Young black belts, no problem - young grandmaster...hmm?

[Daniel Sullivan]

No opinion on the age of a GM. I think that it is really a matter of maturity and not of age. Also, being a GM usually involves running a school or multiple schools. Doing that well is a different set of skills than that of technical proficiency in the art.

Comparing a GM who is younger than what is typical to a child with a black belt is a red herring. Let's say that a child gets his first pum at five (like the kid in that ATA thread). He can test through fourth pum prior to turning fifteen and a fourth pum can convert to a fourth dan when he is 18 (if I am reading article 8 correctly http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/viewfront/eng/promotion/regulations.jsp). Not entirely sure, as on the same page, it indicates that a fourth dan must be 21.

Anyway, if it's 18, then by this time, this fourth dan has been practicing since he was three or four, so you are looking at like fourteen years of practice. If its 21, then he's been practicing for about seventeen years.

Same kid test for his fifth dan at 25 then his sixth at 30. That is 26 years of practice. I'm not sure if sixth or seventh or higher is called grand master, but with 26 years in the art, an in this hypothetical scenario, our hypothetical kid has been practicing for an actual 26 years and has taken no breaks in training.

I'd certainly consider him my senior and would consider him to be an inspiration. Should he be called a grand master? I don't know.

I think that it is more important to look at what kind of person he or she is than what their title is.

 

[msmitht]

It is either a typo or total bs! I have been training since I was 6. In 32 years I have earned a 6th dan mdk and a 5th dan kkw. I think all martial frauds should be exposed for who they are and, moe importantly, who they are not.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

It is either a typo or total bs! I have been training since I was 6. In 32 years I have earned a 6th dan mdk and a 5th dan kkw. I think all martial frauds should be exposed for who they are and, moe importantly, who they are not.

I think post #39 above showed it was a typo. But for the sake of discussion, if it hadn't been a typo why would you have considered him a fraud?

 

[msmitht]

I think post #39 above showed it was a typo. But for the sake of discussion, if it hadn't been a typo why would you have considered him a fraud?

Because there is no assosiation that would back a 28 yo 8th dan. If there was people would lay off of the ATA and ban together against it. A gm is someone who knows tkd inside and out. They would have several master instructors under them who have promoted their own students to black belts of various degrees.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Because there is no assosiation that would back a 28 yo 8th dan. If there was people would lay off of the ATA and ban together against it. A gm is someone who knows tkd inside and out. They would have several master instructors under them who have promoted their own students to black belts of various degrees.

Thank you for the reply. Another member offered the following;

Sinmoo Hapkido GM JI Han Jae was 8th Dan when he was 29, 9th Dan when he was 35 and 10th Dan when he was 47. His student, GM MYUNG Kwang Sik, was 6th Dan at 27, 7th Dan at 29, 8th Dan at 33, and 9th Dan at 47.

Is this not a good example of a historical precedence in the Korean arts?

 

[andyjeffries]

Because that was a different time. 50 years ago there were few/no 8/9th dan grandmasters, so at the time getting more people to that rank was generally acceptable.

Okay, why would it be more acceptable? Why would there need to be a rush to get 8th/9th Dan GM's that perhaps had much less time-in-the-arts than what they now require from others? Do you feel that 16 years is enough time to make 8th Dan and be called a GM? If the answer is yes, then I would submit that if it was okay for him then it should be okay for anyone provided they had the same or similar training, regardless of the era of training or how many 8th/9th Dans are running around.

I can't answer why any more than I can answer why people thought that making children as young as four climb up chimneys risking death. At the time it seemed to make sense to those that were there, so they did it. I would say that now 16 years is not enough time to make 8th Dan/GM. We have a different viewpoint from people a long time ago. Some of it is right, some of it is wrong. I guess time will tell whether we were right or they were ;-)

But he was ITF and/or TAGB. Do they adhere to KKW standards for TIG. If they don't, should they?

No and no. I however am a Kukkiwon dan holder so that may help explain why I have my point of view more and why I refer to the Kukkiwon's rules on this, as I guess a kind of proof that I'm not crazy in my thinking ;-)

Perhaps it was but I disagree with generally shortened TIG. I understand the Kukkiwon has a process for abbreviated TIG, for Olympic/WC medal winners, etc and I'm OK with that, but to get to 8th Dan grandmaster level at 26 is crazy.

If I understand you correctly, there can be circumstances that legitimately allow for shortened TIG.

Correct. Winner of Olympic Games (100% reduction in TIG), Winner of World Level Championship (80%), Winner of Continental Level Championship (60%), Medal from President/Leader of their country for devotion to Taekwondo development (50%).

