Being all serious

[terryl965]

What is or should be the proper number of hours training to achieve a B.B.? I understand that so many threads have been about this, but I wanted to add a chapter about proper time frame to reach B.B. in my book. I personally believe if you take 4-5 years to get one with three days minimum a week at a 1.5 hour classes than that would be around 1,500 hours of training. What do the rest of you believe in.

[granfire]

making me do math, eh? (you shall be smote, smitten and smitted for that! ;) )

I will come back to you on the question though, should I have come to a conclusion on whether or not there should be a total of time in Art before you can get a new rank...

[dancingalone]

What is or should be the proper number of hours training to achieve a B.B.? I understand that so many threads have been about this, but I wanted to add a chapter about proper time frame to reach B.B. in my book. I personally believe if you take 4-5 years to get one with three days minimum a week at a 1.5 hour classes than that would be around 1,500 hours of training. What do the rest of you believe in.

Depends on the type of taekwondo you teach. A punchy, kicky type system with a focus on point sparring can be transmitted in a relatively short time. The more things you teach (form applications, close range fighting and stand up grappling, weapons, etc) the longer it takes.

[Manny]

What is or should be the proper number of hours training to achieve a B.B.? I understand that so many threads have been about this, but I wanted to add a chapter about proper time frame to reach B.B. in my book. I personally believe if you take 4-5 years to get one with three days minimum a week at a 1.5 hour classes than that would be around 1,500 hours of training. What do the rest of you believe in.

For me, 4-5 years of three times per week is ok, however even with this I must asure the student MUST have what it takes to earn the black belt.

Something I dislike is the Mom program we have in our dojang, it took me 3 full years to become a second degree black belt even with my previous background, and the mom's that become black belt this year they took them maybe 2.5-3!!!! Cause back in 2007 there where no mom's in the class!!!

Manny

[KELLYG]

The length of time till reach 1st dan depends on a lot of things. Consistent training with the proper attitude. A person that half/ass practices 4 days a week for years may not have the skill set of someone that practices with intensity and focus for 1/2 that time. Someone that studies off site and investigates their art from outside sources and try to gain an understanding of why they are doing things instead of just copying what they see. A persons personal fitness level also plays into the decision. There is always the x factor. Some people just get things faster than others. Other folks have experience in other arts that will help propel them further quicker. I think that people should only be allowed to test when their skill set and mental attitude is ready regardless of time in.

[chrispillertkd]

500-750 hours of consistent training is the norm for testing for I dan at my instructors' school. Juniors (those under 16) and seniors (those over 40) tend to be on the high side.

Pax,

Chris

[Dirty Dog]

I think it's too complicated an issue for a simple answer, and ultimately I think it needs to be based on performance, not numbers.

Does the person have prior experience? In a related or unrelated art? Do they have natural ability? Do they "get" the applications of forms, or are they just memorizing movements? And probably the single most important factor: how hard are they working, both in class and (the real determinant) on their own. I think the most you can really say about "how long to xxx" is "what's average to xxx".

Let me ask this: I've been at this dojang for 14 months now. I train 4-6 hours a week in class. I train 10-20 hours a week on my own. In that 14 months I've reached 3rd geup. Am I advancing too fast? I'm certainly advancing faster than most. And yes, this is a serious question, open to any who wish to give a serious answer. I've got lots of time on my hands right now, sitting in the hospital, so I get to thinking... :)

There are some video clips from my 3rd geup testing in the "Members in Motion" section if that would help you answer the question.

[Steve]

What is or should be the proper number of hours training to achieve a B.B.? I understand that so many threads have been about this, but I wanted to add a chapter about proper time frame to reach B.B. in my book. I personally believe if you take 4-5 years to get one with three days minimum a week at a 1.5 hour classes than that would be around 1,500 hours of training. What do the rest of you believe in.I think that making it about time instead of about ability and skill is a huge part of the problem.

[terryl965]

I think that making it about time instead of about ability and skill is a huge part of the problem.

I am not saying skiil does not count nor ability, what I am saying should their be a timeframe as well. I see alot of schools in my area that produce BB in as little as 16 months with classes being only twice a week and an hour at that. They do not have the ability or skill to be a BB and I was wondering if maybe they had more time or even a better instructor would that make a diference, or is it really time that makes us better and wiser?

[KELLYG]

2 classes a week x 4 week mo x 16 mo= 128 hours on the floor to reach black belt. With my regular training schedule it would be 6 1/2 mo worth of training. I am an average student. I would say that, most average people, like myself, would need more floor time in to have any type of proficiency.

[dancingalone]

2 classes a week x 4 week mo x 16 mo= 128 hours on the floor to reach black belt. With my regular training schedule it would be 6 1/2 mo worth of training. I am an average student. I would say that, most average people, like myself, would need more floor time in to have any type of proficiency.

I require my karate students to train 3 hours outside the dojo for each hour we train together. It's very obvious to me those who are following my instructions and those who slack. The ones that take the time to ingrain the new material are the ones that receive rank advancement and additional corrections and refinement from me. It's not that I am really trying to discriminate against the others... it's just that karate is a layered activity with each 'technique' (for lack of a better word) having different levels of understanding to them. You've got to master the basic stuff first before moving on or else all your karate is mediocre and you have no recourse for changing it, no matter how strong your desire is later on.

Anyway, I am rambling, but it's not really the amount of hours spent IN CLASS. It's more the seasoning that takes place OUTSIDE class, and that really can't be generalized other than throwing out something vague like 5 years to get black belt. None of my 5 black belt students have taken anything less than 6-7 years to achieve shodan and that reflects my own sense of standard. This will obviously change based on system and teacher. I achieved my chodan in Jhoon Rhee Texas Tae Kwon Do in a little over three years going about 4 times a week for an hour a session, but it was a simpler system than what I teach now myself.

