Jaeimseu
3rd Black Belt
Our dojang is located in Seoul near Sookmyeong Women's University.
Black Belt -- What Does It Mean to You?
- Thread starter Rumy73
- Start date
Our dojang is located in Seoul near Sookmyeong Women's University.
andyjeffries
Senior Master
I would agree with you and say that 1st Dans should be more training than running their own club, but in the UK I would say the average to 1st Dan is 3-5 years. It used to be quite common for 1st/2nd Dans to have their own club, but I think less so now.
However, it's still "legal" and does happen.
Actually, it is just a piece of cloth that came into use when Kano needed to tell at a glance which students were at what level. The thin obi was also more practical to gather the judo-gi and practice in it than the traditional wide obi.
One's way of being is internal and is not determined by how an organization accessorizes its sports uniforms or training clothes. If you live a life of budo (or mudo in KMA), that is an internal way of life that is reflected in external behavior and external actions.
A black belt (or a belt of any color) is a device that gathers one's dobok/gi or holds up one's pants, which can also be used as a badge to indicate one's grade in the art. In Kukki taekwondo it represents basic proficiency in the fundementals of the art. Given that many arts do not utilize rank belts, I don't view them as anything more than a piece of apparel that reflects a grade in a specific environment.
Different arts and organizations attach greater or lesser meaning to the wearing of a black belt. Different people have different views on what a black belt means. There is no right or wrong, correct or incorrect.
chrispillertkd
Senior Master
I'd think that he'd be interested in a discussion, given this is a discussion board and all.
Pax,
Chris
cali_tkdbruin
Master of Arts
I've been around some adult dan holders who despite their age still act like immature tools, while I've also been around some teenaged dan holders who are much more mature and focused than you would suggest or expect. So, bottom line is that it comes down to the individual and how they comport themselves as a person and a martial arts practitioner.
BTW, when I was a 1st dan black several years ago, I had just learned the basics and my master instructor thought I was proficient enough to promote to 1st dan. But even to this day I'm still learning and always striving to learn more. The study of TKD never really ends... :asian:
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
carefull, comments like that can get you in trouble.
Then the question becomes whether or not a black belt equates to any of the items you just mentioned. It it's all about physical skills or a level of proficiency in physical skills, then age is almost irrelevant, depending on what level of and what type of proficiency you're setting as the bar.
To compare earning a black belt to any of the things that you mention above is illogical. Especially considering that this thread, as in every other thread on the subject, shows that in the US, there is no consensus as to what a black belt is supposed represent, especially considering how many varying arts utilize it. And within taekwondo, there is little consensus among practitioners as to what it means.
Within Kukki taekwondo, it represents where one is in the curriculum. If the student competes in the WTF, the combination of belt, age, gender, and weight are used to match opponents, so a black belt or a pum belt on a ten year old doesn't pit the ten year old against a 220 pound marine with a black belt; he's pitted against another opponent of the same gender, weight class, and experience level as himself.
Taekwondo is not a grappling or throwing art like hapkido, so there are no techniques that are inherently unsafe to practice due to age. In hapkido, we generally do not have young children doing joint locks because of the physical development of their bodies. This is the same reason that it is not recommended that young children do resistance weight training or body building (I don't know the philosophy on that now, but years ago, I remember that it was not recommended for preteen kids to do resistance weight training).
Now, if you're using the black belt as a measure of being able to defend yourself against an adult attacker, then the age issue becomes more relevant, though at that point, the school's curriculum should reflect a self defense oriented focus. Most pre-teen and younger kids, however skilled they might be, cannot defend themselves against adults and have not developed the mindset that would enable them to evaluate less obvious dangers. Which is why a general, 'don't talk to strangers' warning is given to all kids; they don't have the ability to evaluate the stranger's intent or understand why what the stranger is asking them to do is bad, and they do not have the physical capacity to defend themselves against an untrained predatory adult.