Would there be any legitimate justifications that apply to this individual? Has anyone here met him? Seen him train? Know of any reason that would be a legitimate justification?

No, I haven't met him, but even if he'd won Olympics, World Championships and got multiple medals from the president of his country, I'd still disagree with him having shortened TIG (and age) for more than one rank.

I think a more interesting question would be, who promoted GM Ji to 8th Dan after 16 years of training. What was the justification, other than just needing to get some people up there as fast as possible. I don't necessarily see that as a legitimate justification.

Again, I can't answer. The same could be said though I'm sure of a number of other high ranking martial artists from that period. I can't describe why it happened, only why I don't think it's as acceptable now.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Personally, I think people over think this. If we in the west didn't care so much about titles, none of this would amount to a hill of beans. Look at how many threads in this section revolve around who we think is deserving of what belt and what title. And look at all of the negativity that goes with it.

And it all turned out to be a typo anyway.

As far as GM Ji being 8th dan after 16 years of training being acceptable then but not now, why? Is Reversi rank somehow better now than it was then? Or were all of the old GMs demigods?

Or is it simply that we don't like anyone breaking the mold because it messes with our egos on some level? I suspect that that is the real reason.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Thank you for the reply. Another member offered the following;



Is this not a good example of a historical precedence in the Korean arts?

Abso frickin' lootely. GM Han Cha Kyo's ITF Dan # was k-8-6. Issude in 1973. I will have to check his exact age, but he was in the Military demo in fron of President Rhee in 1954 or so. He would have been about 22 at that time. I will look for something which has his exact age. This means he would have been a 41 year old 8th Dan.

I think the time in grade requirements got extended when a lot of Non Natives started training. Plus there was no "International Dan Line" crossing which bumped up the rank.

 

[andyjeffries]

Personally, I think people over think this. If we in the west didn't care so much about titles, none of this would amount to a hill of beans. Look at how many threads in this section revolve around who we think is deserving of what belt and what title. And look at all of the negativity that goes with it. And it all turned out to be a typo anyway.

Typo or not, it's an interesting discussion. At the end of the day, if we don't discuss and disagree we never get a chance to hear conflicting opinions and change our own.

As far as GM Ji being 8th dan after 16 years of training being acceptable then but not now, why? Is Reversi rank somehow better now than it was then? Or were all of the old GMs demigods?

As far as I know Reversi doesn't have ranks. Or are you referring to go/baduk/wei qi?

Assuming you meant go, I guess the answer would be that the martial arts system took it's origins/concepts/terminology from go, but the two aren't directly comparable. Baduk players can go from 1p (1st Dan professional) to 9p in 3 years (Rui Naiwei turned pro in 1985 and become the 9th 9p in China in 1988). Do you think that would be acceptable in martial arts?

Also, bear in mind that the ranks in go were originally created to give a fair handicap system (handicaps in go are very uniform in that you can give your opponent more stones on the board to start with and the difficulty to recover is proportional to the number of stones). In modern go they don't give stone handicaps in professional dan rank tournaments as even a 3 stone handicap could easily cause a 1p to beat a 9p.

So the difference between dan ranks in go and martial arts are completely different, so although the kyu/gup/dan system took inspiration from go, people should stop using the comparison as it falls down very simply upon detailed discussion.

Here's an interesting answer to the question "Is grandmaster level chess better today than 30 years ago?". I would personally feel this makes sense. Times move on, people study more, new things are considered, techniques/strategy are devised, biomechanics/biological processes are discovered. Therefore the amount of knowledge/ability that is required to achieve the highest ranks is harder now than it was decades ago (and this therefore translates in to longer to achieve it).

Or is it simply that we don't like anyone breaking the mold because it messes with our egos on some level? I suspect that that is the real reason.

I'm nowhere close to grandmaster status, so I don't care who is/isn't. It may be ego on the part of existing grandmasters who don't want others getting to their level too soon (but from the grandmasters I know that certainly does not seem to be the case).

This is really a discussion just to gather opinions and discuss it. For some of us it may solidify our existing opinion, others may change.

 

[andyjeffries]

Is this not a good example of a historical precedence in the Korean arts?

I agree there is precedent set, but should we always be bound by what historically happened? Should we do the same things "because that's how they were done back then" or should we evolve?

Do you agree that because it was law in the past that we should still stone our children to death if they are stubborn and rebellious?

