- Oct 13, 2006
- Reaction score
Yeah it didn't seem based on the fact he was a young black belt, and nor did he have any attitude. I would understand if he was showing disrespect that the instructor would call him up on it, but that wasn't the case.. was just deflating, and wasn't motivating or encouraging.
Yeah, that's pretty inexcusable, whatever the motivation. Instructors are human - even high-ranking ones - and sometimes they let their flaws have free reign. And some of them seriously don't know how to teach to the person they need to teach to. If, as Tez suggests, this was a commentary on the age of the belt-holder, that's something to take up with the person who promoted them. Otherwise, you're complaining about prices to the person running the register - they have no control over that crap.... went to a seminar today and there were 3 instructors, two were guests. One of which I considered to be not so great an instructor at all... sounds similar to the OP situation.
Called out a 13 year old black belt (amongst others) and asked them to demonstrate particular sequences, called them basically crap, 'ranked' them 3.5/10, and said he's going back to his dojo and he's going to have to tell them that this dojo doesn't show much 'spirit'. To a 13 year old.
He was a fairly high rank, but in no way do I think that's acceptable. NOR motivating in any way. I felt completely uninspired by him. The kid actually did great, really sharp technique, power etc. I think there may be some leeway to higher grades at times, and as though because they're a higher grade it's justification to treat others like dirt.
I was close to just walking out. There's pushing people to perform with more oomph and power (encouragement, sharing exciting and energy), then there's overly critical, making a kid feel guilty in front of his whole club that he's letting them all down and giving them a bad rep. There were more instances too, but it reminds me of the movie 'Whiplash' (not sure who's seen it, I've only seen clips), but to what degree would one subject oneself to that behaviour in order to just get 'good' at something? At what cost? It's interesting...
Really is context dependent, and important to view the instructor without bias, and I'm curious about updates from the OP.
Sometimes, it's actually based on something else. The instructor is trying to make a point (and may or may not be making it), but is doing it in an inappropriate way. I ran into that with a senior instructor who had a problem with something I posted online once, and he used me as an example in some demos at a seminar, making comments and being rougher than necessary. Thing is, he hadn't yet told me he was unhappy with me, so it just left me confused and pissed with him. Still am, actually.Yeah it didn't seem based on the fact he was a young black belt, and nor did he have any attitude. I would understand if he was showing disrespect that the instructor would call him up on it, but that wasn't the case.. was just deflating, and wasn't motivating or encouraging.
Yeah, that's pretty inexcusable, whatever the motivation. Instructors are human - even high-ranking ones - and sometimes they let their flaws have free reign. And some of them seriously don't know how to teach to the person they need to teach to. If, as Tez suggests, this was a commentary on the age of the belt-holder, that's something to take up with the person who promoted them. Otherwise, you're complaining about prices to the person running the register - they have no control over that crap.
I'll toss in a corollary that's related to your post but unrelated to the OP's situation: we need to remember we can still learn from folks with lower ranks, too. Too often in TMA (as I've experienced it), teaching and learning is one-directional. That's screwed up. I try to make a point of learning something from folks with less experience than me. And some folks with lower rank have experience in areas I don't. And I try to make sure they (and others) get to actually see me learning from them - to set the example that it's okay if someone gives you help even though they've not reached your rank. Sometimes, it's someone who only has a year or two in an art who sees what those of us with many years aren't seeing.Agreed. This whole thread could be a teaching moment for all instructors. Knowing something and being able to teach it to someone else is an Art in and of itself. If you are a school owner, some assumption can be made that you can and have taught enough to have good competency. Sadly, that is not an absolute. Just because you are good at your MA and "really, really" get off on standing in front of class, you "really, really" need to think differently. Holding a black belt comes with the responsibility of teaching those of lower rank, sometimes higher possibly. If we do not make sure that this is understood and nurtured, things like what happened to the OP will continue to happen. A big part of the dilution of most MA's.
Like you, I don't have a problem with an early teen getting a BB. But it is under a very, very narrow set of circumstances and should be an exception, not the norm.
Each of us who have taught for some time have had those exceptional kids who could have an adult conversation with us at age 10. (Somewhere in my post you can find me talking about Mikey Hickerson.) However, we have also had many, many, many kids who were more than able to physically perform the curriculum.
To me, being able to pass a black belt exam is much more than checking boxes to say they performed a technique adequately. Even it they memorize a bunch of language and history, there are esoteric things that should be just as apparent to the testing board as it is to the student's instructor.
Being able to perform with a group of kids one year older in a special program is impressive. But why did you let the kid into the program? On their physical merit?
