Being all serious

[terryl965]

What is or should be the proper number of hours training to achieve a B.B.? I understand that so many threads have been about this, but I wanted to add a chapter about proper time frame to reach B.B. in my book. I personally believe if you take 4-5 years to get one with three days minimum a week at a 1.5 hour classes than that would be around 1,500 hours of training. What do the rest of you believe in.

 

[granfire]

making me do math, eh? (you shall be smote, smitten and smitted for that! )

I will come back to you on the question though, should I have come to a conclusion on whether or not there should be a total of time in Art before you can get a new rank...

 

[dancingalone]

What is or should be the proper number of hours training to achieve a B.B.? I understand that so many threads have been about this, but I wanted to add a chapter about proper time frame to reach B.B. in my book. I personally believe if you take 4-5 years to get one with three days minimum a week at a 1.5 hour classes than that would be around 1,500 hours of training. What do the rest of you believe in.

Depends on the type of taekwondo you teach. A punchy, kicky type system with a focus on point sparring can be transmitted in a relatively short time. The more things you teach (form applications, close range fighting and stand up grappling, weapons, etc) the longer it takes.

 

[Manny]

What is or should be the proper number of hours training to achieve a B.B.? I understand that so many threads have been about this, but I wanted to add a chapter about proper time frame to reach B.B. in my book. I personally believe if you take 4-5 years to get one with three days minimum a week at a 1.5 hour classes than that would be around 1,500 hours of training. What do the rest of you believe in.

For me, 4-5 years of three times per week is ok, however even with this I must asure the student MUST have what it takes to earn the black belt.

Something I dislike is the Mom program we have in our dojang, it took me 3 full years to become a second degree black belt even with my previous background, and the mom's that become black belt this year they took them maybe 2.5-3!!!! Cause back in 2007 there where no mom's in the class!!!

Manny

 

[KELLYG]

The length of time till reach 1st dan depends on a lot of things. Consistent training with the proper attitude. A person that half/*** practices 4 days a week for years may not have the skill set of someone that practices with intensity and focus for 1/2 that time. Someone that studies off site and investigates their art from outside sources and try to gain an understanding of why they are doing things instead of just copying what they see. A persons personal fitness level also plays into the decision. There is always the x factor. Some people just get things faster than others. Other folks have experience in other arts that will help propel them further quicker. I think that people should only be allowed to test when their skill set and mental attitude is ready regardless of time in.

 

[chrispillertkd]

500-750 hours of consistent training is the norm for testing for I dan at my instructors' school. Juniors (those under 16) and seniors (those over 40) tend to be on the high side.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Dirty Dog]

I think it's too complicated an issue for a simple answer, and ultimately I think it needs to be based on performance, not numbers.

Does the person have prior experience? In a related or unrelated art? Do they have natural ability? Do they "get" the applications of forms, or are they just memorizing movements? And probably the single most important factor: how hard are they working, both in class and (the real determinant) on their own. I think the most you can really say about "how long to xxx" is "what's average to xxx".

Let me ask this: I've been at this dojang for 14 months now. I train 4-6 hours a week in class. I train 10-20 hours a week on my own. In that 14 months I've reached 3rd geup. Am I advancing too fast? I'm certainly advancing faster than most. And yes, this is a serious question, open to any who wish to give a serious answer. I've got lots of time on my hands right now, sitting in the hospital, so I get to thinking...

There are some video clips from my 3rd geup testing in the "Members in Motion" section if that would help you answer the question.

 

[Steve]

What is or should be the proper number of hours training to achieve a B.B.? I understand that so many threads have been about this, but I wanted to add a chapter about proper time frame to reach B.B. in my book. I personally believe if you take 4-5 years to get one with three days minimum a week at a 1.5 hour classes than that would be around 1,500 hours of training. What do the rest of you believe in.

I think that making it about time instead of about ability and skill is a huge part of the problem.

 

[terryl965]

I think that making it about time instead of about ability and skill is a huge part of the problem.