"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21"

 

[andyjeffries]

Abso frickin' lootely. GM Han Cha Kyo's ITF Dan # was k-8-6. Issude in 1973. I will have to check his exact age, but he was in the Military demo in fron of President Rhee in 1954 or so. He would have been about 22 at that time. I will look for something which has his exact age. This means he would have been a 41 year old 8th Dan.

He started martial arts when he was 9, born in 1934. So from 1943 to 1973 is 30 years of training. That's a fair amount of time and he would have been 39 years old as a grandmaster, which is a lot different to the theoretical (typo) young grandmaster this thread was about. Under Kukkiwon rules (which I know we're not talking about) 44 years is the minimum age for 8th dan, so this is not that dissimilar.

Again, though this was at a different time.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Typo or not, it's an interesting discussion. At the end of the day, if we don't discuss and disagree we never get a chance to hear conflicting opinions and change our own.

Certainly, but why must the same subject be rehashed over and over again?

As far as I know Reversi doesn't have ranks. Or are you referring to go/baduk/wei qi?

Go, which Reversi is similar to and from which kano lifted our kyus and dans.

Assuming you meant go, I guess the answer would be that the martial arts system took it's origins/concepts/terminology from go, but the two aren't directly comparable. Baduk players can go from 1p (1st Dan professional) to 9p in 3 years (Rui Naiwei turned pro in 1985 and become the 9th 9p in China in 1988). Do you think that would be acceptable in martial arts?

Also, bear in mind that the ranks in go were originally created to give a fair handicap system (handicaps in go are very uniform in that you can give your opponent more stones on the board to start with and the difficulty to recover is proportional to the number of stones). In modern go they don't give stone handicaps in professional dan rank tournaments as even a 3 stone handicap could easily cause a 1p to beat a 9p.

So the difference between dan ranks in go and martial arts are completely different, so although the kyu/gup/dan system took inspiration from go, people should stop using the comparison as it falls down very simply upon detailed discussion.

Here's an interesting answer to the question "Is grandmaster level chess better today than 30 years ago?". I would personally feel this makes sense. Times move on, people study more, new things are considered, techniques/strategy are devised, biomechanics/biological processes are discovered. Therefore the amount of knowledge/ability that is required to achieve the highest ranks is harder now than it was decades ago (and this therefore translates in to longer to achieve it).

The point is that you are talking about a rank system lifted from a game and which in martial arts is so nebulous in its definition that nobody can really agree about what defines it. Time in grade isn't even uniform from art to art or from org to org within an art. People cannot even agree on what qualifies a person as a first dan.

I'm nowhere close to grandmaster status, so I don't care who is/isn't. It may be ego on the part of existing grandmasters who don't want others getting to their level too soon (but from the part of existing grandmasters who don't want others getting to their level too soon (but from the grandmasters I know that certainly does not seem to be the case).

This is really a discussion just to gather opinions and discuss it. For some of us it may solidify our existing opinion, others may change.

I wasn't thinking of you in particular. But who says that you have to be near or at GM rank for ego to come in? All it takes for ego is for someone else who we perceive as less accomplished/younger/different from ourselves achieving something that we haven't and going against the grain.

'My GM was fifty before he got his 8th dan... this guy's only 30 and must be a fraud.'

or

'He's ten years younger than me and I'm not eligible, but I've been training just as long. He must be a fraud.'

Ego is a funny thing, and it can get in our way for less than logical reasons.

Here is a question: What is the job of a person with 'grandmaster' rank? If you took away the kyu/dan system, what would you say are the requirements? What qualifications should a person being considered for such a job exhibit. And would not preventing a younger person from being a GM be considered age discrimination in any other profession? As for time in the profession, should that even really be such a big consideration?

Promotions in most other professions are more about the results you produce. Plenty of people are with companies for a long time and have mediocre quality of work and produce questionable results.

Time in grade just means that you've been present for a while and has no bearing on your ability to produce, your actual knowledge, or what you have contributed to the art.

 

[andyjeffries]

Certainly, but why must the same subject be rehashed over and over again?

I started this thread because there has been lots of "kiddie black belt" threads, but none discussing the other end of the spectrum. It also had just come up in my news feed, so it was timeley.

Go, which Reversi is similar to and from which kano lifted our kyus and dans.

I wouldn't say that Reversi is similar to Go. That's my issue with people keeping using Reversi in this situation. Reversi is about flipping pieces and having more pieces than your opponent on the board at the end of the game.

Go is about territory and strategic defence/attack (and capture to a lesser extent). They are completely different, but both happen to use black and white pieces.