Part of the beauty and grace of youth is the body's abilities when young. On physical merit alone most kids will out perform adults. Put them under pressure of any kind and the scales quickly flip. This is an example of a qualifier for being ready to test for BB. If we all did it on physical ability alone a black belt would be meaningless.
This is why.
No. Neither of them should be getting BB's.
Cheapens the BB.
Then you wonder why TMA Black belts are rarely respected since 1993, when UFC 01 debuted.
Maybe I'm dense here, but are you referring to your final comment? The one about the UFC. Is that why? Was that your main point? Or was it because I teach kids?
Do you believe kids have anything to gain in the training of TMAs? Or should it just be for adults?
Are you an instructor?
Do you teach others?
So on the exam the person does every thing correctly except one area, say in this case weapons defense. They sparred great, beating up kids and adults, won every round, did the 100 man kumutie, you name it but they screw up on one area you believe they failed?
Could they not just have their senior instructor go over that material more for the person for 2nd dan?
By whose standards? Yours? I'm just wondering who made you the supreme authority and what every school should be?
I don't wonder why, I don't fight in the UFC, I have no interest in MMA (in the mixed martial arts sports world that is). I don't care about why people don't like TMAs on forums like this.
Seriously the only reason why I chimed in here on this discussion, was the people saying that since the OPs son was a young black belt then that was the problem. It's the kid's fault, his instructor, and his associations fault because he is young and they promoted him to the glorious black belt. That's the problem. Like if he was older than he wouldn't have had the problem because well he would have been an adult or as if somehow turning 16 makes you eligible in the worlds eyes to be a black belt or something.
If that is the school's requirements than that's fine, it is what it is. If it is the association's requirements that's fine again,it is what it is. But to make it everyone's requirement that a student must fit into the idea that another person's holds (on an internet forum) is nuts.
Being a BB should include the ability to beat up many adults (not just a few) was my main point. I'll even go as far as saying that a BB should be able to beat the hell out of most average adults.
And yes, I teach...but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
If that area that they failed being, not able to beat up adults of lower ranked belts. You know what I meant.
By what most people who don't train in MA, usually thinks when they hear that someone's a Black Belt. Pre-1993/UFC, BB's were well respected, mostly based on such myths. Notice how the OP of this thread seems to be this exact person. After UFC 1-4, most of these myths were dispelled.
BJJ actually brought back real respect for the belt system, but strip mall McDojos keep on handing out belts to little kids for that $$$$$$.
You seem to care a lot as you're typing essays, talking to me about it when it's quite clear that I'm this exact, MMA person who "don't like TMAs on forums like this", that you're complaining about.
Man, that was the worst answers I have ever heard, on or off this forum. I get it, you are passionate about MMA. Until you can back up your arguments with more than a loose opinion about how MMA saved the credibility of all Martial Arts (ridiculous), expect to be challenged.
It is a forum, a place to share ideas and opinions, you know. With an attitude like that you will get your *** handed to you sooner rather than later. It would be funny to be there.
The early UFC's dispelled a lot of the hocus pocus of TMA that was all over the place during the 80's & 90's.
That's your expectation of what it should mean. That's mostly, IMO, based upon marketing and media from the 770's and 80's. The BB should mean exactly what a given system says it means. If someone decides BB is their first rank, because they want to demystify it, and they use pink as their "expert" rank, that's not wrong - it's just odd to us because we have an expectation of what BB should be.My comment was mostly about attaining the level of Black Belt. It should mean certain things and one being, you should be able to kick a lot of ***. The early UFC's dispelled a lot of the hocus pocus of TMA that was all over the place during the 80's & 90's....this cannot be denied. I remember as a kid, when hearing someone's a BB....that must automatically mean that he's a bad***.
What do you mean? Like get my *** handed to me in person or something? I'm always up for that.
But was what I said, that bad? I really didn't mean to come off that way.
Most of the stuff around in the 80s and 90s was about kickboxing, it was the fashionable style then, along with the Jackie Chan style of 'fighting'. Kids wanted to be ninjas à la Ninja turtles. Little was said about the traditional arts. Aikido got a look in because of Steven Segal.
The early UFCs didn't make a huge splash at the time, they only look 'groundbreaking' in hindsight. they were specifically designed to showcase BJJ and the Gracies.
If you'd been around then of course you would know this but looking at the UFC through rose tinted glasses is not the best way to actually judge what went on then and still goes on. Of course though is you want to keep looking as if you are merely a fanboy rather than someone with depth and experience of MMA then carry on.
Hardly anyone idolized Kickboxers other than mostly those who fought