Hapkid0ist
Yellow Belt
In my martial career I have studied in Japanese arts, Okinowan arts, Chinese arts, Korean arts and even in the “American arts (boxing & wrestling)”. In most schools and systems regardless of the art or country or origin, most require a student to train for a set number of months for gup promotion and a set number of years for their Dan promotions. At the same time I have run into a few schools (usually few and far between) that permit one to test based on their hours trained and even fewer who permit one to test based on when the instructor feels that they are ready regardless of how long they have trained.
I understand the benefits of each and agree with the standard arguments that are usually laid out for each.
I feel that even if you exhibit competency in the art it may not mean that you truly are at the level of understanding needed to progress. It is more like “technique memorization and muscle memory” but “not necessarily technique comprehension”. Though there are people who can do things this way, and I believe they should not be penalized because they have not trained as long as others.
As for “years trained”, it is not always a justified approach when someone trains 6 days a week 3 plus hours a day. Many of the schools that I have seen that have “years trained” requirements also have many forms to learn and many times only offer their students a few days a week and no more than 2 hours a class to train, this includes stretching and warm up time. Though it is great for a studio that wants to try and retain students that are dead set on staying until they reach black belt.
I myself am a proponent of “hours trained”. When a student trains in an art for 5 hours a day 5 to 6 days a week, they are obviously putting in the same amount of time in that others are if not more. They are developing the muscle memory, technique memory as well as the understanding (should anyways) of the techniques and art that those who have trained for more years but either the same or less hours as them. Yet in many cases these people are ostracized because they have not studied as long in terms of years when in terms of hours trained they may have trained hundreds if not more so than others.
Even though the “hours trained” method may not bring in the long term dollars that the “years trained” can bring in, I believe that it is more productive, and honest. What are your thoughts?
I understand the benefits of each and agree with the standard arguments that are usually laid out for each.
I feel that even if you exhibit competency in the art it may not mean that you truly are at the level of understanding needed to progress. It is more like “technique memorization and muscle memory” but “not necessarily technique comprehension”. Though there are people who can do things this way, and I believe they should not be penalized because they have not trained as long as others.
As for “years trained”, it is not always a justified approach when someone trains 6 days a week 3 plus hours a day. Many of the schools that I have seen that have “years trained” requirements also have many forms to learn and many times only offer their students a few days a week and no more than 2 hours a class to train, this includes stretching and warm up time. Though it is great for a studio that wants to try and retain students that are dead set on staying until they reach black belt.
I myself am a proponent of “hours trained”. When a student trains in an art for 5 hours a day 5 to 6 days a week, they are obviously putting in the same amount of time in that others are if not more. They are developing the muscle memory, technique memory as well as the understanding (should anyways) of the techniques and art that those who have trained for more years but either the same or less hours as them. Yet in many cases these people are ostracized because they have not studied as long in terms of years when in terms of hours trained they may have trained hundreds if not more so than others.
Even though the “hours trained” method may not bring in the long term dollars that the “years trained” can bring in, I believe that it is more productive, and honest. What are your thoughts?
.
