Another ATA 5 year old black belt

[Cyriacus]

Daniel, when you say - "Given that taekwondo has been codified in pretty much its current form for over forty five years", what do you see as it's current form? I only ask because if there's one thing Ive started to realise about tkd over the last few years, its that tkd is just such a vague term. I mean, what the kukkiwon does compared to what itf does compared to how my club trains just seems very varied, and the more 'club demos' Im seeing around the place just drives this home further. Im not objecting to your statement, Im just curious as to what you see tkd's current form to be. Or are you speaking soley about kukkiwon tkd?

Hehe - Even then, look at how varied KKW TKD can be.

Same Organisation. Extremely different outcomes. Of course, there are surely better examples. But YOU go try and find WTF Beginners (Anything else tends to be Highlight Reels or Best Matches, and so forth) to pick out obvious Training Outcomes from.

The ITF is the same. Heck, Id go so far as to say that just about any MA will have this Trait, no matter what. The outcomes wont be consistent all round.

 

[mastercole]

Hehe - Even then, look at how varied KKW TKD can be.

Same Organisation. Extremely different outcomes. Of course, there are surely better examples. But YOU go try and find WTF Beginners (Anything else tends to be Highlight Reels or Best Matches, and so forth) to pick out obvious Training Outcomes from.

The ITF is the same. Heck, Id go so far as to say that just about any MA will have this Trait, no matter what. The outcomes wont be consistent all round.

I don't follow.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Hehe - Even then, look at how varied KKW TKD can be.

Same Organisation. Extremely different outcomes. Of course, there are surely better examples. But YOU go try and find WTF Beginners (Anything else tends to be Highlight Reels or Best Matches, and so forth) to pick out obvious Training Outcomes from.

The ITF is the same. Heck, Id go so far as to say that just about any MA will have this Trait, no matter what. The outcomes wont be consistent all round.

It was funny, I was looking at a highlights dvd from our club's annual club championships the other day. I was watching the finals of all the sparring divisions and was thinking that if you showed the dvd to someone and then showed them a WTF sparring highlights dvd, there is absolutely no way they would think they were watching the same martial art. Im not saying one is better or worse than the other, just totally different. Yet both are tkd, go figure.

 

[mastercole]

It was funny, I was looking at a highlights dvd from our club's annual club championships the other day. I was watching the finals of all the sparring divisions and was thinking that if you showed the dvd to someone and then showed them a WTF sparring highlights dvd, there is absolutely no way they would think they were watching the same martial art. Im not saying one is better or worse than the other, just totally different. Yet both are tkd, go figure.

That is because there are many types of sparring in Taekwondo. How many types do you practice?

 

[SPX]

Did the ref stop twice to penalize the blue guy? That's what it looked like. . . And if so, why? For winning too much?

Ref: "Dude, you're getting too many points, so we're taking some away."

 

[ralphmcpherson]

That is because there are many types of sparring in Taekwondo. How many types do you practice?

we do many forms of sparring, depending what we are working on. For example, when working on punching, we may do "punching only" sparring with no kicking. For the championships that particular year we used the wtf rules, but it can vary from year to year. Thats what was so funny about the dvd, we were actually using the same ruleset as wtf, yet it just looked so different.

 

[msmitht]

It was funny, I was looking at a highlights dvd from our club's annual club championships the other day. I was watching the finals of all the sparring divisions and was thinking that if you showed the dvd to someone and then showed them a WTF sparring highlights dvd, there is absolutely no way they would think they were watching the same martial art. Im not saying one is better or worse than the other, just totally different. Yet both are tkd, go figure.

That is because they ARE 2 different martial arts! The tkd that came here between 1960-1980 was mainly itf tkd or, as twin fist would say, shotokan with a bs history behind it(just quoting him) and a heavy emphasis on kicking. Modern day tkd developed in Korea durring the late 1970's and became what we see today in the Olympics/wtf world championships/us open...etc. The differences are so great that most WTF style instructors that I know use the term "Taekwondo" to separate them from "Tae Kwon Do" schools like the ATA/ITF/USTF...etc.

