Myths of the Martial Arts: A Black Belt Is a Master

[seasoned]

Black Belt Magazine From their face book page....
Myths of the Martial Arts: A Black Belt Is a Master

A first-degree black belt is an advanced beginner. The belt signifies his passage from the ranks of those who are still learning to the ranks of those who’ve learned how to learn. That’s a significant difference.

The transition from white belt to black belt has less... to do with techniques than with learning the methodology and procedures necessary to think like a martial artist. A black belt should be able to grasp the concepts on which the arts are based, which is far more important than his ability to perform any technique. There’s a saying about human survival: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish and you feed him for life. This is similar to the climb from colored belt to black belt: The black belt has learned how to learn and therefore becomes more proactive in his own education.

Does this mean he’s an expert? Well, my colleagues in the martial arts are evenly split on that point. One point of view is: Yes, a first-degree black belt is an expert on the basic gross-motor skills necessary to perform martial arts moves. The other is: No, a first-degree black belt is not an expert but an advanced beginner who’s just grasping the concepts he’ll need to become an expert within a few years.

Most of the traditional instructors I know maintain that a person becomes a true expert by the time he reaches third degree, which is for many arts the point at which a person can begin teaching.

These days, first- and second-degree black belts are often assigned to teach, and many are even called sensei. This marketing tactic confuses the issue, especially when younger students learn to equate anyone with a black belt with instructor-level expertise.

—Jonathan Maberry

Thoughts??

 

[dancingalone]

Black Belt Magazine From their face book page....
Myths of the Martial Arts: A Black Belt Is a Master



Thoughts??

I fall into the first camp. While I don't think a shodan must be super skilled, he should demonstrate crisp technique with noticeable power and he should have an inkling about efficiency and what he needs to work on to attain it.

If you line up a BB next to the color belt ranks and have them perform their basics, even laymen should be able to tell the difference.

 

[pgsmith]

Thoughts??

I think anyone that tries to make blanket statements about rank such as this one is basically clueless about the greater martial arts community. Then again, I consider black belt magazine to be pretty much clueless itself, so I probably shouldn't have commented.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Black Belt Magazine From their face book page....
Myths of the Martial Arts: A Black Belt Is a Master

Thoughts??

Based on my observations, yes and no, depending on the question.

In my dojo, I would certainly agree that there is a difference - a palpable one - between a Sho Dan and a San Dan. And we do indeed refer to a San Dan as 'Sensei' and not a Ni Dan or a Sho Dan. I feel it really is a good dividing point. I mean, it's just obvious. I can more or less hold my own with a Sho Dan in my dojo while sparring; they're better than me, but I get my licks in and I keep them on their toes. I can in no way compete with any of our San Dans and above. They can toy with me at their leisure, take me out anytime they decide the dance is over. I have nothing in my tool box to use on them (yet). I may throw a technique that they approve of, and they'll tell me so, but they still brush it away with incredible ease.

On the other hand, a San Dan in our dojo has ten years or more as a black belt. That means that there are NO teenage San Dans, period. Never. We have a 30-year old Yon Dan who has been training since she was 13 in the same dojo, our Go Dan Senseis are all in their 40's and have been training for nearly 30 years, having started as kids.

I *do* see San Dans and above who are in their twenties here locally. I would say that if we were comparing belt for belt, their San Dan is about what we'd call a Sho Dan. But that doesn't mean they are not capable martial artists. One person I know is very young, teaches in a different style than us, has an advanced belt that he would never have earned in our system, but he does turn out martial artists that compete very well well in local tournaments; he appears to be a capable teacher, so that kind of belies my own experience in my own dojo.

So that's why I waffle on my answer - it's yes and no. Depends on the person. Depends on the style. Depends on what they're being trained for (self defense, tournament / sport, traditional MA values, etc).

I will also say that I have heard many discussions about the differences between black belts in terms of what kind of martial artist they are, and I have come to agree with it.

There are black belts that look fantastic. All their kata are correct and lovely to look at. Smooth, powerful, graceful, correctly done. They do all their exercises very very well. They may even spar well and perform extremely well at competitions. However, it is all 'surface'. And that's not a derogatory statement; it doesn't make them less of a martial artist or take away from their excellent abilities. It does mean that they don't 'live in karate'. Does that make any sense?