[Steve]

I am not saying skiil does not count nor ability, what I am saying should their be a timeframe as well. I see alot of schools in my area that produce BB in as little as 16 months with classes being only twice a week and an hour at that. They do not have the ability or skill to be a BB and I was wondering if maybe they had more time or even a better instructor would that make a diference, or is it really time that makes us better and wiser?What I'm saying is that timeframe is really irrelevant, IMO, in a skills based activity.

Training should be competency based. Each rank should have an inventory of skills. If a person is able to perform all of the skills at a particular level, then he or she should be ranked at that level.

The point is that it takes some people longer than others, and others still will NEVER be capable at some point.

For example, if your requirements for blue belt are that a person be able to perform X, Y and Z techniques proficiently. He or she should know X, Y and Z about the art and... whatever else. If a person learns these things in two weeks, IMO, he or she should be promoted.

On the other hand, barring reasonable accommodations, if a person is physically or mentally incapable of performing the minimum requirements for a particular rank, I don't think a promotion should be given... ever. This idea that eventually everyone gets a black belt if for no other reason than that they have stuck around devalues the rank for everyone, including the person in question.

So, just speaking for myself here, I'd say that the time frames should be between 1 month and never. I figure it would take at least a month to assess the skills in question.

[KELLYG]

Dancing. I dig what you said. I agree with you, but most people will not spend the necessary time and effort outside of class to make a meaningful difference in their performance. Some will, most wont.

[dancingalone]

What I'm saying is that timeframe is really irrelevant, IMO, in a skills based activity.

So, just speaking for myself here, I'd say that the time frames should be between 1 month and never. I figure it would take at least a month to assess the skills in question.


This is just a different way of saying the same thing. I don't believe a person without prior training could qualify for a dan in TKD within 1 month, so the point is moot. Guys like Chuck Norris who took a black belt in under a year in intensive training conditions are the exception rather than the rule.

[KELLYG]

Stevebjj

On the other hand, barring reasonable accommodations, if a person is physically or mentally incapable of performing the minimum requirements for a particular rank, I don't think a promotion should be given... ever. This idea that eventually everyone gets a black belt if for no other reason than that they have stuck around devalues the rank for everyone, including the person in question.

What is your idea of reasonable accommodations? Just out of curiosity?

[Steve]

This is just a different way of saying the same thing. I don't believe a person without prior training could qualify for a dan in TKD within 1 month, so the point is moot. Guys like Chuck Norris who took a black belt in under a year in intensive training conditions are the exception rather than the rule.If a person comes into your school, has prior experience in another style that is similar, adapts quickly to the differenes, has the requisite skills and otherwise meets the requirements in 1 month, would you promote him to 1st dan? I would, if it were my school. Time in grade is meaningless, IMO, in a skills based activity.

And I'm not sure, but it sounds like you missed the other part of my point, which is that if a person fails to meet the minimum requirements, he or she should never be promoted. Giving me a belt I haven't actually earned demeans everyone else who was awarded that rank based on merit and is patronizing and insulting to me, as well.

[Steve]

Stevebjj

On the other hand, barring reasonable accommodations, if a person is physically or mentally incapable of performing the minimum requirements for a particular rank, I don't think a promotion should be given... ever. This idea that eventually everyone gets a black belt if for no other reason than that they have stuck around devalues the rank for everyone, including the person in question.

What is your idea of reasonable accommodations? Just out of curiosity?
Good question. I would say that requirements should be results oriented. For example, BJJ is probably better suited (organizationally) for some who are physically disabled than some styles because promotion is tied less to specific techniques. While it's important for a white belt to understand armlocks, shoulder locks, guard, 1/2 guard, 100 kilos, knee on belly and mount both offensively and defensively, the measure for promotion is application. A person with no legs, for example, can clearly not close guard. Knee on belly is out. Many armbars are out.

But because BJJ is more results oriented, if a person without legs can attack and defend while grappling, at a level of proficiency comparable to other blue belts, there's no reason he or she should be kept from promotion.

In the same way, if kicking (whether generally or specifically) is considered critical to the style, it may very well be impossible for a person who is in a wheelchair to advance in rank.

If this person can meet the general criteria, however, attacking and defending within the scope of the style, I'm all for it.

The main point is, are you figuring out ways in which a disabled person is able to meet the standards everyone else is required to meet, or are you lowering the standards? If the latter, this isn't a reasonable accommodation.

But (and this is a big but), whether or not a person will ever earn a black belt, training can still be very beneficial. And I'd argue that a green belt truly earned is much more valuable than a black belt given as a gift.

[dancingalone]

If a person comes into your school, has prior experience in another style that is similar, adapts quickly to the differenes, has the requisite skills and otherwise meets the requirements in 1 month, would you promote him to 1st dan? I would, if it were my school. Time in grade is meaningless, IMO, in a skills based activity.


All the arts I study or teach are 'Do's, so there is some element to the practice of the system aside from strictly the technical skills. Would I promote someone who has just been a member of my school for a month to black belt just because he has the physical skills?

Well, first of all, that scenario would never happen. My style of karate and kobudo is esoteric enough to where you'll never find such a happy coincidence where someone walks in the door and already had the exact same skills and nuances that I teach. It'll never happen. And this is true even when you get transfer students of nominally the same family of karate (Naha-te & Taira kobudo). Similarly, my instruction of taekwondo has taken on additional dimensions likewise creating a certain degree of uniqueness in our practice.

But, let's assume my Star Trek mirror universe counterpart shows up on my door step and requests for me to test him for a black belt. I would say no, because a black belt is more than a SAT or ACT test. It is a symbolic representation of linkage between you and your art, saying you have been found a skilled and worthy student by your teacher. Awarding a black belt to someone who has been with you 1 month throws away all that. Yes, yes, you can tell me that the black belt is a recent addition taken from judo, but I would still say that at least in my world, the black belt has taken on more meaning and I honor and respect this.




