "martial arts". Many folks include arts derived from martial/combat/fight training, even if combat/fighting is no longer a focus.

Such as sword arts and kobudo/kobujitsu.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I think that would be an extreme, tho. That implies that every new technique and idea brings with it a test and promotion. I'm sure every school has some body of curriculum that is taught between promotions. Ours is the same, just remove the tests and promotions altogether.

So are there different classes for beginner, intermediate, and advanced students? Most sports and activities do function like that even if they don't have official ranking systems they do have different classes depending on the levels of the students.

 

[PhotonGuy]

no, I'm just,declining to take them, I'm aware of my progress

Not everybody cares about earning rank but if you do go to a school that uses rank and you don't eventually go up in rank you might not be taught some of the more advanced material. Often, a school will not teach a student certain material until they reach a certain rank.

 

[Flying Crane]

So are there different classes for beginner, intermediate, and advanced students? Most sports and activities do function like that even if they don't have official ranking systems they do have different classes depending on the levels of the students.

No, but we are a very small group who meets in his back yard. Still, traditionally, Chinese martial arts did not use belts and tanks the way the Japanese systems do.

 

[Flying Crane]

I see it as very similar. I do both in my program. I determine when a student is ready for their next bit of information. And from time to time, I decide they are probably ready for the next group of bits of information. When I decide the former, they get something new. When I decide the latter, they get a test where I look for any systemic issues I want to fix before they move to the next group of bits.

Ok, well in our case, it's just training and running a class. It is not testing and promoting.

 

[Flying Crane]

There's nothing revolutionary about it. I think that's the point. The process is pretty similar, belts/tests or no.

Except that in our case there are no tests and no belts. We just train and sifu teaches.

 

[jobo]

Such as sword arts and kobudo/kobujitsu.

but you are still training how to effectively use what ever weapon it may be, so the same criteria applies, how good you are is dependent on how well you can utilise the weapon.

 

[jobo]

As I said, you'll still be examined, regardless of whether you take a test or wear a colored belt. The test is just an extra tool for your instructor. If you choose to forego that tool, I'm not sure why you're training at that school.

no i cant be examined, with out an examination, i can be assessed,
i like the school, and the teacher and the stuff I'm learning, plus they let me take my dog along