Several of our sensei say that those who 'live inside' karate are not necessarily the best performers, though they might be. But they have something inside, some kind of a spark, that informs what they do and how they perform and how they carry themselves. These are karatemen; dangerous people. They have the karate mentality or spirit if you will; they are not sportsmen per se. When they do kata, it may not be the cleanest you ever saw; but you can almost see their enemies falling before them.

And according to my senseis, this 'decision' is something that happens sometime after reaching Sho Dan status. Everybody becomes one kind of martial artist or the other. And it's not a good or bad thing, it's just a thing.

So if one defines 'expert' by having that 'karate inside' thing going on, then also yes, sometimes between Sho Dan and San Dan, it makes itself known and an 'expert' is born.

 

[Jenna]

Black Belt Magazine From their face book page....
Myths of the Martial Arts: A Black Belt Is a Master



Thoughts??

I think the idea of a "master" is not a static concept as in mastery = having reached a benchmark. I think these terms such as "master" should be provable outside the confines of a single school. That title should be reserved for those in the highest percentiles of proficiency across the entirety of practitioners. In which case, to answer the question, is a BB a master, I think it depends upon the others that are underneath that bell curve of proficiency. If everyone within that distribution is unassailably proficient then it may take more than a BB to claim master status - in other words, claiming master status in the face of others that are exceedingly proficient may be foolish.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Black Belt Magazine From their face book page....[/U];1475899]
Myths of the Martial Arts: A Black Belt Is a Master

A first-degree black belt is an advanced beginner. The belt signifies his passage from the ranks of those who are still learning to the ranks of those who’ve learned how to learn. That’s a significant difference.

The transition from white belt to black belt has less... to do with techniques than with learning the methodology and procedures necessary to think like a martial artist. A black belt should be able to grasp the concepts on which the arts are based, which is far more important than his ability to perform any technique. There’s a saying about human survival: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish and you feed him for life. This is similar to the climb from colored belt to black belt: The black belt has learned how to learn and therefore becomes more proactive in his own education.

Does this mean he’s an expert? Well, my colleagues in the martial arts are evenly split on that point. One point of view is: Yes, a first-degree black belt is an expert on the basic gross-motor skills necessary to perform martial arts moves. The other is: No, a first-degree black belt is not an expert but an advanced beginner who’s just grasping the concepts he’ll need to become an expert within a few years.

Most of the traditional instructors I know maintain that a person becomes a true expert by the time he reaches third degree, which is for many arts the point at which a person can begin teaching.

These days, first- and second-degree black belts are often assigned to teach, and many are even called sensei. This marketing tactic confuses the issue, especially when younger students learn to equate anyone with a black belt with instructor-level expertise.

—Jonathan Maberry

Thoughts??

The article is problematic: essentially, the author's description of camp one mirrors his description of camp two. Neither one is an expert in the art and the first description describes an advanced beginner (and I think 'martial moves' is a silly sounding phrase, particularly in an MA trade publication).

For example, I would say that a first dan kendoist should at least have 'mastered' (in the sense of being proficient in) the basic gross motor skills to perform kendo techniques. A first dan understands how the basic techniques are executed, can execute them all, and can tell you the finer points of their execution.

I don't consider being 'expert' in basic gross motor skills to equate to being expert in anything, however, and consider such an 'expert' to be an advanced beginner, which is how a first dan kendoist is viewed in the art of kendo, and how I suspect that first dans are viewed in most arts.

The second camp is described as 'an advanced beginner who is just beginning to grasp the concepts.' Grasping concepts is entirely different from and goes far beyond mastering basic gross motor skills.

 

[Steve]

Depends upon the style. In BJJ, I'd say a black belt is a master. Does that mean a black belt in BJJ has nothing left to learn? No.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Depends upon the style. In BJJ, I'd say a black belt is a master. Does that mean a black belt in BJJ has nothing left to learn? No.

Definitely. If I'm not mistaken, a first dan in BJJ takes roughly a decade. That is enough time to reach fourth dan and possibly be part way to fifth in most arts that have a kyu/dan system.

 

[dancingalone]

Definitely. If I'm not mistaken, a first dan in BJJ takes roughly a decade. That is enough time to reach fourth dan and possibly be part way to fifth in most arts that have a kyu/dan system.