The point is that you are talking about a rank system lifted from a game and which in martial arts is so nebulous in its definition that nobody can really agree about what defines it. Time in grade isn't even uniform from art to art or from org to org within an art. People cannot even agree on what qualifies a person as a first dan.

You were the one that brought Reversi/Go in to this ;-)

I wasn't thinking of you in particular.

I assumed as you were replying to my message it was aimed at me, thanks for the clarification.

But who says that you have to be near or at GM rank for ego to come in?

Fair enough, I hadn't thought of it in the terms you describe.

Here is a question: What is the job of a person with 'grandmaster' rank? If you took away the kyu/dan system, what would you say are the requirements? What qualifications should a person being considered for such a job exhibit. And would not preventing a younger person from being a GM be considered age discrimination in any other profession? As for time in the profession, should that even really be such a big consideration?

These are good points for discussion. I used to feel that rank was just a progression through the arts as a student and that there should be no reason why you should be kept back from higher rank even if you don't want to teach.

I've changed over time to think that higher dan ranks are for those that are teaching or at least aspiring to teach. If you don't, there's no need for higher rank. I now agree that master ranks should be for those that have (or aim to have) school(s) of their own. I think that grandmasters should definitely have produced their own masters, or at least be committed to teaching others, more junior masters.

So, given that a certain amount of time is really required for people to mature in the arts, it would take X years to reach "master"/"instructor" level and therefore Y years to reach grandmaster level. There may be some that get there faster than others, but I don't think it should be purely achievement focused. I don't see Taekwondo as a profession, I see it as a journey through life.

I like to think of a grandmaster as being equal to a grandfather within a family. I am a father to two young children (therefore I'm a master on that scale, I have my own "students"). I am confident raising my children and helping guide them to become adults/parents themselves one day. There are still times I like to shoot the breeze/discuss issues with my father (the grandmaster on that scale) and I find he has a different perspective and insight that I don't have.

So, while I'm sure there are some pretty young grandfathers, you don't get to be a grandmaster at 10 years old regardless of how wise you are ;-)

That may not be the most logical of debate points, but hopefully I've got my feelings/opinion across. (dons asbestos suit for the upcoming flaming)

Promotions in most other professions are more about the results you produce. Plenty of people are with companies for a long time and have mediocre quality of work and produce questionable results.

Time in grade just means that you've been present for a while and has no bearing on your ability to produce, your actual knowledge, or what you have contributed to the art.

I agree with both points. However, as I don't see Taekwondo as a profession per se (sure some people may make a very nice living at it, but I see that more as a side-effect) so it breaks down in comparison in my mind.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I wouldn't say that Reversi is similar to Go. That's my issue with people keeping using Reversi in this situation. Reversi is about flipping pieces and having more pieces than your opponent on the board at the end of the game.

Go is about territory and strategic defence/attack (and capture to a lesser extent). They are completely different, but both happen to use black and white pieces.

You were the one that brought Reversi/Go in to this ;-)

The specifics of the game are unimportant; the point is that it was lifted from a game and the ranks have to do with handicaps between players, which is at least initially how it was used when it was lifted.

Again, the meaning of rank in martial arts is so nebulous in its definition that nobody can really agree about what defines it. Time in grade isn't even uniform from art to art or from org to org within an art.

People cannot even agree on what qualifies a person as a first dan. BJJ requires almost a decade from what I understand. In Korea, HKD and TKD require a year. In the US, it generally ranges from two to four years, with two being average for the big commercial schools.

Then you have titles in some arts that are not directly tied to a specific grade.

I assumed as you were replying to my message it was aimed at me, thanks for the clarification.

Replying to you, not about you.

These are good points for discussion. I used to feel that rank was just a progression through the arts as a student and that there should be no reason why you should be kept back from higher rank even if you don't want to teach.

I've changed over time to think that higher dan ranks are for those that are teaching or at least aspiring to teach. If you don't, there's no need for higher rank. I now agree that master ranks should be for those that have (or aim to have) school(s) of their own. I think that grandmasters should definitely have produced their own masters, or at least be committed to teaching others, more junior masters.

So, given that a certain amount of time is really required for people to mature in the arts, it would take X years to reach "master"/"instructor" level and therefore Y years to reach grandmaster level. There may be some that get there faster than others, but I don't think it should be purely achievement focused. I don't see Taekwondo as a profession, I see it as a journey through life.

