Some comments in another thread about the costs of black belt testing began to touch on the format of black belt testing. Rather than derail that thread further -- I figured I'd start a new one.
So... I see two areas worth discussing. The first is current testing practices; what are they, are they different for 1st black belt from advanced black belts, and so on. The second is what SHOULD they be...
In my system, I know of a couple of different formats for black belt testing over the years. The black belt test wasn't open to the public or non-black belts when I first started. You demonstrated your skills in front of the black belts, in the format that they felt was appropriate. You'd almost certainly already proven yourself sparring in various arenas, and were known. We were told that as you approach black belt, you're always being tested and assessed for suitability. Later, when I tested, the format was more open, and you generally could count on demonstrating your forms (stick, blade, and empty hand). Occasionally, the chief instructor would do something completely different out of the blue... like suddenly having forms performed in unison, instead of solo, or assessing you during a clinic. Some years it included some sort of panel interview, as well. Until recently, there was no testing for advanced rank; it was simply given when it was earned. Today, our testing takes place over 3 days, with a strenous PT test for all levels, and specified ways to test and demonstrate your skills.
Personally, I think some schools or systems are putting too much emphasis on stuff that has nothing to do with whether you know the stuff to be a black belt... They'll do things like firewalking, or crazy PT tests, or other stuff that just seems nutty to me. While I don't particularly agree with what he teaches, at least it seems like everything Rod Sarnosky (Combatki) tests is tied directly to his system. I think a reasonable PT test is fine, but the primary test of fitness should be in the skill demonstration.
So... I see two areas worth discussing. The first is current testing practices; what are they, are they different for 1st black belt from advanced black belts, and so on. The second is what SHOULD they be...
In my system, I know of a couple of different formats for black belt testing over the years. The black belt test wasn't open to the public or non-black belts when I first started. You demonstrated your skills in front of the black belts, in the format that they felt was appropriate. You'd almost certainly already proven yourself sparring in various arenas, and were known. We were told that as you approach black belt, you're always being tested and assessed for suitability. Later, when I tested, the format was more open, and you generally could count on demonstrating your forms (stick, blade, and empty hand). Occasionally, the chief instructor would do something completely different out of the blue... like suddenly having forms performed in unison, instead of solo, or assessing you during a clinic. Some years it included some sort of panel interview, as well. Until recently, there was no testing for advanced rank; it was simply given when it was earned. Today, our testing takes place over 3 days, with a strenous PT test for all levels, and specified ways to test and demonstrate your skills.
Personally, I think some schools or systems are putting too much emphasis on stuff that has nothing to do with whether you know the stuff to be a black belt... They'll do things like firewalking, or crazy PT tests, or other stuff that just seems nutty to me. While I don't particularly agree with what he teaches, at least it seems like everything Rod Sarnosky (Combatki) tests is tied directly to his system. I think a reasonable PT test is fine, but the primary test of fitness should be in the skill demonstration.