isshinryuronin
Senior Master
I maybe should have clarified "Active" time spent in a rank. I thought that would have been the default understanding.
Thoughts on time variance to earn black belt
- Thread starter skribs
- Start date
dvcochran
Grandmaster
It is a peculiar world we live. It amazed me the people who think it is OK to feel that as long as they have paid their financial dues they should be allowed to promote, regardless of how much (or little) or how quality the class time has been.
isshinryuronin
Senior Master
Sorry, but my first point got included with DVcochran's quote above and was a response to his first sentence.
JR 137
Grandmaster
There’s no substitute for experience. And if you’re there to train for the long haul, what difference does it make?
My teacher had a coworker who was a 2nd dan at a local TKD chain school. He’d been training for about 3 years. He came to our school to try it out, as he was quite friendly with my teacher.
He figured he’d be at the level of our 2nd dans, even though it takes about 8 years or so to get there. How’d he do? Compared to us, he was at about 4th kyu level skill-wise. Not talking kata because their’s are different. His basics, mechanics and sparring ability were at that level. Not so surprising as 4th kyu takes about 3 years in our school. I’d say he was a very average 3 year student.
There’s no substitute for experience.
OP
OP
skribs
Grandmaster
My Mom told me a story of 2 guys she worked with. One was the computer tech, the other was the computer engineer. The tech knew how to fix everything, the engineer didn't know jack. But because the engineer had a degree, he was the lead and had a bigger paycheck. So the guy who actually fixed everything reported to someone who didn't know how to do anything, and made less money than him.
This is kind of my point. He may only be a 4th kyu at your dojang. But if both he and one of your 1st kyu students (who would be more advanced) go to another school, then your student would know more, but have less employment opportunities.
dvcochran
Grandmaster
That is an analogy that has been said many times using the "insert trade here" function to fit a persons work/job situation.
There are truths in your(mothers) story but it leaves a lot out. It could be true that the tech did the physical, hands on work. But until someone explained the what and how, the tech had nothing to do (really did not know jack because there was nothing to know). Typically the customer generates the 'what', the engineer develops the 'how', and the tech is the facilitator. One of the best synergies between techs and engineers is working together to create/build a solution more efficiently.
So I am not sure how that analogy applies to a MA environment where everyone is there to learn.
The differences in applied belt levels between style/school that @JR 137 mentioned will always be there. It is simply differences within the styles and how they progress though the belts. To me, when it stands out is when you see obvious differences in students of the same style/organization but from different schools. I have seen it many times and would say I have never felt it is a curriculum issue but a training/trainer/student issue.
Two instructors can teach the exact same curriculum and a high percentage of the time one instructors students will be 'better' than the other on average.
There are truths in your(mothers) story but it leaves a lot out. It could be true that the tech did the physical, hands on work. But until someone explained the what and how, the tech had nothing to do (really did not know jack because there was nothing to know). Typically the customer generates the 'what', the engineer develops the 'how', and the tech is the facilitator. One of the best synergies between techs and engineers is working together to create/build a solution more efficiently.
So I am not sure how that analogy applies to a MA environment where everyone is there to learn.
The differences in applied belt levels between style/school that @JR 137 mentioned will always be there. It is simply differences within the styles and how they progress though the belts. To me, when it stands out is when you see obvious differences in students of the same style/organization but from different schools. I have seen it many times and would say I have never felt it is a curriculum issue but a training/trainer/student issue.
Two instructors can teach the exact same curriculum and a high percentage of the time one instructors students will be 'better' than the other on average.
JR 137
Grandmaster
Or they’ll just be different. My teacher goes to our honbu to assist in black belt tests regularly. And he always accompanies his own students. He’s seen so many people test that he says he knows who practically everyone’s teacher is just by watching them on the floor. They consistently make the same mistakes, have their own subtle spin on things, and stuff like that. They all have the same curriculum.
The good thing is that there’s really not any group that stands out as below the rest. There has been a few over the years, but they’ve been worked with, spoken to, and sometimes shown the door. The students’ performance is equally, if not more of a reflection on the teacher than the student. Of course there’ll be one or two that maybe shouldn’t have been there yet, but if there’s a trend, the teacher’s the one who’s scrutinized. I really like that approach. It’s a “why are you bringing these people here who obviously aren’t ready” mindset.
Maybe my teacher’s a little too conservative; he hasn’t had anyone fail in his 30+ years. Then again, he hasn’t been criticized for holding people back either. I guess he knows who’s ready and who isn’t
KenpoMaster805
2nd Black Belt
Some will get it in 7 years like me I had my 3rd degree brown since 2016 i need to test for my 2nd then my 1st then my black
What do you plan to call him about?
OP
OP
skribs
Grandmaster
I think he's unstable. He's demanding everyone apologize to him for calling him out, and he's asking for personal information on a public forum. Definitely shady.
mrt2
Brown Belt
Every school is different, and the belt color or rank only really applies to that specific school. 3 years to 2nd Dan sounds like a ridiculously short time to me as at my school, the minimum amount of time between 1st and 2nd Dan is 3 years, and that assumes you get the minimum amount of classes and pass a yearly point test every year. If you miss it, you need to wait another 6 months to test, no exceptions. (there was a woman who missed her point test in December because she was sick with the flu. It sucks but basically her progress towards 2nd Dan will have to be extended for another 6 months).
The minimum time to 1st Dan is 2 years, though because of timing of the black belt tests, most people will take longer even assuming they don't miss any tests along the way. Practically speaking, most people take between 2 and a half to 3 and a half years from white belt to black belt.
So to me, 5 to 7 years to 2nd Dan sounds about right. 3 years sounds way too short a time.
And, for perspective (supporting your major point here), 5 to 7 years to 1st dan sounds about right to me (it would actually likely take longer with me), plus another 3 to 2nd.
mrt2
Brown Belt
And that is absolutely fine. If I came to your school with my 2 years plus of experience, I anticipate I would have to drop down a few belt ranks, maybe even all the way down to white belt. Indeed, as a student with some experience but starting up a new style, maybe it is best to start with a white belt and go from there.
I think I said this before. I have seen kids coming from other schools wearing high belts struggle to learn our curicullum. One would think from one TKD school to another, they are pretty much the same, but I see kids wearing the equivalent of high brown or black belts who display at best a green belt level of proficiency, and I am not even talking about forms/kata.
Last edited:
Similar threads