 

[mastercole]

That is because they ARE 2 different martial arts! The tkd that came here between 1960-1980 was mainly itf tkd or, as twin fist would say, shotokan with a bs history behind it(just quoting him) and a heavy emphasis on kicking. Modern day tkd developed in Korea durring the late 1970's and became what we see today in the Olympics/wtf world championships/us open...etc. The differences are so great that most WTF style instructors that I know use the term "Taekwondo" to separate them from "Tae Kwon Do" schools like the ATA/ITF/USTF...etc.

The first Taekwondo instructors to open schools in the USA, around 1960 were Henry Cho, who was a Jidokwan practitioner and Jhoon Rhee who was a Chung Do Kwan practitioner. The ITF was not formed in Korea until 1966. In my state of Ohio, Il Joo Kim opened the first school in 1965, he was from Kang Duk Won. It's a well known fact that the Kwan founders learned either Shotokan, or Shudokan and Shito Ryu. Several also practiced Chaun-fa. As for the great emphasis on kicking, that came from a natural affinity for kicking, which among some groups of Korean's called Taekkyon. Some of the pioneers told me that they liked to kick, and were aware of Taekkyon, some even saw formal Taekkyon demonstrations (SONG Duk Ki), they naturally added that together with their karate/kungfu. As for the Jidokwan, boxing was a big influence as well.

Most every type of training category that was in early Taekwondo, even from the Kwan era starting in the 1940s, is still there. Not much has really changed. What has happened is that something completely new was added, a unique type of sparring that today is technically called Shihap Kyorugi (aka Olympic sparring) and the modern training methods that developed up around this unique type of sparring.

But many types of sparring remain in Taekwondo, and the Kukkiwon curriculum. That includes punching to the face, sweep/tripping, holds, etc. However, those early types of sparring were not all out full contact, and had many weaknesses that we solved by the addition of modern training methods.

Shihap Kyorugi did not begin to develop in the late 1970's, it began in the 1940's and had a great acceleration in the 1960's, and progressed by leaps and bounds during each subsequent decade. Today it has become the predominant image of Taekwondo, so much so that some think it is a different Taekwondo. The fact is, it is a new addition, and a very important and genius addition at that.

I do understand the "Taekwondo" and Tae Kwon Do writing difference, it can mean someone who has not learned the Modern Training Methods, or not.

 

[Cyriacus]

I don't follow.

TKD is not a preset which will be consistent wherever You look. Even within Organisations. One video is of poor quality Sparring between beginners, the other is decent quality for Beginners. Same Organisation, different outcome.

Read the whole Discussion Good Sir.

It was funny, I was looking at a highlights dvd from our club's annual club championships the other day. I was watching the finals of all the sparring divisions and was thinking that if you showed the dvd to someone and then showed them a WTF sparring highlights dvd, there is absolutely no way they would think they were watching the same martial art. Im not saying one is better or worse than the other, just totally different. Yet both are tkd, go figure.

Yep.
More or less My Idealogy.

Did the ref stop twice to penalize the blue guy? That's what it looked like. . . And if so, why? For winning too much?

Ref: "Dude, you're getting too many points, so we're taking some away."

One time (From Memory, the first time) I *THINK* was for Illegal Contact to the Neck. The other one, I dont know.

Ill rewatch it later and try and get back to you, unless the Discussion turns to something else again.

 

[andyjeffries]

Er I did mean the begetting of them as opposed to the hatching bit lol

I know ;-) LOL. I was just kidding.

you won't be watching 'Fetch the Midwife' on Sundays them! Interestingly, that programme is set in the 1950's when childhood was shorter than it is now, when even 5 years olds had responsibilities that people would consider almost child abuse now.

It wouldn't phase me watching it, but it doesn't seem like the sort of thing I would watch (I rarely watch any programmes set in older times than the 80s, I don't know why but I just tend not to like tv/films set in older times - a rare exception to that is Samurai movies).

 

[dancingalone]

It takes about one year to earn a Hapkido 1st dan in Korea, same as a taekwondo 1st poom/dan. Personally, I don't really see what the big deal is over a 1st dan or 1st poom.

That surprises me. I believe you have said you studied aikido at one point. Can you compare the curriculum to what a one year Korean hapkido BB would have learned? I've always thought hapkido had more or less the same techniques as aikido except with striking added, so the time requirements would closely resemble what aikido does as well.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Is it because you have ignored a few of the points I have made? It might be useful to restate what you said in my own words so we can verify the source of our argument.