I am not saying skiil does not count nor ability, what I am saying should their be a timeframe as well. I see alot of schools in my area that produce BB in as little as 16 months with classes being only twice a week and an hour at that. They do not have the ability or skill to be a BB and I was wondering if maybe they had more time or even a better instructor would that make a diference, or is it really time that makes us better and wiser?

 

[KELLYG]

2 classes a week x 4 week mo x 16 mo= 128 hours on the floor to reach black belt. With my regular training schedule it would be 6 1/2 mo worth of training. I am an average student. I would say that, most average people, like myself, would need more floor time in to have any type of proficiency.

 

[dancingalone]

2 classes a week x 4 week mo x 16 mo= 128 hours on the floor to reach black belt. With my regular training schedule it would be 6 1/2 mo worth of training. I am an average student. I would say that, most average people, like myself, would need more floor time in to have any type of proficiency.

I require my karate students to train 3 hours outside the dojo for each hour we train together. It's very obvious to me those who are following my instructions and those who slack. The ones that take the time to ingrain the new material are the ones that receive rank advancement and additional corrections and refinement from me. It's not that I am really trying to discriminate against the others... it's just that karate is a layered activity with each 'technique' (for lack of a better word) having different levels of understanding to them. You've got to master the basic stuff first before moving on or else all your karate is mediocre and you have no recourse for changing it, no matter how strong your desire is later on.

Anyway, I am rambling, but it's not really the amount of hours spent IN CLASS. It's more the seasoning that takes place OUTSIDE class, and that really can't be generalized other than throwing out something vague like 5 years to get black belt. None of my 5 black belt students have taken anything less than 6-7 years to achieve shodan and that reflects my own sense of standard. This will obviously change based on system and teacher. I achieved my chodan in Jhoon Rhee Texas Tae Kwon Do in a little over three years going about 4 times a week for an hour a session, but it was a simpler system than what I teach now myself.

 

[Steve]

I am not saying skiil does not count nor ability, what I am saying should their be a timeframe as well. I see alot of schools in my area that produce BB in as little as 16 months with classes being only twice a week and an hour at that. They do not have the ability or skill to be a BB and I was wondering if maybe they had more time or even a better instructor would that make a diference, or is it really time that makes us better and wiser?

What I'm saying is that timeframe is really irrelevant, IMO, in a skills based activity.

Training should be competency based. Each rank should have an inventory of skills. If a person is able to perform all of the skills at a particular level, then he or she should be ranked at that level.

The point is that it takes some people longer than others, and others still will NEVER be capable at some point.

For example, if your requirements for blue belt are that a person be able to perform X, Y and Z techniques proficiently. He or she should know X, Y and Z about the art and... whatever else. If a person learns these things in two weeks, IMO, he or she should be promoted.

On the other hand, barring reasonable accommodations, if a person is physically or mentally incapable of performing the minimum requirements for a particular rank, I don't think a promotion should be given... ever. This idea that eventually everyone gets a black belt if for no other reason than that they have stuck around devalues the rank for everyone, including the person in question.

So, just speaking for myself here, I'd say that the time frames should be between 1 month and never. I figure it would take at least a month to assess the skills in question.

 

[KELLYG]

Dancing. I dig what you said. I agree with you, but most people will not spend the necessary time and effort outside of class to make a meaningful difference in their performance. Some will, most wont.

 

[dancingalone]

What I'm saying is that timeframe is really irrelevant, IMO, in a skills based activity.

So, just speaking for myself here, I'd say that the time frames should be between 1 month and never. I figure it would take at least a month to assess the skills in question.

This is just a different way of saying the same thing. I don't believe a person without prior training could qualify for a dan in TKD within 1 month, so the point is moot. Guys like Chuck Norris who took a black belt in under a year in intensive training conditions are the exception rather than the rule.