And I'm not sure, but it sounds like you missed the other part of my point, which is that if a person fails to meet the minimum requirements, he or she should never be promoted. Giving me a belt I haven't actually earned demeans everyone else who was awarded that rank based on merit and is patronizing and insulting to me, as well.

I agree with that. I still would require more than mere display of skill before awarding even a shodan.

[Steve]

All the arts I study or studied are 'Do's, so there is some element to the practice of the system aside from strictly the technical skills. Would I promote someone who has just been a member of my school for a month to black belt just because he has the physical skills?

Well, first of all, that scenario would never happen. My style of karate and kobudo is esoteric enough to where you'll never find such a happy coincidence where someone walks in the door and already had the exact same skills and nuances that I teach. It'll never happen. And this is true even when you get transfer students of nominally the same family of karate (Naha-te). Similarly, my instruction of taekwondo has taken on additional dimensions likewise creating a certain degree of uniqueness in our practice.

But, let's assume my Star Trek mirror universe counterpart shows up on my door step and requests for me to test him for a black belt. I would say no, because a black belt is more than a SAT or ACT test. It is a symbolic representation of linkage between you and your art, saying you have been found a skilled and worthy student by your teacher. Awarding a black belt to someone who has been with you 1 month throws away all that. Yes, yes, you can tell me that the black belt is a recent addition taken from judo, but I would still say that at least in my world, the black belt has taken on more meaning and I honor and respect this.Don't get defensive. I'm not suggesting that the requirements for a black belt should be strictly physical. If there's an intangible element, I get that. My point is that it should be consistent and not based on time. If a person meets whatever requirements you have for black belt, he or she should be promoted to black belt. It's up to you to set whatever standards you want, provided that they're consistently applied and based on some kind of demonstrative skills, knowledge, abilities or traits.

If it's arbitrary or you make exceptions, that's what I'd take issue with. Once again, you're focusing on the low side of the time line. I'm saying that it takes however long it takes. It's not about time at all. Someone either meets the criteria or not. Time has nothing to do with it.



I agree with that. I still would require more than mere display of skill before awarding even a shodan.And maybe the word "skills" was a poor choice. Criteria might be a better one.

[dancingalone]

Don't get defensive. I'm not suggesting that the requirements for a black belt should be strictly physical. If there's an intangible element, I get that. My point is that it should be consistent and not based on time. If a person meets whatever requirements you have for black belt, he or she should be promoted to black belt. It's up to you to set whatever standards you want, provided that they're consistently applied and based on some kind of demonstrative skills, knowledge, abilities or traits.


Who is getting defensive? Not me.

I merely point out that TIME is the common link to skill acquisition and building bonds between the student and his instructor and school. It's fine to say rank should not be based on time, but that's really an illusionary statement. So what? It takes time to build skill. It takes time to build relationships. It takes time to mature in the art.



If it's arbitrary or you make exceptions, that's what I'd take issue with. Once again, you're focusing on the low side of the time line. I'm saying that it takes however long it takes.


The problem with your position is that you are trying to reduce a martial ART into a 'check off the list' type endeavor.



That you're focusing on the specific amount of time at all suggests to me that you don't really see the point I'm making. It's not about time at all. Someone either meets the criteria or not. Time has nothing to do with it.

And maybe the word "skills" was a poor choice. Criteria might be a better one.

Steve, just because I DISAGREE with your premise doesn't mean that I don't understand it. Capish?

There's a fairly large subjective component to awarding rank in my calculus. I don't have some universal formula I use to determine if John is ready for his shodan or not. I use the eye ball test. Is he fit? Is he good? Do I actually believe he can fight if need be using the principles of the system I teach? Is John emotionally and intellectually ready to take a leadership role in my dojo? There are all factors I consider before I will allow a student to test for black belt. It's not a black and white deal (heh), but hey my dojo, my rules.

My point is that these things have to be arbitrary to an extent. Otherwise, rank does indeed become a paint by the numbers act.

[Earl Weiss]

There's a fairly large subjective component to awarding rank in my calculus. I don't have some universal formula I use to determine if John is ready for his shodan or not. I use the eye ball test. Is he fit? Is he good? Do I actually believe he can fight if need be using the principles of the system I teach? Is John emotionally and intellectually ready to take a leadership role in my dojo? There are all factors I consider before I will allow a student to test for black belt. It's not a black and white deal (heh), but hey my dojo, my rules.

My point is that these things have to be arbitrary to an extent. Otherwise, rank does indeed become a paint by the numbers act.

I agree, your Dojo, you rules. Please explain WHY things have to be arbitrary to an extent?

While you and others may certainly "Play it straight" an arbitrary format is ripe for instructor abuse and has been abused greatly in the past.

[dancingalone]

I agree, your Dojo, you rules. Please explain WHY things have to be arbitrary to an extent?

While you and others may certainly "Play it straight" an arbitrary format is ripe for instructor abuse and has been abused greatly in the past.

Because I have to reconcile in my head whether John or Joe deserve black belt or not. John has always been more physically talented than Joe. Do I measure Joe's attainment up to John's? If so, he will always be wanting.

Evaluation of martial skill is inherently subjective and thus arbitrary. I don't pretend that things will always be equal or fair and that works because I have no ambitions to run a martial arts empire. You only need so-called 'objective' measures when you move beyond the small group dynamic.

[Steve]

Who is getting defensive? Not me.

I merely point out that TIME is the common link to skill acquisition and building bonds between the student and his instructor and school. It's fine to say rank should not be based on time, but that's really an illusionary statement. So what? It takes time to build skill. It takes time to build relationships. It takes time to mature in the art.How much time? Different for everyone. Surely we can agree on this.