Which systems are those out of curiosity? 4th dan in 10 years would be very aggressive if not impossible in virtually all the systems I'm familiar with.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Which systems are those out of curiosity? 4th dan in 10 years would be very aggressive if not impossible in virtually all the systems I'm familiar with.

Based on conversations with people who train in other systems, the general rule of dan grades seems to be either one year per current dan, which will get you to fourth (and that is assuming four years to black belt) or one year per the next dan, in which case a decade will get you to third.

Kendo, taekwondo, and hapkido to name three. I'm pretty sure that Shotokan karate follows suit as well, but I could be wrong. I'm don't have the time or inclination to find and provide links to the time in grade requirements of a large cross section of arts with a kyu/dan system, but most Korean styles from what I gather fall into the one year per current dan grade mold. Non JMA and KMA traditionally don't use the kyu/dan system so far as I know, though I know that some are adopting it.

My point is that ten years in most arts with a kyu/dan system will get you considerably further in rank progression than it will in BJJ.

 

[Dirty Dog]

"Master" is a title awarded at whatever rank a given system has decided should be called Master.

Mastery, on the other hand, is not a static point, or a rank. It's a fluid point. A black belt ought to have mastered some portion of the art, but will still be working on other areas. Futher, I think mastery encompasses not just performance, but understanding; in many ways, I think the physical performance of a particular technique may be less important than an understanding of the concepts behind that technique.

Imagine two people performing the same form.
One is flexible and strong, and executes each move with near-flawless technique; their strikes are powerful and they can kick to the ceiling. But their understanding of the applications of those techniques, and their ability to break them down into steps and teach them is marginal.
The other doesn't have the physical abilities of the first, but can teach the techniques well, and can describe many ways in which each technique could be used outside of forms.

Which has achieved a higher degree of mastery?

 

[dancingalone]

Kendo, taekwondo, and hapkido to name three. I'm not going to go digging up links to the time in grade requirements of every art with a kyu/dan system, but most Korean styles from what I gather fall into the one year per current dan grade mold. Non JMA and KMA traditionally don't use the kyu/dan system so far as I know, though I know that some are adopting it.

Ah. Well, I think we established already in other threads that promotional requirements, including time in grade, vary widely in taekwondo and hapkido depending on organization and local nationality. I don't know that I would say 'most' in this respect.

My point is that ten years in most arts with a kyu/dan system will get you considerably further in rank progression than it will in BJJ.

[/quote]

Probably true though BJJ seems to one of those arts where proof on the mat of one's skill is far more important than what belt one wears around the waist.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Ah. Well, I think we established already in other threads that promotional requirements, including time in grade, vary widely in taekwondo and hapkido depending on organization and local nationality. I don't know that I would say 'most' in this respect.

It has been established already in other threads that promotional requirements for first degree vary widely in taekwondo (hapkido really hasn't been discussed to that great a degree) depending on organization and local nationality. From what I have seen and from what others indicate, time in grade for dan promotions is far less varied and generally follows one of the two tracks that I had mentioned.

Probably true though BJJ seems to one of those arts where proof on the mat of one's skill is far more important than what belt one wears around the waist.

I suspect that in BJJ, what is worn around one's waist has greater correlation to one's skill on the mat. I know that in judo, promotion is tied to some extent to competition. Perhaps Steve could clarify that with regards to BJJ.

 

[Instructor]

Based on conversations with people who train in other systems, the general rule of dan grades seems to be either one year per current dan, which will get you to fourth (and that is assuming four years to black belt) or one year per the next dan, in which case a decade will get you to third.

Kendo, taekwondo, and hapkido to name three. I'm pretty sure that Shotokan karate follows suit as well, but I could be wrong. I'm don't have the time or inclination to find and provide links to the time in grade requirements of a large cross section of arts with a kyu/dan system, but most Korean styles from what I gather fall into the one year per current dan grade mold. Non JMA and KMA traditionally don't use the kyu/dan system so far as I know, though I know that some are adopting it.

My point is that ten years in most arts with a kyu/dan system will get you considerably further in rank progression than it will in BJJ.

I've been doing Hapkido for 20 years and I am just now getting ready to test for 2nd Dan . That's mostly my fault though.

 

[dancingalone]

Mastery, on the other hand, is not a static point, or a rank. It's a fluid point. A black belt ought to have mastered some portion of the art, but will still be working on other areas. Futher, I think mastery encompasses not just performance, but understanding; in many ways, I think the physical performance of a particular technique may be less important than an understanding of the concepts behind that technique.