 

[KELLYG]

Stevebjj

On the other hand, barring reasonable accommodations, if a person is physically or mentally incapable of performing the minimum requirements for a particular rank, I don't think a promotion should be given... ever. This idea that eventually everyone gets a black belt if for no other reason than that they have stuck around devalues the rank for everyone, including the person in question.

What is your idea of reasonable accommodations? Just out of curiosity?

 

[Steve]

This is just a different way of saying the same thing. I don't believe a person without prior training could qualify for a dan in TKD within 1 month, so the point is moot. Guys like Chuck Norris who took a black belt in under a year in intensive training conditions are the exception rather than the rule.

If a person comes into your school, has prior experience in another style that is similar, adapts quickly to the differenes, has the requisite skills and otherwise meets the requirements in 1 month, would you promote him to 1st dan? I would, if it were my school. Time in grade is meaningless, IMO, in a skills based activity.

And I'm not sure, but it sounds like you missed the other part of my point, which is that if a person fails to meet the minimum requirements, he or she should never be promoted. Giving me a belt I haven't actually earned demeans everyone else who was awarded that rank based on merit and is patronizing and insulting to me, as well.

 

[Steve]

Stevebjj

On the other hand, barring reasonable accommodations, if a person is physically or mentally incapable of performing the minimum requirements for a particular rank, I don't think a promotion should be given... ever. This idea that eventually everyone gets a black belt if for no other reason than that they have stuck around devalues the rank for everyone, including the person in question.

What is your idea of reasonable accommodations? Just out of curiosity?

Good question. I would say that requirements should be results oriented. For example, BJJ is probably better suited (organizationally) for some who are physically disabled than some styles because promotion is tied less to specific techniques. While it's important for a white belt to understand armlocks, shoulder locks, guard, 1/2 guard, 100 kilos, knee on belly and mount both offensively and defensively, the measure for promotion is application. A person with no legs, for example, can clearly not close guard. Knee on belly is out. Many armbars are out.

But because BJJ is more results oriented, if a person without legs can attack and defend while grappling, at a level of proficiency comparable to other blue belts, there's no reason he or she should be kept from promotion.

In the same way, if kicking (whether generally or specifically) is considered critical to the style, it may very well be impossible for a person who is in a wheelchair to advance in rank.

If this person can meet the general criteria, however, attacking and defending within the scope of the style, I'm all for it.

The main point is, are you figuring out ways in which a disabled person is able to meet the standards everyone else is required to meet, or are you lowering the standards? If the latter, this isn't a reasonable accommodation.

But (and this is a big but), whether or not a person will ever earn a black belt, training can still be very beneficial. And I'd argue that a green belt truly earned is much more valuable than a black belt given as a gift.

 

[dancingalone]

If a person comes into your school, has prior experience in another style that is similar, adapts quickly to the differenes, has the requisite skills and otherwise meets the requirements in 1 month, would you promote him to 1st dan? I would, if it were my school. Time in grade is meaningless, IMO, in a skills based activity.

All the arts I study or teach are 'Do's, so there is some element to the practice of the system aside from strictly the technical skills. Would I promote someone who has just been a member of my school for a month to black belt just because he has the physical skills?

Well, first of all, that scenario would never happen. My style of karate and kobudo is esoteric enough to where you'll never find such a happy coincidence where someone walks in the door and already had the exact same skills and nuances that I teach. It'll never happen. And this is true even when you get transfer students of nominally the same family of karate (Naha-te & Taira kobudo). Similarly, my instruction of taekwondo has taken on additional dimensions likewise creating a certain degree of uniqueness in our practice.

But, let's assume my Star Trek mirror universe counterpart shows up on my door step and requests for me to test him for a black belt. I would say no, because a black belt is more than a SAT or ACT test. It is a symbolic representation of linkage between you and your art, saying you have been found a skilled and worthy student by your teacher. Awarding a black belt to someone who has been with you 1 month throws away all that. Yes, yes, you can tell me that the black belt is a recent addition taken from judo, but I would still say that at least in my world, the black belt has taken on more meaning and I honor and respect this.