The problem with your position is that you are trying to reduce a martial ART into a 'check off the list' type endeavor.LOL... some artists are born that way. If you want to make this about art, you're even more off base.

Let's talk about artists. How about Mozart? At age 8, he wrote a symphony. As an artist, he excelled in such a short amount of time, it was amazing. If belts were awarded in musical composition, surely he would have merited a black belt. Don't you think? He was an artist who was able to demonstrate skills that warranted acclaim.

Some people just get it. They paint, draw, write or compose art. Others work at it. The best do both. And some people just don't get it and never will. That doesn't mean that they can't appreciate and enjoy painting or writing. Just that they'll never make a living at it or become accomplished.

Once again, time has nothing to do with it.

Steve, just because I DISAGREE with your premise doesn't mean that I don't understand it. Capish? I get that. some of the things you've said seemed to be more misunderstanding than disagreeing. If you understand and disagree, that's okay by me.

There's a fairly large subjective component to awarding rank in my calculus. I don't have some universal formula I use to determine if John is ready for his shodan or not. I use the eye ball test. Is he fit? Is he good? Do I actually believe he can fight if need be using the principles of the system I teach? Is John emotionally and intellectually ready to take a leadership role in my dojo? There are all factors I consider before I will allow a student to test for black belt. It's not a black and white deal (heh), but hey my dojo, my rules.And, this is what leads me to believe that you don't understand my point. What you just wrote doesn't contradict what I've written at all. Once again, if you have standards that are applied consistently, and you don't make arbitrary exceptions, I'm on board. You've just articulated a standard.

Chances are, I'm not being clear.

My point is that these things have to be arbitrary to an extent. Otherwise, rank does indeed become a paint by the numbers act.I think that if it's arbitrary, there's no inherent integrity in the program. It's worthless and subjective. No art in that, in my book.

[Steve]

Because I have to reconcile in my head whether John or Joe deserve black belt or not. John has always been more physically talented than Joe. Do I measure Joe's attainment up to John's? If so, he will always be wanting.

Evaluation of martial skill is inherently subjective and thus arbitrary. I don't pretend that things will always be equal or fair and that works because I have no ambitions to run a martial arts empire. You only need so-called 'objective' measures when you move beyond the small group dynamic.It's inherently subjective and arbitrary if your art exists in the absence of objective, external feedback.

In other words, if you're teaching someone to defend himself and you have no mechanism in place to actually get some feedback on this, you have to sort of... guess.

Yeah, okay. Based on this, I guess I do disagree.

And calling it "art" to justify this is a problem, in my book.

[dancingalone]

How much time? Different for everyone. Surely we can agree on this.


Personal aptitude can be a factor. Perhaps even higher on the order of developmental factors is the instruction. There is a natural limit in how fast you can progress based on the frequency of instruction and its quality. If all a student only attends the group sessions, his progress will be limited by the necessarily lowest common denominator standard generally employed. I try to mitigate that somewhat by splitting the class into groups, but even then...

Personally, I believe all beginners who have the talent and determination eventually congregate around a standard band of time for achieving black belt. 5 years is a frequent benchmark thrown around because it has some validity to it, whether the limiting factor is the student OR the instruction itself.



LOL... some artists are born that way. If you want to make this about art, you're even more off base.

Let's talk about artists. How about Mozart? At age 8, he wrote a symphony. As an artist, he excelled in such a short amount of time, it was amazing. If belts were awarded in musical composition, surely he would have merited a black belt. Don't you think? He was an artist who was able to demonstrate skills that warranted acclaim.

Some people just get it. They paint, draw, write or compose art. Others work at it. The best do both. And some people just don't get it and never will. That doesn't mean that they can't appreciate and enjoy painting or writing. Just that they'll never make a living at it or become accomplished.


Steve, I am assuming things, but you don't sound like you've ever run a school or taught a class for a period of years and have advanced students to the rank of black belt. IMO, it's really not as free-form and spontaneous as you make it out to be. There are certain skills that must be acquired before higher level study can be undertaken and this takes time to achieve or develop. Some are talented and can reach this stage quicker than others can obviously. But it is not a case of a giant like Isaac Newton lapping his peers. Negative. With regard to martial arts, beginners fall into the same time bands for progress.



Once again, if you have standards that are applied consistently, and you don't make arbitrary exceptions, I'm on board. You've just articulated a standard.
....
....

I think that if it's arbitrary, there's no inherent integrity in the program. It's worthless and subjective. No art in that, in my book.


If I am measuring two people with the same test (perform this kata, break this board, spar me), yet I might fail one person with a result that I will pass another, that is inherently arbitrary. Unless you propose that I don't have different success scenarios for different people based on their athleticism or even their body types?

[dancingalone]

It's inherently subjective and arbitrary if your art exists in the absence of objective, external feedback.

In other words, if you're teaching someone to defend himself and you have no mechanism in place to actually get some feedback on this, you have to sort of... guess.

Yeah, okay. Based on this, I guess I do disagree.

And calling it "art" to justify this is a problem, in my book.

Would you prefer I use 'science' as the label instead. :)

I think you just come from a different martial background than I do so you have different thoughts on this. That's fine.

[dancingalone]

I should add that there is a minimum baseline of skill, again arbitrary in nature however, that should be respected to gain any rank, particularly black belt.

[Steve]

Steve, I am assuming things, but you don't sound like you've ever run a school or taught a class for a period of years and have advanced students to the rank of black belt. IMO, it's really not as free-form and spontaneous as you make it out to be. There are certain skills that must be acquired before higher level study can be undertaken and this takes time to achieve or develop. Some are talented and can reach this stage quicker than others can obviously. But it is not a case of a giant like Isaac Newton lapping his peers. Negative. With regard to martial arts, beginners fall into the same time bands for progress.:) I don't teach martial arts. I have, however, been involved in training people for most of my adult life. The art (:)) of teaching people to do anything is the same, regardless of the activity. While it may look different, the mechanisms behind good training are consistent. Bad training, too. People only learn in so many different ways and good training is repeatable and very predictable.