You have noted repeatedly the origins of the dan system in judo as a means of placing competitors into similar levels of ability for sporting purposes. You apply this extremely broadly, going so far as to state that you would "remind you that martial training has nothing to do with belts. Belts are for sports."

Martial training has absolutely nothing to do with belts. Much of what you say below supports this. Belts are for holding your clothes together.

An ascending order of colors applied to the belt is not about martial training either, but works quite well for competition bracketing, offering incentive to students, and as a nice 'at-a-glance' method of knowing who is at what level in the room. But none of that is related to martial training. Martial training could be done just as effectively in one's underoos. Just ask Batman.

Yet this even upon a cursory review can't stand.

• I have noted on several occasions in this thread and elsewhere that there are plenty of examples of martial arts that have adopted a dan rank system, yet their implementation of dans have NOTHING to do with competition. Mainline aikido is a great example of this where there is simply no concept of tournament competition. You can also look to a few lines of Chinese systems (the local Hung Gar teacher in my area for example) that likewise have added belts to conform to the public expectation of them, but not as a competitive vehicle for his students.
• You emphatically claim that competition is the primary reason for belts. In so doing, you've left behind arguably the majority of the taekwondoin out there who don't compete, much less the even larger numbers of martial artists in other disciplines who likewise may not compete. I submit that the belt system means something else to them as taught to them by their own teachers and it's likely has nothing to do with tournaments or competition at all.
• You then specifically make the same claim to ATA taekwondo belts. Even though I believe you said elsewhere that you have no actual experience with Songahm taekwondo. Even though I've alluded to the fact that there is a certain mythos attached to belt colors and ranks in the ATA along with a connotation of skills proficiency. I even mentioned the rank of brown belt defined in the ATA is where 'the tree has taken root' and that it is a symbol that the student has 'mastered the basics'.
• Meanwhile a handful of taekwondo experts here on MT have said previously that competition sparring is only one part of TKD, that the full range of TKD encompasses much, much more. Given that sentiment, are we to truly believe that the belt ranking system, one of the key parts to defining junior/senior relationships, is PRIMARILY meant for sports bracketing? Really?

And if they never compete, their belt will still have the meanings attached to them taught to them by their teacher and their grandmaster. They don't need the added convenience of tournament bracketing to validate their existence.

Just to clear one thing up right away: I have never made a case for or implied that taekwondo is only about competiton. But you imply that I did in your last bullet point.

And what makes you say that belts define the junior/senior relationship? They do not. That relationship exists independently of belts. Belts have no part in defining junior/senior relationships.

None of what you posted above is compelling. Not that it isn't necesarilly true, but you seem to feel that I think that by primary that I mean that the only use for belts is competition. Either that, or you misunderstand the meaning of primary.

The primary purpose of firearms is to kill either people or animals. Yet, there are plenty of people who are enthusiasts who engage in competition, shoot for enjoyment, or just love guns the way that some people like swords.

The only purpose for a sword is for killing people. You can't even hunt with the darned thing; it is a weapon designed specifically for killing people. And yet, we have sword arts where people never draw the blood of another human being and in some cases, never spar and thus, never even simulate killing another human being. The fact that the sword's prmary, nay, only purpose, is to kill people does not keep sword arts from existing for the purpose of physical and spiritual improvement.

I am talking about the implement (the colored belt system) and its primary intended purpose. You are talking about usage of the colored belts and about the nature art. And your above statements make that very clear. Now, I agree with most of them, though not at all about how you say belts define relationships, but it is pretty clear that you and I are on two very different wavelengths and I think are talking past each other.

Primary use is very, very debatable.

Obviously: we've debated it over several pages!

Probably because the idea is very foreign to the martial arts I practice. I've already discussed aikido. Likewise with my brand of Goju-ryu karate which is anything but sport-focused. Even the TKD black belts I hold had nothing to do with tournament placement at all, although certainly when I attended open tournaments, that came into play. My TKD black belt at the dojang I earned it in meant I was a guy with some skills and also some toughness to back it up with.

You just implied that you don't practice taekwondo, as competition is not at all foreign to the art. Somehow, I don't think that that is what you meant to say, but taken to its logical conclusion, that is what your statement would mean.

So you see, Daniel, I do have to object when a statement is made that the primary reason for belts in the first place is for bracketing. Not in my experience. Not in a lot of other people's experience either.