I like to think of a grandmaster as being equal to a grandfather within a family. I am a father to two young children (therefore I'm a master on that scale, I have my own "students"). I am confident raising my children and helping guide them to become adults/parents themselves one day. There are still times I like to shoot the breeze/discuss issues with my father (the grandmaster on that scale) and I find he has a different perspective and insight that I don't have.

So, while I'm sure there are some pretty young grandfathers, you don't get to be a grandmaster at 10 years old regardless of how wise you are ;-)

That may not be the most logical of debate points, but hopefully I've got my feelings/opinion across. (dons asbestos suit for the upcoming flaming)

I agree with both points. However, as I don't see Taekwondo as a profession per se (sure some people may make a very nice living at it, but I see that more as a side-effect) so it breaks down in comparison in my mind.

No, it isn't a profession, but we're still talking about promotions, promotions that bring with them greater responsibility and prestige.

You mentioned a chess grandmaster. No time in grade requirements there, nor age requirements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmaster_(chess). But it definitely is results driven.

Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of grandmasters in their twenties or of awarding black belts to children. But while I am not in favor of it, nor will I dismss the holders out of hand, though I consider both to be red flags.

While I do like what you said about what a grandmaster should be, and while I agree that it does take a certain amount of time to both learn the art and to mature, what you said is not overly concrete.

And since we're up here debating about what constitutes a valid GM, I'd like to see something concrete besides age as a requirement. Otherwise, we can all just say that 'this is what I feel a grandmaster should be and it is true for me, though maybe not for you.' At which point facts become irrelevant.

Personally, I think it starts with whether or not the individual is part of a larger organization. Organizations set parameters for what constitutes a GM. Some have minimum ages, others do not. Most have a minimum grade (7th, 8th, 9th). Not all organizations have the same time in grade requirements, so while it may not be consistent from organization to organization, you can at least measure time in grade within an organization.

But if the person is independent, what then? Do you use the standard of other organizations within the art? Then the question comes up as to what defines a grandmaster. Is he or she the head of a system? If so, then age, time in grade, and grading itself are no longer factors; he or she is the head of their system. What if the art has no grading? Not all arts do, though I'd bet that most of the arts that don't also don't use the title of grandmaster in their system.

 

[dancingalone]

A simple solution would be to correlate the dan ranks to a set curriculum along with a subjective measure of skill, performance, and understanding of said material with some allowances given for age and physical handicap. Keep the other titles such as sabum/master/grandmaster formally reserved for people who actually teach and run schools.

Some Japanese/Okinawan systems do it this way and I think it works well.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

A simple solution would be to correlate the dan ranks to a set curriculum along with a subjective measure of skill, performance, and understanding of said material with some allowances given for age and physical handicap. Keep the other titles such as sabum/master/grandmaster formally reserved for people who actually teach and run schools.

Some Japanese/Okinawan systems do it this way and I think it works well.

That is how it is done in kendo. And yes, it works very well. Isn't it also the same in aikido and goju?

 

[puunui]

Because there is no assosiation that would back a 28 yo 8th dan. If there was people would lay off of the ATA and ban together against it. A gm is someone who knows tkd inside and out. They would have several master instructors under them who have promoted their own students to black belts of various degrees.

In GM Ji's case, when he was 8th Dan, he had lots of students who had opened their own dojang and were promoting their own students to dan rank, and those students were also going out and opening their own dojang. GM Ji's title back then was "Chong Kwan Jang", which meant that he had many kwan jang under him, even at that young age. For example, one such student was GM HAN Bong Soo, who had taught for years at Osan AFB and then moved to Los Angeles to open a Hapkido dojang there.

 

[puunui]

I think all martial frauds should be exposed for who they are and, more importantly, who they are not.

I agree.

 

[puunui]

GM Han Cha Kyo's ITF Dan # was k-8-6. Issude in 1973. I will have to check his exact age, but he was in the Military demo in fron of President Rhee in 1954 or so. He would have been about 22 at that time. I will look for something which has his exact age. This means he would have been a 41 year old 8th Dan.

Looking at other arts, TOHEI Koichi Sensei was promoted to Aikido 8th Dan at age 32.

 

[puunui]

He started martial arts when he was 9, born in 1934. So from 1943 to 1973 is 30 years of training. That's a fair amount of time and he would have been 39 years old as a grandmaster, which is a lot different to the theoretical (typo) young grandmaster this thread was about. Under Kukkiwon rules (which I know we're not talking about) 44 years is the minimum age for 8th dan, so this is not that dissimilar.

Who was he training with in 1943? The Chung Do Kwan, his kwan, didn't open until 1944. I also do not believe he was promoted to 1st Dan by GM LEE Won Kuk.