I would never say that teaching people to be experts in something is free form or spontaneous. I'm saying exactly the opposite. It's deliberate, measurable and predictable. You appear to me to be arguing two sides of the same coin, which is, frankly, confusing me. You're arguing that something is arbitrary and subjective but then suggesting that I'm the one who's free-form and spontaneous. I don't get it.

One of the real problems I have with the way that most people represent martial arts is the idea that it is somehow different from every other thing we do. It's not. That's just ego talking.

Martial arts training is a physical activity sometimes combined with a philosophical component. There's a what and a why.

All artists are subject to external measures of skill and talent. There is, contrary to the beliefs of some, bad art. Bad poetry and bad paintings. While there is certainly an element of personal taste, there are also objective standards. Symmetry, alignment, color harmony. There's a vocabulary used, and an educated person can look at a piece of art and make observations.

Even on a website you can see elements of art. How it's laid out. Where the eye goes. Tension. Contrast. Why a person chose a serif font or a sans-serif font. Font size and color... These are all things that an art director is trained to comment on.

The point is, these things aren't subjective. A good writer knows and understands these things. A good graphic artist does, too. The point I was making earlier is that some people know these things inherently and others learn them. But they're observable.

If you truly believe that you're training artists, but can't articulate the minimum requirements in terms that aren't arbitrary, that suggests to me that you don't really understand what being an artist actually means.

Anyway, it's clear that we disagree. We might just need to leave it at that. :)

[dancingalone]

:) I don't teach martial arts. I have, however, been involved in training people for most of my adult life. The art (:)) of teaching people to do anything is the same, regardless of the activity. While it may look different, the mechanisms behind good training are consistent. Bad training, too. People only learn in so many different ways and good training is repeatable and very predictable.


Yeah, I remember some such ideas from my educational psychology courses from college. What you say makes sense at first glance, yet as far as I know no published instructional design efforts have been made in the realm of TRADITIONAL MARTIAL ARTS.

The field of martial arts instruction remains very much one of individual practice. Some teach by rote repetition. Some endeavor to bolster more sensory cognition. No one really knows which approach is 'best'. As with anything, I think the answer is 'it depends' on the student and the teacher. Hmm, there's those words, arbitrary and subjective, again.



I would never say that teaching people to be experts in something is free form or spontaneous. I'm saying exactly the opposite. It's deliberate, measurable and predictable. You appear to me to be arguing two sides of the same coin, which is, frankly, confusing me. You're arguing that something is arbitrary and subjective but then suggesting that I'm the one who's free-form and spontaneous. I don't get it.


Well, you went off on the tangent about artists and colors and such. I just went with the flow. You mention several times the idea that there is individual variation with regard to learning time. I agreed on a general level, but I made clear that in martial arts when we are talking about true beginners, people really do fall into a predictable time frame for acquiring physical skills. In other words, the passage of a certain time frame is a decent enough measure for when one's students should reach a certain skill threshold if they've been paying attention and working diligently.



One of the real problems I have with the way that most people represent martial arts is the idea that it is somehow different from every other thing we do. It's not. That's just ego talking.


Sounds like you have an ax to grind on this.



Martial arts training is a physical activity sometimes combined with a philosophical component. There's a what and a why.

All artists are subject to external measures of skill and talent. There is, contrary to the beliefs of some, bad art. Bad poetry and bad paintings. While there is certainly an element of personal taste, there are also objective standards. Symmetry, alignment, color harmony. There's a vocabulary used, and an educated person can look at a piece of art and make observations.

Even on a website you can see elements of art. How it's laid out. Where the eye goes. Tension. Contrast. Why a person chose a serif font or a sans-serif font. Font size and color... These are all things that an art director is trained to comment on.

The point is, these things aren't subjective. A good writer knows and understands these things. A good graphic artist does, too. The point I was making earlier is that some people know these things inherently and others learn them. But they're observable.


Can we relate this to martial arts?

Consider that there is a rough guideline in one's mind on what presents a 'black belt' level of skill. It should be apparent that each student's performance will deviate in some way against the standard, either for better or worse.

It is the instructor's SUBJECTIVE opinion that tallies the benchmark. I say subjective, because martial arts techniques are not measured according to some definite grid of results. There is no way for me to rate a punch as a "10" and have that mean anything from a scientific perspective. What I can do as a teacher is to rate the punch from my experience over the years and say, yes that's good technique, or no, that is horrible.

An unquantifiable, unreproducible standard is the opposite of an objective standard. It is in fact SUBJECTIVE.




If you truly believe that you're training artists, but can't articulate the minimum requirements in terms that aren't arbitrary, that suggests to me that you don't really understand what being an artist actually means.


Probably. I took business and engineering courses in college, not communications or art classes.

I use martial art in the sense that I would imagine most here on MT do. It's a fighting system with some room for individual customization and adaptation. That is where the word 'art' comes in, rather than a pure sense of aesthetics.



Anyway, it's clear that we disagree. We might just need to leave it at that. :)

Yep.

[StudentCarl]

Interesting discussion! Thanks Terry, for opening the can of worms.

Disclaimer: I'm a 3rd gup.

Long ago in officer training, I was told that there are certain things you need to "BE, KNOW, and DO" to be a leader. When I see black belts and think about what one means to me, my thoughts fit that structure:

There are things you need to be: character, maturity, attitudes, judgment

There are things you need to know: knowledge, skills

There are things you need to do: fitness, contribution, set a good
example, effort.

I don't have an opinion about time, but I am increasingly able to identify a 'black belt caliber' person when I see them. I think it varies from person to person.

Some day I will be one.