You are basing this statement on your experience and that of 'a lot of other people's experience.' I can just as easily respond that it is in my experience and in a lot of other people's experience, competiton bracketing is the primary purpose of the colored belt system. It doesn't make either one of us right.

Thank you for the well wishes.

You're welcome!

I think it strengthens my argument a great deal. It is a KKW curriculum school that awards colored belts and dan ranks. Since the school has not and does not compete in tournaments, I must conclude that the usage of belts is similarly to track student progress and to serve as a reward/merit badge as it can with other styles. Oh, and to establish who is junior, who is senior, too.

Again, your conclusions are based on your experience. 'Since the school I purchased has not and does not compete in tournaments, I must conclude...'

There is a lot more to taekwondo than just competition. In fact, I would say that the bulk of the art is not about competition at all. But the art is also not about belts. Without competition, you don't need belts. Yes, one of the purposes for belts is to track student progress and to serve as a reward/merit badge. I have never said otherwise; only that their primary purpose is for competition bracketing. You seem to think that that isn't even on the radar and that competition is "very foreign" to taekwondo. Like it or not, you bought a KKW school. Go go buy the text book. You will find a great deal about competition in it.

But come on! Do you really believe that belts establish seniority??? Belts establish nothing. Seniority is established through time in grade, maturity, and advancement in the art, none of which has anything to do with what you wear. Koryu arts have no belts, but everyone knows who is senior and who is not. Same for other arts that do not employ a system of visual cues.

Let's put the compelling test upon your shoulders since you assert your premise is true for everyone and every system that has a dan ladder. How do you answer?

And I asserted that premise when? I never asserted that my premise is true for every system that has a dan ladder. For starters, I train and teach in a system that has a dan ladder but does not use belts. All of the pictures that I see of aikidoka training are of people with no belts, though I am aware that the system has a dan ladder. How do you conclude that I am applying my premise that "the primary purpose of the colored belt system is competion bracketing" to kendo or aikido or other arts that use a dan ladder but do not use belts?

As to how I answer, I have done so in what I have stated in this post. Agree, agree in part, or agree not at all, it pretty much concludes what I have to say on the subject.

My only reason for mentioning it at all is to point out how silly it is for people to get so riled up about who is awarding belts to whom and for what.

 

[dancingalone]

Just to clear one thing up right away: I have never made a case for or implied that taekwondo is only about competiton. But you imply that I did in your last bullet point.

I said that you said the primary reason for belts is for sport competition purposes. I noted in that bullet point that it is accepted by experts that TKD comprises much more than competition. Therefore it follows that belts as an integral part of TKD, awarded to competitors and NON-competitors alike, must have a meaning or usage entirely unrelated to competitive purposes. Capish?

And what makes you say that belts define the junior/senior relationship? They do not. That relationship exists independently of belts. Belts have no part in defining junior/senior relationships.

Read again. I said they are a key part of defining junior/senior relationships. And they are. What makes that black belt senior to the white belt that just joined? It is his greater training and experience which translates into the symbolism tied around his waist. His black belt automatically gives the white belt the assumption that this is someone the white belt can ask questions of, seek help from. Like it or not, there is significance there.

None of what you posted above is compelling. Not that it isn't necesarilly true, but you seem to feel that I think that by primary that I mean that the only use for belts is competition. Either that, or you misunderstand the meaning of primary.

Daniel, if a style has no competition at all and never has from the beginning, how on God's green earth can 'primary' even enter the picture? If the founder of a style or system has designated specific meanings and usages for the belt ranks, how can you push that aside in favor of 'well, this is how it started in judo' ? If you never compete as a taekwondoin and your system (ATA) has specific enumerated meanings and import attached to the belt ranks, how can you claim that sport competition nonetheless is the 'primary' reason for ranking belts for him?

'Compelling' arguments has nothing to do with it. At this point, we're talking about reality.

The primary purpose of firearms is to kill either people or animals. Yet, there are plenty of people who are enthusiasts who engage in competition, shoot for enjoyment, or just love guns the way that some people like swords.

The only purpose for a sword is for killing people. You can't even hunt with the darned thing; it is a weapon designed specifically for killing people. And yet, we have sword arts where people never draw the blood of another human being and in some cases, never spar and thus, never even simulate killing another human being. The fact that the sword's prmary, nay, only purpose, is to kill people does not keep sword arts from existing for the purpose of physical and spiritual improvement.

