Understanding the ethics of ranking up

[Buka]

Please understand that I mean no ill will, but it's contrary to what I want or why I train. My sensei has a sensei, and his sensei was the founder of our style. We have an actual lineage, and each sensei was given permission to teach by their own instructor. I see that as incredibly important.

I agree, Bill, but not everyone is as fortunate. Some of my instructors have passed away, others have moved far away and we rarely get to train together anymore.

But we (me and mine) weren't just given permission to teach by our instructors, we were threatened (in a good way) if we didn't keep teaching.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I agree, Bill, but not everyone is as fortunate. Some of my instructors have passed away, others have moved far away and we rarely get to train together anymore.

But we (me and mine) weren't just given permission to teach by our instructors, we were threatened (in a good way) if we didn't keep teaching.

I realize that many find themselves in unfortunate circumstances as the OP pointed out. I am not calling it wrong, just speaking for myself.

I know a great martial artist, very good, very powerful, masterful technique, whose sensei passed unexpectedly. He was faced with a choice of finding a new sensei or promoting himself, or not doing either. He chose the latter. He runs his late sensei's dojo, but wears the rank he was given, nothing more.

IMHO he is greatly the superior of many who style themselves masters, but he still holds only the last rank his sensei gave him. I respect him greatly for that. He is not my sensei, but I have had the privilege of knowing him for several years.

 

[TSDTexan]

I try to remind myself that being a pretentious, self-aggrandizing, self-promoter with delusions of grandeur and a poor understanding of martial arts history doesn't preclude someone from also being a skilled martial artist and innovator. Given that the founders of my primary art check most of those boxes, I try to withhold judgment when I run across someone boasting their membership in the World Sokeship Council or some such. (I don't always succeed, but I try.)

For every Bruce Lee there are 20,000,000 paper tigers.

 

[JR 137]

Sorry, man, that sucks. I don't think most us appreciate how lucky we all are in having a place we love to train in within a reasonable distance. Until, of course, it's no longer there.

Luckily, I found a place that's pretty close and dirt cheap. Those are added bonuses, as my current dojo is everything I was looking for. I visited about 8 places, some a couple of times. In the end, where I am now just felt right. Had it been twice as much and twice as far, I would've still joined.

I keep in touch with my old Sensei. Still a great guy. I'm honestly not sure which one I'd pick if I had an even choice. Then again, I wouldn't have looked in to anywhere else had he still been accessible to me.

 

[geezer]

No offense taken. Why do you dislike it? Just trying to get a different perspective, not start one of the regular arguments that seem to be the norm around here....

I just had to get back to this comment. It cracked me up. ...JR, for a guy that's pretty new to the forum, you catch on quick. I hope you keep posting!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Realistically, I don't think that happens anymore. 'Dojo Challenges' are a thing of the past, and in some cases, that's a good thing. Some of the stuff I've read about the 'old days' are quite scary. I for one have no plans to invade any dojos, challenge any students or instructors, or have fights in the parking lots over 'our styles differ, we must fight'. Too old for that nonsense.

The actual, legitimate, schools are few and far between, and tend not to partake in spreading rumors or attacking other schools, even if it is quite well understood that what they teach is somewhat lacking.

The few who know the difference between a legitimate good reputation and a prancing pack of poseurs are generally already fully engaged with a 'real' school and not in need of elucidation.

It is unfortunate, but we live in a world where style beats substance for the majority of citizens. It is the look of excellence, not actual excellence, that impresses many.

I read somewhere that the average age of a new instructor, as well as the creator of a new style, has risen dramatically in the last 3 decades - perhaps by as much as 20 years (from mid-20's to mid-40's). Perhaps that is part of the reason why there's less of this crap. I, as you said, am too old for that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Even more interesting if you consider what 'suspender's are in the UK!

View attachment 19739

Are we still talking about "martial arts" or are we into "marital arts"?

 

[Touch Of Death]

For every Bruce Lee there are 20,000,000 paper tigers.

Ya know, in China, you can be a, one in a million, kind of guy, but alas, there are ten thousand other people, just like you.

 

[TSDTexan]

I read somewhere that the average age of a new instructor, as well as the creator of a new style, has risen dramatically in the last 3 decades - perhaps by as much as 20 years (from mid-20's to mid-40's). Perhaps that is part of the reason why there's less of this crap. I, as you said, am too old for that.

As I am 41, and I Don't do it for the money.
0 dollar tuition school.

But I will run a guy off if he ain't serious about the family business.

 

[TSDTexan]

Ya know, in China, you can be a, one in a million, kind of guy, but alas, there are ten thousand other people, just like you.

Exactly.

 

[TSDTexan]

Ya know, in China, you can be a, one in a million, kind of guy, but alas, there are ten thousand other people, just like you.

The journey of ten thousand students begins with a single class.