[Steve]

Okay. Since you took some business and engineering courses in college (and one psych course), just suffice to say that the term "art" actually means something. There's an actual definition. "Art" is both as broad and as specific as saying "engineering." So, when you capitalize the word ART in a sentence, I think it's reasonable to assume you meant to emphasize that term. And when you use it and don't know what it means, it leads to misunderstanding.

What kills me is that you have restated my basic points in each and every one of your posts, but then move away from those points into some weird place where you disagree with us both.

So. Rather than butt heads when we are obviously coming from two different places, I'll just to bring this back to the OP. Schools where the criteria for promotion are only in one person's head are, in my own opinion, a big part of the reason why a black belt is a largely meaningless rank. Applying any kind of arbitrary time frame or subjective standards further dilutes the already watered down community. As I said in my first post, the time frames for me are between one month and never, depending upon the person. YMMV.

This doesn't mean that every black belt is meaningless. Some people work really hard to achieve the rank. Rather, that the rank is becoming meaningless because even within one style there's no standard. It's "subjective" and "arbitrary." I think that's very sad.

[terryl965]

Interesting discussion! Thanks Terry, for opening the can of worms.

Disclaimer: I'm a 3rd gup.

Long ago in officer training, I was told that there are certain things you need to "BE, KNOW, and DO" to be a leader. When I see black belts and think about what one means to me, my thoughts fit that structure:

There are things you need to be: character, maturity, attitudes, judgment

There are things you need to know: knowledge, skills

There are things you need to do: fitness, contribution, set a good
example, effort.

I don't have an opinion about time, but I am increasingly able to identify a 'black belt caliber' person when I see them. I think it varies from person to person.

Some day I will be one.


You are absolutely welcome and remember I am enjoying this as well.

[terryl965]

Okay. Since you took some business and engineering courses in college (and one psych course), just suffice to say that the term "art" actually means something. There's an actual definition. "Art" is both as broad and as specific as saying "engineering." So, when you capitalize the word ART in a sentence, I think it's reasonable to assume you meant to emphasize that term. And when you use it and don't know what it means, it leads to misunderstanding.

What kills me is that you have restated my basic points in each and every one of your posts, but then move away from those points into some weird place where you disagree with us both.

So. Rather than butt heads when we are obviously coming from two different places, I'll just to bring this back to the OP. Schools where the criteria for promotion are only in one person's head are, in my own opinion, a big part of the reason why a black belt is a largely meaningless rank. Applying any kind of arbitrary time frame or subjective standards further dilutes the already watered down community. As I said in my first post, the time frames for me are between one month and never, depending upon the person. YMMV.

This doesn't mean that every black belt is meaningless. Some people work really hard to achieve the rank. Rather, that the rank is becoming meaningless because even within one style there's no standard. It's "subjective" and "arbitrary." I think that's very sad.


Well here goes a little tidbit, I am asking this because I was told that you must have a certain amount of time before each Dan rank by the KKW and guess what it does state that, but yet I see all these people that are of high rank without the proper timeframe or age requirement how can this be? Article eight under regulation oh hell here is the link (http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/viewfront/eng/promotion/regulations.jsp) see for yourself the requirements and age requirement for yourself.

[dancingalone]

Okay. Since you took some business and engineering courses in college (and one psych course), just suffice to say that the term "art" actually means something. There's an actual definition. "Art" is both as broad and as specific as saying "engineering." So, when you capitalize the word ART in a sentence, I think it's reasonable to assume you meant to emphasize that term. And when you use it and don't know what it means, it leads to misunderstanding.


Umm, I do know what martial art means. I don't know why you persist in trying to apply some obviously non-martial meaning to the 'art' part of 'martial art', since we are on MARTIAL TALK.



What kills me is that you have restated my basic points in each and every one of your posts, but then move away from those points into some weird place where you disagree with us both.


Perhaps it's just a matter of subjective perspective. :) You frankly are the one moving in weird places to me.



So. Rather than butt heads when we are obviously coming from two different places, I'll just to bring this back to the OP. Schools where the criteria for promotion are only in one person's head are, in my own opinion, a big part of the reason why a black belt is a largely meaningless rank. Applying any kind of arbitrary time frame or subjective standards further dilutes the already watered down community. As I said in my first post, the time frames for me are between one month and never, depending upon the person. YMMV.

And you're entitled to your opinion. Yet I will leave one last thought. Martial artists have relied on teacher to student transmission as a means of perpetuating their knowledge. In my world, the relationship between a teacher and his pupils is paramount. It's presumed that the teacher knows best, particularly within his subject domain. I think this is generally a good assumption if we don't hold dark suspicions about the Confucian model.

Are the ideas of objective measurements outside of the teacher compatible with Confucianism and the senior/junior instructional model? Something to ponder indeed.

[Steve]

Umm, I do know what martial art means.Hey, listen. Being all serious, because that's what this thread is about. It's all good.

Ultimately, we have different opinions and I'm okay with that. But this one thing made me laugh out loud because you seem so confident. I, on the other hand, don't think that any two people on this board could agree on what "martial art" means.

As I said, I know what art is, and when it's emphasized in the term "martial art" that means something very specific to me (and to any artist). But "martial art" might as well be Klingon.

[ralphmcpherson]

Time has to play some part in my opinion because it helps with the 'grey area' in promoting students. At the club where I train a requirement for second dan is to break a thick piece of timber with a jump spinning kick. Now there are some people (actually lots of people) who will just never be able to do a good jump spinning kick let alone actually break timber with it. It could be age or a life long injury or just a lack of the rquired flexibility but some people will never be able to achieve this 2nd dan requirement and I dont have a problem with the odd 2nd dan who cant do this if they have trained for the relevent amount of time and know all other grading requiremnts. Its not always possible to just have a 'checklist' of requirements or some people would never be able to achieve a black belt irrespective of the time put in.