Imagine two people performing the same form.
One is flexible and strong, and executes each move with near-flawless technique; their strikes are powerful and they can kick to the ceiling. But their understanding of the applications of those techniques, and their ability to break them down into steps and teach them is marginal.
The other doesn't have the physical abilities of the first, but can teach the techniques well, and can describe many ways in which each technique could be used outside of forms.

Which has achieved a higher degree of mastery?

A good question. To be fair though, have you ever met someone you would in your heart of hearts really call a master who didn't have physical skill himself? Even if it was only in the past? Is someone who is a good to great teacher a 'master' if he never attained a high level of skill himself? I'd be interested in what your thoughts are on this.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I've been doing Hapkido for 20 years and I am just now getting ready to test for 2nd Dan . That's mostly my fault though.

Same with me in taekwondo; I hold a higher 'dojang dan' but will be testing for my formal KKW 2nd dan later this year.

 

[dancingalone]

It has been established already in other threads that promotional requirements for first degree vary widely in taekwondo (hapkido really hasn't been discussed to that great a degree) depending on organization and local nationality. From what I have seen and from what others indicate, time in grade for dan promotions is far less varied and generally follows one of the two tracks that I had mentioned.

Without nitpicking I hope, I think even if I agree with the above paragraph, your statement about 10 years being 'enough time to reach fourth dan and possibly be part way to fifth in most arts that have a kyu/dan system' is too far reaching. Unless we redefine most to mean kendo, TKD, and hapkido solely.

I suspect that in BJJ, what is worn around one's waist has greater correlation to one's skill on the mat. I know that in judo, promotion is tied to some extent to competition. Perhaps Steve could clarify that with regards to BJJ.

It can be tied into competition. It's easier and quicker to be promoted through that route, but people who don't compete can still advance (at least in the USJF - I imagine the other orgs work similarly), though their time-in-grade requirements are longer.

 

[Dirty Dog]

A good question. To be fair though, have you ever met someone you would in your heart of hearts really call a master who didn't have physical skill himself? Even if it was only in the past? Is someone who is a good to great teacher a 'master' if he never attained a high level of skill himself? I'd be interested in what your thoughts are on this.

Honestly, I don't know.

I'll use myself as an example. I did start training young, but I also had a greater than 20 year period when I did no training. I started again when I was 47. I'll never have the flexibility or physical abilities of someone my age who had trained continuously since childhood. I do think I have a solid grasp of application, and I think I'm getting good at breaking things down in different ways to explain them to different students.

Can I hope to achieve some degree of mastery? Maybe, but again, I don't really know. Fortunately, that isn't my goal.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Without nitpicking I hope, I think even if I agree with the above paragraph, your statement about 10 years being 'enough time to reach fourth dan and possibly be part way to fifth in most arts that have a kyu/dan system' is too far reaching. Unless we redefine most to mean kendo, TKD, and hapkido solely.

Nope. I did do some checking, and Shotokan seems to follow that pattern as well. Is there a main aikido federation? If so, would you mind posting their time in grade requirements? I'll repeat: based on conversations with practitioners of other systems..... Take it for what it is: a post in an internet conversation, not a scholarly work; I think you got my general point.

It can be tied into competition. It's easier and quicker to be promoted through that route, but people who don't compete can still advance (at least in the USJF - I imagine the other orgs work similarly), though their time-in-grade requirements are longer.

I don't know. Perhaps judo and BJJ practitioners can weigh it.

 

[dancingalone]

Honestly, I don't know.

I'll use myself as an example. I did start training young, but I also had a greater than 20 year period when I did no training. I started again when I was 47. I'll never have the flexibility or physical abilities of someone my age who had trained continuously since childhood. I do think I have a solid grasp of application, and I think I'm getting good at breaking things down in different ways to explain them to different students.

Can I hope to achieve some degree of mastery? Maybe, but again, I don't really know. Fortunately, that isn't my goal.

People often use the example of Cus Amato and Mike Tyson to illustrate the case of where someone might be a great teacher yet was never a high level practitioner himself. I'd say that makes Amato a great boxing coach, but not a great boxer, nor would I call him a 'master' in my own personal parlance.