I'm not sure the analogy fits at all. We're not talking about guns or swords. We're talking about belt rankings and their purpose in the martial arts. I have a bo. I can use it to fight with or I can use it as a decoration for my wall. What is its primary purpose? I don't know - I've never been in a real fight using a bo, although much of the time my bo DOES hang on my wall. Just like guns and swords, bo have little to do with belt rankings either.

I am talking about the implement and its primary intended purpose of the colored belt system.

And you might be right if you were content to confine your comments to judo, particularly in the time frame that Kano Sensei established it. Other arts and other founders had other ideas when they added a ranking system using colored belts for grade distinction.

You are talking about the usage of belts and about the nature art. And your above statements make that very clear. Now, I agree with most of them, though not at all about how you say belts define relationships, but it is pretty clear that you and I are on two very different wavelengths and I think are talking past each other.

I won't repeat my correction above, but yes it seems like we think quite differently on this topic.

You just implied that you don't practice taekwondo, as competition is not at all foreign to the art. Somehow, I don't think that that is what you meant to say, but taken to its logical conclusion, that is what your statement would mean.

No, I did not imply that. That is an inference you make, based on your mindset. I said my TKD belts were not awarded to me with a PURPOSE nor USAGE of competition in mind. The dojang I learned in followed the color meanings established by General Choi. White = Pure without Knowledge, Yellow = A Seed begins, etc. And our black belts (brown belts even) had a substantial performance factor attached to them, again with no link to bracketing or seeding or what not. Their award meant you had demonstrated a good amount of skill in the required curriculum and you had also shown some perseverance in the face of challenge and distress.

You are basing this statement on your experience and that of 'a lot of other people's experience.' I can just as easily respond that it is in my experience and in a lot of other people's experience, competiton bracketing is the primary purpose of the colored belt system. It doesn't make either one of us right.

It makes me right for the styles and systems I have expertise in. I CAN speak for what I actually practice in or what I have good personal knowledge of. As can you for the styles and systems you practice. Where they intersect between you and me, I suppose we can argue about it, like below.

Again, your conclusions are based on your experience. 'Since the school I purchased has not and does not compete in tournaments, I must conclude...'

And your conclusion is based upon the often repeated story about how Kano Sensei added the dan system from the game of Go to his refinement of jujutsu...But you're unwilling to consider that other founders of other arts might have had different goals in mind than Kano Sensei when they likewise emulated him.

There is a lot more to taekwondo than just competition.

True.

In fact, I would say that the bulk of the art is not about competition at all.

Also true.

But the art is also not about belts.

Never said it was. Please re-read instead of putting up a strawman for me to defend against.

Without competition, you don't need belts. Yes, one of the purposes for belts is to track student progress and to serve as a reward/merit badge. I have never said otherwise; only that their primary purpose is for competition bracketing.

I have said repeatedly that there are ample styles and systems which have no competitions YET they use belts. It therefore follows that the PRIMARY purpose of belts for them CANNOT be for competition bracketing.

Please take the time to address this conundrum as this discussion can't really progress until you do.

You seem to think that that isn't even on the radar and that competition is "very foreign" to taekwondo. Like it or not, you bought a KKW school. Go go buy the text book. You will find a great deal about competition in it.

This is another strawman I'm afraid. I said the idea of competition bracketing as the primary rationale for belt rankings was very foreign to the arts I practice, the TKD I learned included. I did not say competition is foreign to TKD.

And yes I bought a KKW curriculum school. Location, location, location. I am enjoying learning the poomsae however.

But come on! Do you really believe that belts establish seniority??? Belts establish nothing. Seniority is established through time in grade, maturity, and advancement in the art, none of which has anything to do with what you wear. Koryu arts have no belts, but everyone knows who is senior and who is not. Same for other arts that do not employ a system of visual cues.

Sigh. I direct you to my response above where I RESTATE above what I actually said about belts and the role (er, key part) they play in defining the junior/senior relationship.