And I'm not sure, but it sounds like you missed the other part of my point, which is that if a person fails to meet the minimum requirements, he or she should never be promoted. Giving me a belt I haven't actually earned demeans everyone else who was awarded that rank based on merit and is patronizing and insulting to me, as well.

I agree with that. I still would require more than mere display of skill before awarding even a shodan.

 

[Steve]

All the arts I study or studied are 'Do's, so there is some element to the practice of the system aside from strictly the technical skills. Would I promote someone who has just been a member of my school for a month to black belt just because he has the physical skills?

Well, first of all, that scenario would never happen. My style of karate and kobudo is esoteric enough to where you'll never find such a happy coincidence where someone walks in the door and already had the exact same skills and nuances that I teach. It'll never happen. And this is true even when you get transfer students of nominally the same family of karate (Naha-te). Similarly, my instruction of taekwondo has taken on additional dimensions likewise creating a certain degree of uniqueness in our practice.

But, let's assume my Star Trek mirror universe counterpart shows up on my door step and requests for me to test him for a black belt. I would say no, because a black belt is more than a SAT or ACT test. It is a symbolic representation of linkage between you and your art, saying you have been found a skilled and worthy student by your teacher. Awarding a black belt to someone who has been with you 1 month throws away all that. Yes, yes, you can tell me that the black belt is a recent addition taken from judo, but I would still say that at least in my world, the black belt has taken on more meaning and I honor and respect this.

Don't get defensive. I'm not suggesting that the requirements for a black belt should be strictly physical. If there's an intangible element, I get that. My point is that it should be consistent and not based on time. If a person meets whatever requirements you have for black belt, he or she should be promoted to black belt. It's up to you to set whatever standards you want, provided that they're consistently applied and based on some kind of demonstrative skills, knowledge, abilities or traits.

If it's arbitrary or you make exceptions, that's what I'd take issue with. Once again, you're focusing on the low side of the time line. I'm saying that it takes however long it takes. It's not about time at all. Someone either meets the criteria or not. Time has nothing to do with it.

I agree with that. I still would require more than mere display of skill before awarding even a shodan.

And maybe the word "skills" was a poor choice. Criteria might be a better one.

 

[dancingalone]

Don't get defensive. I'm not suggesting that the requirements for a black belt should be strictly physical. If there's an intangible element, I get that. My point is that it should be consistent and not based on time. If a person meets whatever requirements you have for black belt, he or she should be promoted to black belt. It's up to you to set whatever standards you want, provided that they're consistently applied and based on some kind of demonstrative skills, knowledge, abilities or traits.

Who is getting defensive? Not me.

I merely point out that TIME is the common link to skill acquisition and building bonds between the student and his instructor and school. It's fine to say rank should not be based on time, but that's really an illusionary statement. So what? It takes time to build skill. It takes time to build relationships. It takes time to mature in the art.

If it's arbitrary or you make exceptions, that's what I'd take issue with. Once again, you're focusing on the low side of the time line. I'm saying that it takes however long it takes.

The problem with your position is that you are trying to reduce a martial ART into a 'check off the list' type endeavor.

That you're focusing on the specific amount of time at all suggests to me that you don't really see the point I'm making. It's not about time at all. Someone either meets the criteria or not. Time has nothing to do with it.

And maybe the word "skills" was a poor choice. Criteria might be a better one.

Steve, just because I DISAGREE with your premise doesn't mean that I don't understand it. Capish?

There's a fairly large subjective component to awarding rank in my calculus. I don't have some universal formula I use to determine if John is ready for his shodan or not. I use the eye ball test. Is he fit? Is he good? Do I actually believe he can fight if need be using the principles of the system I teach? Is John emotionally and intellectually ready to take a leadership role in my dojo? There are all factors I consider before I will allow a student to test for black belt. It's not a black and white deal (heh), but hey my dojo, my rules.

My point is that these things have to be arbitrary to an extent. Otherwise, rank does indeed become a paint by the numbers act.