[dancingalone]

Well here goes a little tidbit, I am asking this because I was told that you must have a certain amount of time before each Dan rank by the KKW and guess what it does state that, but yet I see all these people that are of high rank without the proper timeframe or age requirement how can this be? Article eight under regulation oh hell here is the link (http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/viewfront/eng/promotion/regulations.jsp) see for yourself the requirements and age requirement for yourself.

If there are official, published time-in-rank requirements, then obviously they should be adhered to, unless there are official avenues to waive them. This can be as simple as because the KKW president said it is OK as long as that is in the by-laws.

Goodness, you big org guys put up with a lot of BS.

[Steve]

Time has to play some part in my opinion because it helps with the 'grey area' in promoting students. At the club where I train a requirement for second dan is to break a thick piece of timber with a jump spinning kick. Now there are some people (actually lots of people) who will just never be able to do a good jump spinning kick let alone actually break timber with it. It could be age or a life long injury or just a lack of the rquired flexibility but some people will never be able to achieve this 2nd dan requirement and I dont have a problem with the odd 2nd dan who cant do this if they have trained for the relevent amount of time and know all other grading requiremnts. Its not always possible to just have a 'checklist' of requirements or some people would never be able to achieve a black belt irrespective of the time put in.In lieu of a timeline, I mentioned earlier the idea of a reasonable accommodation. If it's not a firm requirement, you can get by with equivalencies. Again, the important thing for me is whether you're establishing equivalent standards or lowering the standards. If your measure is simply time in grade, personally, I'd call that abandoning the standard altogether.

The other way to look at it is this. If the standard is firm and only a few people can meet the standards, your choices are to change the standards if you feel they're too strict, or just accept that not very many people are 2nd Dan material. It sounds like you've functionally adjusted the standard, whether officially or not.

[Earl Weiss]

Are the ideas of objective measurements outside of the teacher compatible with Confucianism and the senior/junior instructional model? Something to ponder indeed.

Could you please explain the above statement. I do not understand your point.

[rlobrecht]

There's an interesting article (http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/08/six_keys_to.html?cm_mmc=npv-_-DAILY_ALERT-_-AWEBER-_-DATE)linked in the Kempo (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1318557)area, which mentions 10,000 hours to achieve expertise. If we assume 1,000 hours to 1st Dan, this should mean you'd reach 10,000 hours (or expertise) by 3rd or 4th Dan.

[Balrog]

I believe that it will take as many hours as necessary. After all, we don't earn rank - rank earns us. We'll be a Black Belt when we are ready to be a Black Belt and not one minute earlier.

[Daniel Sullivan]

Minimum time in rank from white belt to black belt is very dependent upon the size of the curriculum. Within the KKW, schools are not restricted from adding to the curriculum. If I wanted to run a KKW school and teach all the hapkido that I know in addition to the KKW requirements, you'd be looking at a much longer period of time than say a WTF comp only school, simply because only but so much material can be taught in a given class.

Then there is the issue of how you want your school to be perceived by others in the MA community. If you are known for promoting students to BB in two years or less, be prepared to catch some heat, justified or not.

If you are known for three years or more to black belt, you will be perceived as having greater integrity, justified or not.

However, the KKW does not stipulate a time in grade for colored belts. They do, however, stipulate time in grade for dan grades. The time in grade is one year per current dan grade.

How closely the KKW pays attention to this I don't know; do they process the paperwork with the clearance of the check regardless or do they kick back applications that are early?

Also, there is a skip dan mechanism, though I do not know how it works.

With colored belts, I am less concerned about time in grade than I am with test results. I want to know that the students have attained proficiency in the colored belt curriculum, both the physical and the non physical, though in colored belts, I am far more concerned with the physical skills, primarily because they are the core of the system.

Once the student hits first dan, the time in grade is a lesson in itself. You won't have a promotion for at least a year. Can you handle it? Or will you quit because you're not getting a new belt every few months anymore? Are you using your time to deepen your knowledge of the art and to mature in your practice or are you just waiting around until a month or two before the next dan test to get serious?

And of course, whatever the organization stipulates for time in grade should be adhered to. I really don't care if someone else is too young or not been in grade as long as the KKW or any other org stipulates. I cannot control the ambitions of others or the integrity of the organization. I will adhere to my organizations time in grade requirements and maintain my school's integrity to the best of my ability. Students looking for a quick climb up the dan ladder will have to look to someone else. I teach kumdo, not taekwondo, but if I owned a taekwondo school, I would do the same.

The above of course, are my opinions.

Daniel

[shaunkwondo]

I think regardless of what you teach or how you teach; it's about quality, not quanity. You can practice 2 hours a day, 7 days a week for 5 years and that doesn't mean you're ready to be a black belt.

I think many schools (any art) go wrong with setting such limits because it puts the student on a path they may be too short or too long of a journey for their individual aptitude for learning. We all learn at very different paces, so to say that 1500 hours or any specific amount of time is enough to earn your black belt is innacurate at best in my personal opinion.

I believe that if under proper instruction and depending on the aptitude and desire of the student; it's possible that one could attain their black belt in less than 3 years, and actually be deserving of it.

Generally speaking- I believe that most black belts probably earned their 1st Dan within 3-5 years, practicing at least 3 times per week. But I certainly don't think that there is a set amount of time that marks "long enough" for a student to attain their black belt.

[shaunkwondo]

Minimum time in rank from white belt to black belt is very dependent upon the size of the curriculum. Within the KKW, schools are not restricted from adding to the curriculum. If I wanted to run a KKW school and teach all the hapkido that I know in addition to the KKW requirements, you'd be looking at a much longer period of time than say a WTF comp only school, simply because only but so much material can be taught in a given class.

Then there is the issue of how you want your school to be perceived by others in the MA community. If you are known for promoting students to BB in two years or less, be prepared to catch some heat, justified or not.