 

[TSDTexan]

I try to remind myself that being a pretentious, self-aggrandizing, self-promoter with delusions of grandeur and a poor understanding of martial arts history doesn't preclude someone from also being a skilled martial artist and innovator. Given that the founders of my primary art check most of those boxes, I try to withhold judgment when I run across someone boasting their membership in the World Sokeship Council or some such. (I don't always succeed, but I try.)

I was pressed for time when I made my Bruce Lee quip.
But heres what I wanted to say.
To teach fighting there are two prerequisites

1. Understanding how to fight.
2. Understanding how to teach.

Far too many schools build only good fighters who fight instinctively. They don't have a cognitive framework, they hustle and bustle their skillsets and try and hit the zone and stay in "flow" without deep strategy.

Better schools teach a man to be a thinking fighter.

Rarer yet are the schools that invest the time into each student the teaching skills, and methods to become great educators.

You can be the best fighter in the world and still be unable to teach beyond techniques, because you don't know a language to reach out that which you know instinctively and transmit it.

Then on the other hand, you can have an academic who was trained by academics, and no one has street experience for a generation or two.... and the art is on its way to becoming broken.

Great teachers are as rare as the ideal circumstances that tried them in fire, and poured sound knowledge into them.

Great teachers find better students to better their art.

 

[TSDTexan]

Well, I kind of described it earlier, and you reinforced it. Guy has a certain level of training, but for whatever reason loses his instructor. Decides to open his own place, sans-oversight. There's my first issue. Do I understand how it could happen? Yes. Unfortunate.

Guy then gets together an association of ronin-of-sorts and agree to a curriculum, standards, and start promoting each other. And their students. There's my second problem.

You also mentioned required seminars and tournaments for promotions and that's my third problem with this. That's not martial arts, that's a business. And while I completely understand why people choose to run martial arts as a profit center, it's not for me.

Please understand that I mean no ill will, but it's contrary to what I want or why I train. My sensei has a sensei, and his sensei was the founder of our style. We have an actual lineage, and each sensei was given permission to teach by their own instructor. I see that as incredibly important.

Yet history tells us that the rootstock of Karate was very much a case of "then gets together an association of ronin-of-sorts and agree to a curriculum, standards, and start promoting each other. And their students."

So the apple don't fall from the tree.
Returning GIs try to establish dojos.
And blam!

Politics ensues.
American branches of asian traditional art associations become full blown U.S. associations fully independent from their respective sources.


I may quibble about some minor details but overall the following is an acceptable accounting:


How the masters got their ranks: the origins of karate ranks

I find it remarkable that the founder of the Moo Duk Kwan, who taught three different styles over the years often wore a white belt. Some even, while performing a demo in front of very large numbers.

And their is no send or third records that can prove he was ranked anywhere by any teacher, that H.K. acknowledges as his teacher.

One Korean claimed he awarded a green belt (high kyu) to H.K. H.K. responded back with "I took a few classes 1 or 2 weeks, how could I have a green belt from him?"

Some founders care nothing about the appearance of rank. Because sometimes your to busy getting stuff done to worry about rankings and titles.

Either youve got the knowledge and leadership skils or you don't. A piece of paper or colored fabric don't guarantee either.

In my lineage we like to say "the proof is in the foot".
A bjj guy might say... the proof is In the roll.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I was pressed for time when I made my Bruce Lee quip.
But heres what I wanted to say.
To teach fighting there are two prerequisites

1. Understanding how to fight.
2. Understanding how to teach.

Far too many schools build only good fighters who fight instinctively. They don't have a cognitive framework, they hustle and bustle their skillsets and try and hit the zone and stay in "flow" without deep strategy.

Better schools teach a man to be a thinking fighter.

Rarer yet are the schools that invest the time into each student the teaching skills, and methods to become great educators.

You can be the best fighter in the world and still be unable to teach beyond techniques, because you don't know a language to reach out that which you know instinctively and transmit it.

Then on the other hand, you can have an academic who was trained by academics, and no one has street experience for a generation or two.... and the art is on its way to becoming broken.

Great teachers are as rare as the ideal circumstances that tried them in fire, and poured sound knowledge into them.

Great teachers find better students to better their art.

In the association I grew up in, there was (and still is) a specific period of student teaching before one gets certified as an instructor (which is concommittant with shodan). In my new curriculum, I shifted where this happens (shodan first, then instructor training - very little difference) and added what I've learned in the professional training (corporate education) arena over nearly 25 years. I've seen great technicians who could have been great teachers, but who were never taught now, so they became mediocre instructors with a few star students who managed to get what they needed.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yet history tells us that the rootstock of Karate was very much a case of "then gets together an association of ronin-of-sorts and agree to a curriculum, standards, and start promoting each other. And their students."

