I'm sure that there are exceptions, and I cannot speak for the whole of the UK, but at least in the continental US, it is definitely not the norm. As I said, that is the honoric that they assigned to first through fifth dan, so it is appropriate within the organization.
I am curious as to whether this is the case in Canada and Australia. It is not in the US, but the US is not the only English speaking nation.
There is NO SUCH THING AS A 26 YEAR OLD 8TH DEGREE BLACK BELT. Period! And anyone who passed out these degrees like Skittles is just as fraudulent. The problem with martial arts these days is that it is no longer an “art”. You have fraudulent senseis giving themselves degrees they‘ve never earned. And just like everything else in the USA, martial arts has become a commodity rather than being a discipline. There are very few REAL 5th degrees in the USA and those people are well into their 60’s and 70’s. In Japan, Okinawa, Korea etc there are a handful of TRUE 7th degree and a couple 8th degrees. I’m talking about original disipline, not the tweaked versions where you have a purple belt as your sensei. You have MMA instructors (they are not sensei) who claim to have 8th degrees in 12 different disciplines and they’re 48 years old. It’s a joke. I studied Shodokan in Japan for 10 years in the 90’s under Junkichi and Naryiama Tetsuro and they were very strict when it came to Aikido dans “degree”. We learned about fraudulent senseis in several disciplines most being in the USA and Europe. The problem is that their is really no governance of disciplines. Zero authority. Senseis were basically under the honor system, but “honor“ doesn’t make money. And “honor” is very rare these days mainly confined to the military. Simply put, anyone on this board who claims to be a 6,7,8 dan and is younger than 70 years old, they are full of Schiff and so is the person who handed out that dan. There is ONE 9th dan in Shodokan. So don’t fall for nonsense. Anyone can call themselves an 8th dan, DOESNT mean it is actually TRUE or recognized by the REAL authorities of their disciplines. Hell, I can call myself a “pro” golfer but the PGA doesn’t recognize someone with a 12 handicap as a “pro” and wont allow me on the tour. You are not a Rock Star when you sing karaoke.
Having watched film and TV from the UK I can understand the context of the reference but apart from that I can firmly say that we do not use 'master' in the sense that Andy Jefferies was alluding to in Canada.
A pro golfer is someone who derives money from playing golf, it doesn't have to be on big tournaments or even playing full time. It's literally the opposite of being an amateur.
I feel TheNinja's pain. It's sad to watch something degrade over the decades from respectable to shabby, whether it be once grand homes or top black belt ranks. I too sometimes get peeved at not only the age but sheer number of high blackbelts and red belts out there. It is ridiculous.
I don't believe this is true. That's about when rank inflation began with the growing commercialization of MA, which at that time was mostly karate. Prior to that, I think most systems had better control and authority over high advancement as there were fewer branches and lineages. Also, the senior teachers of this time learned under the students of the true masters who had high standards.
The physical awesomeness peaks out by 6th dan, the practitioner having already proved himself in this area and is approaching or has reached middle age. After that, deeper understanding of the core concepts, related info such as philosophy, history, something of other styles and such is usually achieved. Teaching and promoting the art come into play here as you say. For 8th and 9th, exceptional dedication and the recognition of your peers of all the above, as well as having character worthy of respect by them were once the main requirements.
What in your mind is a "true master"? Many masters that we revere today such as Hwang Kee, General Choi, Won Kuk Lee, etc. were very young when they founded their own arts. Some of these "true masters" learned from books, watched classes by peaking over fences and practiced on their own. Their arts were in their infancy when they started. They took years of development and experimentation to fully form. What makes them more "true masters" than masters of today? Masters that have dedicated a lifetime of study and dedication to the perfection of their art. While I deeply respect and am indebted to the pioneers of our arts, I don't see them as any more of a "true master" than those that are training today (with the big exception of the McDojo types out there). Unfortunately, there are far more organizations out there that have lowered their standards for promotion, but there are still some out there who haven't.
You were talking about the time period 50 years ago. By this time, Japanese karate (shotokan, which was the primary foundation of those Korean masters you mentioned) was already commercialized and had turned into a sport well before that.
“Honor” is a pretty abstract grading criterion. I don’t have a horse in this race, but if a person meets the objective criteria for grading, what’s the problem?
I think the "honor" system TheNinja and I were talking about refers to not giving out belts based on how much money a student pays you, or advancing them just to say you've got X number of 10 year old black belts, or claiming high rank for business reasons - stuff like that. But I suppose some promotions are given in good faith by instructors who really think their student has reached expert skill due to his own lack of it and resulting low standards. That's sad, too.