If you are known for three years or more to black belt, you will be perceived as having greater integrity, justified or not.

However, the KKW does not stipulate a time in grade for colored belts. They do, however, stipulate time in grade for dan grades. The time in grade is one year per current dan grade.

How closely the KKW pays attention to this I don't know; do they process the paperwork with the clearance of the check regardless or do they kick back applications that are early?

Also, there is a skip dan mechanism, though I do not know how it works.

With colored belts, I am less concerned about time in grade than I am with test results. I want to know that the students have attained proficiency in the colored belt curriculum, both the physical and the non physical, though in colored belts, I am far more concerned with the physical skills, primarily because they are the core of the system.

Once the student hits first dan, the time in grade is a lesson in itself. You won't have a promotion for at least a year. Can you handle it? Or will you quit because you're not getting a new belt every few months anymore? Are you using your time to deepen your knowledge of the art and to mature in your practice or are you just waiting around until a month or two before the next dan test to get serious?

And of course, whatever the organization stipulates for time in grade should be adhered to. I really don't care if someone else is too young or not been in grade as long as the KKW or any other org stipulates. I cannot control the ambitions of others or the integrity of the organization. I will adhere to my organizations time in grade requirements and maintain my school's integrity to the best of my ability. Students looking for a quick climb up the dan ladder will have to look to someone else. I teach kumdo, not taekwondo, but if I owned a taekwondo school, I would do the same.

The above of course, are my opinions.

Daniel

Very well said!

[terryl965]

I think regardless of what you teach or how you teach; it's about quality, not quanity. You can practice 2 hours a day, 7 days a week for 5 years and that doesn't mean you're ready to be a black belt.

I think many schools (any art) go wrong with setting such limits because it puts the student on a path they may be too short or too long of a journey for their individual aptitude for learning. We all learn at very different paces, so to say that 1500 hours or any specific amount of time is enough to earn your black belt is innacurate at best in my personal opinion.

I believe that if under proper instruction and depending on the aptitude and desire of the student; it's possible that one could attain their black belt in less than 3 years, and actually be deserving of it.

Generally speaking- I believe that most black belts probably earned their 1st Dan within 3-5 years, practicing at least 3 times per week. But I certainly don't think that there is a set amount of time that marks "long enough" for a student to attain their black belt.


Sir not to be dis-respectful or anything but anybody getting a B.B. in under three years coming tree days a week does not deserve one in my humble opinion. Lets do they actual time training in a 60 minutes class you are going to get about 40 minutes of actual training time x 3 days a week x an average of 48 weeks a year so that is 144 days x 40 minutes which equals out to so that equals to only two third of actual training time which equal 96 days, so a little over two weeks for a fulltime job and they are proficient enough to be consider a B.B.. I guess I look at things a little different than most, 3 years with some coming 4-6 days a week and training at least 2 hours per day is bare minium for me and my school.

Rememeber this is the opinion of the op me, myself an I and sometime I does not agree with us so he really does not count but for this instance he does, so we are counting him. http://martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif

[shaunkwondo]

Sir not to be dis-respectful or anything but anybody getting a B.B. in under three years coming tree days a week does not deserve one in my humble opinion. Lets do they actual time training in a 60 minutes class you are going to get about 40 minutes of actual training time x 3 days a week x an average of 48 weeks a year so that is 144 days x 40 minutes which equals out to so that equals to only two third of actual training time which equal 96 days, so a little over two weeks for a fulltime job and they are proficient enough to be consider a B.B.. I guess I look at things a little different than most, 3 years with some coming 4-6 days a week and training at least 2 hours per day is bare minium for me and my school.

Rememeber this is the opinion of the op me, myself an I and sometime I does not agree with us so he really does not count but for this instance he does, so we are counting him. http://martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif

No, of course. No disrespect felt. It's merely a discussion. However I think you misuderstood what I said. I said I believe it's possible for a student to earn their BB in less than three years. I did not specify," less than 3 years only 3 days a week for an hour per class".

Whether or not you choose to recognize a BB as deserving of their rank because they earned it in less time that you see fit could be your own loss, sir. There are some very gifted students and instructors out there. By all means, you have the right to your opinion and point of view as I have mine.

Respectfully.

[terryl965]

No, of course. No disrespect felt. It's merely a discussion. However I think you misuderstood what I said. I said I believe it's possible for a student to earn their BB in less than three years. I did not specify," less than 3 years only 3 days a week for an hour per class".

Whether or not you choose to recognize a BB as deserving of their rank because they earned it in less time that you see fit could be your own loss, sir. There are some very gifted students and instructors out there. By all means, you have the right to your opinion and point of view as I have mine.

Respectfully.


Just for the record I have never not recognized a B.B. rank that comes to my school, they can keep their rank but they need to go back and learn all my requirements as well. Yes I believe time in means some thing, whether or not it really does is up for debate. I also believe if someone has the talent alone that does not mean they are black belt material, they must also have that mental presence as well.

[dancingalone]

I believe that if under proper instruction and depending on the aptitude and desire of the student; it's possible that one could attain their black belt in less than 3 years, and actually be deserving of it.

Generally speaking- I believe that most black belts probably earned their 1st Dan within 3-5 years, practicing at least 3 times per week. But I certainly don't think that there is a set amount of time that marks "long enough" for a student to attain their black belt.

This has been debated several times in the recent past to my memory. I suggested this the last time as well: just post your curriculum along with the average time to black belt for your school. This way we all know what each one another is talking about.

In my opinion you can definitely achieve a meaningful black belt within 3 years or less, so long as the system is a simple one. I call these "punchy, kicky" systems. Nothing wrong with them at all, since they do work. But they do not require the same length of time to learn as systems that have grappling, weapons, or pattern analysis within them. Those that do just take longer to learn as a matter of fact.