And I asserted that premise when? I never asserted that my premise is true for every system that has a dan ladder. For starters, I train and teach in a system that has a dan ladder but does not use belts. All of the pictures that I see of aikidoka training are of people with no belts, though I am aware that the system has a dan ladder. How do you conclude that I apply my premise that "belts are used primarilly for competion bracketing" applied to kendo or aikido or other arts that use a dan ladder but do not use belts?

Ah, finally we get to the meat of it. If I have misunderstood you all along then I apologize. If you acknowledge that there are styles and systems that have entirely different meanings attached to their usage of belt ranks than competition bracketing, I can have no quarrel with you. Yet as I recall you specifically made mention to the ATA as well which although a TKD style still doesn't fit your premise...And Jhoon Rhee TKD as well.

Perhaps to cement the discussion once and for all, let's look at this most excellent post written by mastercole: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...d-black-belt&p=1459360&highlight=#post1459360

It is well worth reading multiple times for later reflection, but for brevity's sake I will only quote a small part.

The various colors of the geup belts represent the various spectrum of human emotion. The geup holder experiences the spectrum of these internal obstacles, eventually combining them all, and as when you combine all primary colors, you get black and black represents the emptiness of the vast emptiness of the universe (taegeuk). The goal for color belt experience is black belt understanding.

The black color of the Dan belt represents the new Dan holders realization that the new goal is the death of these emotions (ignorance's, desires, delusion) they identified as a geup holder. The new Dan holder, who now has basic talent, confronts these internal obstacles via the pursuit of refinement and excellence. This confrontation with the self, will take place for many years across many levels as long as the Dan holder does not give up, eventually the Dan holder should victor over the self (pil-seung) and no longer be challenged by these internal obstacles.

Daniel, how do you reconcile this with your contention about the primary purpose of belt ranks?

 

[Twin Fist]

this is exactly right, they really have evolved into 2 different arts.

Tae Kwon Do

and Korean Kickboxing

That is because they ARE 2 different martial arts! The tkd that came here between 1960-1980 was mainly itf tkd or, as twin fist would say, shotokan with a bs history behind it(just quoting him) and a heavy emphasis on kicking. Modern day tkd developed in Korea durring the late 1970's and became what we see today in the Olympics/wtf world championships/us open...etc. The differences are so great that most WTF style instructors that I know use the term "Taekwondo" to separate them from "Tae Kwon Do" schools like the ATA/ITF/USTF...etc.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I said they are a key part of defining junior/senior relationships. And they are. What makes that black belt senior to the white belt that just joined? It is his greater training and experience which translates into the symbolism tied around his waist. His black belt automatically gives the white belt the assumption that this is someone the white belt can ask questions of, seek help from. Like it or not, there is significance there.

Belts have no part in defining the relationship. The belt indicates the general rank of another person. But it does not define the relationship, nor it it a key part of it. It may be a part of identifying who is senior to whom, though in a school that does not use stripes on the black belt, the belt can no longer be used reliably for this.

Identification of who is senior is not a relationship with the senior, which is why I say that belts have no part in defining the relationship. You and I have some kind of relationship: we are both taekwondoin who participate on this board. We have a relationship to Glenn and Master Cole. I have no idea whether or not you are senior to me, though given that you are a taekwondo school owner and I run a kendo school, even if our rank and time in grade is the same, I'd give you the nod. I suspect that we'd both acknowledge Glenn and Master Cole as senior to us. That relationship is defined by our communication with one another and our interractions. Belts are not a part of it.

It seems that we are talking about different things. You seem to be talking about a relationship of proximity within the rank structure, in which case the belts serve as a means to determine who is where in that structure. I am talking about interpersonal relationships.

No, I did not imply that. That is an inference you make, based on your mindset. I said my TKD belts were not awarded to me with a PURPOSE nor USAGE of competition in mind. The dojang I learned in followed the color meanings established by General Choi. White = Pure without Knowledge, Yellow = A Seed begins, etc. And our black belts (brown belts even) had a substantial performance factor attached to them, again with no link to bracketing or seeding or what not. Their award meant you had demonstrated a good amount of skill in the required curriculum and you had also shown some perseverance in the face of challenge and distress.

Okay. What you say now is not what I responded to. If this is what you meant, then fine.

But this is what I responded to:

Probably because the idea is very foreign to the martial arts I practice. I've already discussed aikido. Likewise with my brand of Goju-ryu karate which is anything but sport-focused. Even the TKD black belts I hold had nothing to do with tournament placement at all, although certainly when I attended open tournaments, that came into play. My TKD black belt at the dojang I earned it in meant I was a guy with some skills and also some toughness to back it up with.

