What Percentage of People Have Achieved the Rank of Shodan or Equivalent?

I'll go ahead and state my underlying question here:

In the Kenpo thread, I questioned a how a particular martial art, as opposed to others, can be specifically designed for "modern day street fighting," when cutting and stabbing weapons, melee weapons, and guns existed in the days Gichin Funakoshi and Kano Jigoro just as they do now; and that if you remove the guns, every possible armed and unarmed scenario you can think of was experienced by homo erectus.

One particular argument that @isshinryuronin mentioned, among others, is that your common street thug is more likely have a martial arts background today than he was back then.

Now, I'm not going to get into whether or not it's true, or if it even matters - as that's being discussed on that thread. What I'm trying to get to is the likelihood that you'll even run into someone on the streets with a "meaningful amount" of martial arts training.

For example, someone who did a 30-day trial when they were 12 years old obviously isn't going to count; so I'm setting it at shodan. And I'll include, like @skribs mentioned, BJJ purple belts and ranks in other martial arts that denote a similar level of mastery.

 

Those seem to be some extreme examples meant to detract from what you know the point to be.

What @isshinryuronin appears to be suggesting is that martial arts that are not "updated" for "modern day street fighting" only works against untrained fighters, and that the common thug is more likely to be a trained fighter than he or she was a century ago.

Without getting into whether or not any of that is true, how likely are you to run into someone on the streets that has the training for what @isshinryuronin is saying to be a concern (assuming that it should even be a concern in the first place)?

 

You will have to define what you mean by the phrase "meaningful amount of martial arts training." I had thought you meant that their training would be helpful in an actual street fight. Which is why I was pointing out that many people can reach shodan or black belt, and still have no idea how to fight... some don't even know why they are waving their hands. Now, you could consider that a "meaningful amount" of training... as they could have put years into it and a lot of work and won trophies... but if you don't understand what you are doing, or have never tried it out beyond the prearranged cooperative drills... it will help you in a real street fight about as much as learning how to twirl a baton with the cheerleaders. But then you responded with:

So, are you looking for just the number of people that trained long enough in anything to be called a black belt? What is your definition of "meaningful amount of martial arts training?" Enough to win a neat belt? Enough to win a dance contest in pajamas? Enough to compete in fully resistant sport competition within your art? Enough to compete in fully resistant sport competition with other arts?

 

But a black belt not being able to fight, or someone being able to fight with no martial arts training wouldn't be relevant to @isshinryuronin 's claim. That's why it's not relevant to what I'm asking.

We have to set a benchmark somewhere, and shodan is probably the least arbitrary you can get. After all, it's something that exists on paper, and could potentially tracked with statistical data if any particular agency was inclined to do so (none are now). Afterall, college degrees are tracked (because there are agencies that are inclined to track them).

That's why I tried to be careful to say "shodan" instead of "black belt," because I know how people can get around here. Apparently, that doesn't work.

 

But who can whose butt is not something that exists on paper. Your dojo or dojo's association isn't documenting that. What they ARE documenting is rank.

That's why I said "or equivalent."

 

This is a tough one. I mean, first we should acknowledge that the numbers just aren't captured accurately. There's no way to know for sure, outside of perhaps stats for a well structured, competitive sport like TKD or Judo.

But then, you have several different things going on here. You have people who can fight. You have people who are ceremonially endorsed by some style or another. And those are likely to be two different groups that overlap to some degree in the middle.

Just taking a stab at it, I'll say that it's really contingent on what crowd you run with. I mean, if you live in an area that is more rural, like I do, your chances of running into someone who trains MMA is.. well, still not very high, but higher than if you hang out with a bunch of squints in a lab. We also offer wrestling as early as 7th grade as a school sport, and Judo as a school sport starting in the 9th grade. Both are effective martial arts. BJJ is huge around here.

I think the way to go is, if self defense is a central concern of yours for training, just presume that if you are attacked, they will be well trained. If they turn out not to be, so much the better. So, from this consideration, the answer to your question is 100%.

 

Truth.

 

In a martial art that has a rank system for students, there's eventually going to be a rank in each martial art where they are considered to be minimally capable of applying what was taught in a real life self-defense scenario. For some martial arts, that could be before shodan (or equivalent). But at shodan, that should generally be the case.

Not saying that they ARE capable on the streets, but the dojo probably considers them to be.

 

There are two things in what I said that you should have noticed: first, that I was speaking in a general sense (I did use the word "generally"). Second, that whether or not they "are" capable on the streets, the school probably considers them to be. That's what I'm going by.

 

Sounds to me like they're trying to avoid claiming something that they can be held to, but noted.

 

I think you just hijacked the OP's legitimate question. Granted, I agree with the statements you made... but you didn't even make an attempt to answer the question.

I can attest from reviewing my first TKD instructor's class bookings/schedules, new student intake and testing forms (The ATA is All about tracking things, or at least was in the mid-80's) and the success rate from the first-class beginniner to first degree, confirmed black belt in the ATA at that particular school was Significantly less than 1%. Closer to 0.1%, actually. At each... I guess I'd call it major stages, about half would fall off.

1. Just going to a first class (in my personal experience I've found that about quarter to a third of the people I've talked to have taken at least ONE class in "something.").

2. Coming back to the second class (it's a big deal, bigger than most people consider. People are wimpy, and if they're sore afterwards it takes motivation to go back for more).

3. Sticking with it through the first solid month (a month is a long time to be doing something new that makes you feel uncomfortable, which, if the MA class is being taught well, it certainly would be).

4. Less of a fall off after the first month to the first rank-up (assuming TKD promotion rates).

5. Getting into actual "sparring," where things are free-flow and you've got to start bridging from "I do this move this way" to "I use this move on that person who is trying to do something to me in this way." ATA TKD this was green belt... about a third of the way "up" to 1st D.

6. Learning more advanced concepts/techniques, building off fundamentals... again, when things get uncomfortable, people quit as "they've got better things (i.e. less difficult) things to do."

7. The push for the actual BB... it's been my experience that All styles hold this thing out there as "Wallah! You did it!" So, there's a lot of requirements, typically double for any previous rank, as well as (usually) comprehensive testing on all the lower rank, "included" material. According to the stats I reviewed... this level culled a higher percentage of everyone out other than Step 3, the month of classes, above.

So, if it's in the 0.1% for people who "take" ONE class then go on togeta BB, I'd not be surprised if the actual number of people with BB in the States (yes, worthless ones included) is around 0.001%. I see the statitstical split between my stats above, and my result, but I think the conclusion is accurate because I tend to hang around people who have some of the same sorts of predispositions into activities that I do, which moved that number up a few ticks.

 

Do you have a site , book, magazine that lists these numbers? I am really curious and would be interested in reading anything you could provide.