So the apple don't fall from the tree.
Returning GIs try to establish dojos.
And blam!

Politics ensues.
American branches of asian traditional art associations become full blown U.S. associations fully independent from their respective sources.


I may quibble about some minor details but overall the following is an acceptable accounting:


How the masters got their ranks: the origins of karate ranks

I find it remarkable that the founder of the Moo Duk Kwan, who taught three different styles over the years often wore a white belt. Some even, while performing a demo in front of very large numbers.

And their is no send or third records that can prove he was ranked anywhere by any teacher, that H.K. acknowledges as his teacher.

One Korean claimed he awarded a green belt (high kyu) to H.K. H.K. responded back with "I took a few classes 1 or 2 weeks, how could I have a green belt from him?"

Some founders care nothing about the appearance of rank. Because sometimes your to busy getting stuff done to worry about rankings and titles.

Either youve got the knowledge and leadership skils or you don't. A piece of paper or colored fabric don't guarantee either.

In my lineage we like to say "the proof is in the foot".
A bjj guy might say... the proof is In the roll.

Yep, what you said.


In fact, there is a similar (yet different story) for Nihon Goshin Aikido. Richard Bowe learned it while stationed in Chitose. When his instructor (the founder) died, Bowe came back to the US, later opening a dojo under the auspices of the founder's step-son (Soke, I suppose, though I've never heard the term used in the association). After the Soke retired (closing the only remaining school in Japan), Bowe formed an association headed by himself. At that point, he had been ranked 5th Dan.

How, now, to handle rank? Well, he just compressed them and made 5th Dan as high as it goes. Years later, some of the instructors convinced him to expand it to 6 Dan ranks, and he eventually removed his own rank (I think he wears either a black belt with no stripes now, or a red belt). As of yet, nobody in the association has ever been ranked 6th Dan, in my knowledge.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Something that might be relevant to the discussion is the fact that in many arts rank beyond a certain level reflects seniority and time in grade teaching and contributing to the art rather than additional skill or fighting ability. I suppose it could be argued that there is a distinction between self-promoting to a rank that is supposed to reflect a certain degree of skill and knowledge vs having that rank already and self-promoting to one of those "seniority" ranks based on time spent teaching.

I feel like it's kind of pointless either way, but plenty of martial artists who are senior to me in skill and experience have gone the self-promotion route. Whatever makes them happy.

 

[Buka]

I know a great martial artist, very good, very powerful, masterful technique, whose sensei passed unexpectedly. He was faced with a choice of finding a new sensei or promoting himself, or not doing either. He chose the latter. He runs his late sensei's dojo, but wears the rank he was given, nothing more.

IMHO he is greatly the superior of many who style themselves masters, but he still holds only the last rank his sensei gave him. I respect him greatly for that. He is not my sensei, but I have had the privilege of knowing him for several years.

You mentioned "promoting himself" (I realize you weren't talking about him) does this go on a lot today?
I don't mean to sound naive, especially being an old dog, but I haven't really seen this other than a couple of times with nitwits nobody cared about and who only had a cup of coffee in the Martial Arts world.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You mentioned "promoting himself" (I realize you weren't talking about him) does this go on a lot today?
I don't mean to sound naive, especially being an old dog, but I haven't really seen this other than a couple of times with nitwits nobody cared about and who only had a cup of coffee in the Martial Arts world.

For those creating a new system who are accustomed to working within specific ranking structures (like the 10-dan system), they will often want to carry that to their new system. If an instructor, for instance has a 5th dan in his primary style, then starts a new system, he has approximately three options if he wants to keep working with a 10-dan system:

1) Keep his current rank, and increase it
(rank himself up) appropriately as he meets the criteria he sets for those ranks. This is tough to do reasonably.

2) Find some organization to offer him rank. This might work if his system (in style and rank requirements) is close enough to others that an organization could reasonably review his qualifications. Otherwise, this is often seen as a sham.

3) Go without rank, himself, in the new style. Many see this as being equivalent to declaring oneself a "master", since this is approximately the same as granting oneself the highest possible rank in the new style.

None are optimal.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You mentioned "promoting himself" (I realize you weren't talking about him) does this go on a lot today?
I don't mean to sound naive, especially being an old dog, but I haven't really seen this other than a couple of times with nitwits nobody cared about and who only had a cup of coffee in the Martial Arts world.

I believe it is not common but not rare or unheard of, based only on what I have seen in my general geographic area. Inside my particular style, I would say definitely not; but my group doesn't really partake of the larger MA circle around my area for the most part.

 

[Azulx]

I am glad I posted this question. It is great to see the diversity of opinions on the ethics of ranking up. From everything I am reading, there seems to be no easy solution. In the end someone will not be fan of whatever route you have taken. It's a shame , no matter what you do in that situation, you will be a villain, in someone's eyes.