No inferrence: I responded to exactly what you typed. Also as before, I have bolded the part that I was responding to. I left the rest in because I did not want your quote hanging there without the rest of the context.

You said that competition is "very foreign" to the arts that you practice. That is a comment about the art itself. You then went on to describe things about your training and your experiences. The reason that I bolded the first sentence is that competition is not at all foreign to taekwondo as an art, KKW in particular, which you practice. Just because it was not a part of what you were taught or the curriculum that you have chosen to teach to your students does not make it foreign to the art. That is the distinction that I was making.

Never said it was. Please re-read instead of putting up a strawman for me to defend against.

Never said that you said it was. I was stating my own views and in no way was inferring what I think you had said.

I have said repeatedly that there are ample styles and systems which have no competitions YET they use belts. It therefore follows that the PRIMARY purpose of belts for them CANNOT be for competition bracketing.

Please take the time to address this conundrum as this discussion can't really progress until you do.

Sure. Hapkido, which I also practice, traditionally either has no competitive element or the competitive element is really a sidebar. But we're not on the hapkido or aikido board. If we were, we probably would not be having this discussion, as those arts utilize belts in a different manner and do not traditionally have a competitive element.

But taekwondo does have a competitive element, and it is at the arts core, not a sidebar like it is in hapkido. Taekwondo would actually be called 'taekkyeon-do' had the Hanmoon characters existed for it. And taekkyeon is competitive.

I also freely acknowledge that there are taekwondo systems that do not have a competitive element. But these are definitely the minority. The fact that you teach a style that has the element but choose not to engage in it does not change that it has that element.

As the saying goes, something for everyone. You and your students have found something in KKW TKD that is for you. Which I think is great.

This is another strawman I'm afraid. I said the idea of competition bracketing as the primary rationale for belt rankings was very foreign to the arts I practice, the TKD I learned included. I did not say competition is foreign to TKD.

And yes I bought a KKW curriculum school. Location, location, location. I am enjoying learning the poomsae however.

The fact that you focus on pumse and that your taekwondo training did not involve competition does not change that competition is not foreign to taekwondo; you simply do not involve yourself.

Which is fine. I rather like the idea of an application based TKD curriculum with a strong 'do' element. Belts work very well in symbolism and in maintaining an orderly class.

Ah, finally we get to the meat of it. If I have misunderstood you all along then I apologize. If you acknowledge that there are styles and systems that have entirely different meanings attached to their usage of belt ranks than competition bracketing, I can have no quarrel with you. Yet as I recall you specifically made mention to the ATA as well which although a TKD style still doesn't fit your premise...And Jhoon Rhee TKD as well.

I certainly acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that both competition bracketing and other meanings/usages can exist together in harmony. This is what I think is the case with the ATA. Which is the point that I tried to make with SPX.

The belts in the ATA do the following:
1. Gather the dobok.
2. Allow for competition bracketing within age/weight/gender divisions.
3. Provide a visual cue as to where in the curriculum the student is as a benefit to both students and instructors.
4. Provide an incentive, particularly to children and teens, who are most likely the bulk of ATA students.
5. Provide a teaching tool of Songahm philosophy through the various meanings attached to each color.

Belts serve primarily in the capacities of 1, 2 & 3. All five year olds wearing a dobok need the belt to gather it just as much as all adults do. The black belt on a five year old means that he or she will not be whomping on yellow belt five year olds in competition. It also places the fice year old into the dan grade material in the class where he or she is training with others of their own age range.

So unless are an adult who either competes against or trains in a class with five year olds, the idea that a five year old was awarded a black piece of cloth to go with his or her next rank shouldn't make a bit of difference.

Perhaps to cement the discussion once and for all, let's look at this most excellent post written by mastercole: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...d-black-belt&p=1459360&highlight=#post1459360

It is well worth reading multiple times for later reflection, but for brevity's sake I will only quote a small part.

The various colors of the geup belts represent the various spectrum of human emotion. The geup holder experiences the spectrum of these internal obstacles, eventually combining them all, and as when you combine all primary colors, you get black and black represents the emptiness of the vast emptiness of the universe (taegeuk). The goal for color belt experience is black belt understanding.

The black color of the Dan belt represents the new Dan holders realization that the new goal is the death of these emotions (ignorance's, desires, delusion) they identified as a geup holder. The new Dan holder, who now has basic talent, confronts these internal obstacles via the pursuit of refinement and excellence. This confrontation with the self, will take place for many years across many levels as long as the Dan holder does not give up, eventually the Dan holder should victor over the self (pil-seung) and no longer be challenged by these internal obstacles.

Daniel, how do you reconcile this with your contention about the primary purpose of belt ranks?

I would say that what he states is true and exists in harmony with the purpose of competition bracketing. I consider competition, while not comprising the bulk of the art, to be vital to the essence of the art. If you or others feel differently then that is fine; what is most important is that you are meeting your students' needs and that taekwondo as you practice it is a positive force in your life and the lives of your students.

Competition, however, does provide a vital (though not the only) way to confront the obtacles and challenges. Competition provides a unique set of obstacles and challenges, and not just on a physical level. I think it obvious that Angel Matos' primary failing was that he was unable to overcome the non-physical challenges of competition. Unfortunately, he failed this challenge at the Olympics with all the world watching.

When I express the idea of competition bracketing being the primary purpose for colors on belts, it is also with the assumption that taekwondo competition is about more than just winning or losing a bout. More than just scoring points. It is about winning as a person, regardless of the outcome of the bout. It is also about experiencing failures that you can now see and work to overcome, which makes you a better person.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

And my apologies for all the edits to my last post!

 

[puunui]

That is because they ARE 2 different martial arts! The tkd that came here between 1960-1980 was mainly itf tkd or, as twin fist would say, shotokan with a bs history behind it(just quoting him) and a heavy emphasis on kicking. Modern day tkd developed in Korea durring the late 1970's and became what we see today in the Olympics/wtf world championships/us open...etc.

Modern day taekwondo has been in continuous development since the 1940's. The use of steps and emphasis on roundhouse kick, which is what we see today in the Olympics, WTF World Championships, US Open, etc. was developed in the early1960s in Korea, when tournaments in Korea began using hogu.

The differences are so great that most WTF style instructors that I know use the term "Taekwondo" to separate them from "Tae Kwon Do" schools like the ATA/ITF/USTF...etc.

I am not so sure about that. I know that mastercole and I first brought that issue up and people came out of the woodwork to argue that point, how taekwondo is supposed to be spelled. There are many kukki taekwondojang that still spell it Tae Kwon Do. The Chung Do Kwan dan certificates for example, still use that spelling. When I inquired about that, the seniors just shrugged their shoulders and said that when they think of the word "taekwondo", they see the hangul or han moon characters in their minds, not the english word.

 

[puunui]

That surprises me. I believe you have said you studied aikido at one point. Can you compare the curriculum to what a one year Korean hapkido BB would have learned? I've always thought hapkido had more or less the same techniques as aikido except with striking added, so the time requirements would closely resemble what aikido does as well.

I studied aikido for about a year, when I was a kid, five or six years old. I vaguely remember spending most of the class time rolling and falling. I think hapkido's curriculum is much more involved though than aikido's, with many more techniques than aikido. Hapkido certainly is not aikido with striking added. So I think that using aikido's thinking and methodology, it would probably take even longer to earn a hapkido 1st dan. But even with that, in korea, it takes one year to earn a hapkido 1st dan.

 

[puunui]

I think it strengthens my argument a great deal. It is a KKW curriculum school that awards colored belts and dan ranks. Since the school has not and does not compete in tournaments, I must conclude that the usage of belts is similarly to track student progress and to serve as a reward/merit badge as it can with other styles. Oh, and to establish who is junior, who is senior, too.

I can understand at the colored belt levels or even at the dojang level, the belt system is a fairly accurate indicator of seniority. In general, the higher the belt, the longer the student has been studying. The belt rank indicator tends to lose its accuracy outside of the dojang though. There are many out there who I outrank on paper but who I acknowledge and respect as my senior. In fact, I have helped and am trying to help my seniors who have not had opportunities to advance to get rank that is more appropriate to their place on the journey. mastercole does the same thing.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

But even with that, in korea, it takes one year to earn a hapkido 1st dan.

How many days per week/hours per day? Thank you.