I'll agree with you 100% on the American marketing, though I would not limit it to American.
Please connect for me how the Olympics translates to greater numbers of pum belts? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument to support this. I'm not a big fan of what I see of taekwondo in the Olympics, but I see the kiddie belt phenomenon as separate; it was in full swing before Olympic inclusion up here.
In fact, the organization most famous for kiddie belts is arguably the ATA, and they aren't connected to the Olympics. I've said that commercialism is the biggest issue in the art, and if you look at commercial schools with lots of kids in black belts, you will also see overpriced tests. Adults tend to be less concerned with getting the belt and will happilly stay at red belt in order to avoid paying the up to 500.00 for the right to test (several schools up here charge that kind of money for a TKD black belt, including one that I attenended some time ago). Parents, on the other hand, are more easily talked into it because getting that token is very important to a child.
Black belt clubs, masters clubs, and leadership clubs are also aimed at kids and teens for the same reason; kids love getting those extra patches and nicer uniforms. And parents are more likely to shell out for their kids to have them than an adult is for themselves.
chrispillertkd
Senior Master
Sure the KKW was issuing poom belts before the WTF got accepted into the Olympics. But since then the Polympic movement has been used as a marketing tool in order to get more people, including children, to sign up for Taekwondo. There was a boom in Taekwondo after the Seoul Olympics I have have personally seen many schools who bill themselves as "Olympic Taekwondo" and who cater to children. It's not some conspiracy, it's simple marketing.
These points are exactly right but don't disprove Rumy's statement, IMNSHO. You can get one end by several different means.
Pax,
Chris
I can agree with you here. I haven't looked at percentages, but do you think that the marketing push from the Olympic movement has resulted in a higher percentage of kiddie belts or just a higher quanitity due to increased membership?
chrispillertkd
Senior Master
That's a good question. To get an accurate answer you'd need to compare the number of poom belts issued pre-Olympics to those issued post-Olympics and compare those numbers to the number of children training during each of those two times. I don't think it's possible to get the latter numbers. It seems to me, however, that in the main the Olympic marketing has resulted in a general increase in the enrollment of children, which would naturally result in more poom belts being issued. From my limited, anecdotal experience it also appears that there is a greater percentage of children being awarded poom belts/junior black belts/whatever than there were in the past. When I first started training in 1981 I don't even remember there being a non-adult black belt in class. There were other kids in class with me but none had reached dan level.
I know the reasons people give for having poom rank or junior black belts. I just don't find them very compelling. I can see a junior black belt for I dan or a 1st poom. But, IMO, anything higher than that should have taken enough time and training experience for the student to be qualified for an "adult" degree.
Pax,
Chris
Overall, I think you're probably correct. I don't remember seeing the huge jump in kiddie belts until the ninja craze and the Karate Kid. I don't know about your area, but around here the karate kid film was impacted kids enrolling in "karate" schools, most of which in this area were TKD, at a much, much higher rate.
Agreed. I'm okay with the idea in principle, given my view of what a black belt means, but my observation is that school owners' use of kiddie belts is entirely for profit. The overpriced testing fees combined with the relaxed standards I frequently see in kids classes makes it hard to convince me otherwise. I don't judge the schools that do it, but it is not a practice that I am in favor of.
chrispillertkd
Senior Master
Oh, those undoubtedly had an influence on things. Probably more so "The Karate Kid" movie in my area, but I do remember a friend of mine having "ninja stars" and a nunchaku (since all those fancy weapons were the purview of the ninja!). There were, of course, several "waves" that increased the popularity of the martial arts in general over the years in the U.S. from the return of G.I.'s from Okinawa, to Bruce Lee's movies, to the Karate Kid, to the inclusion of Taekwondo in the Olympics. It's hard to seperate them out practically, although you can do so logically. I tend to view them as having a cumulative effect.
I agree. The increase in frequency of "junior black belts" or poom belts seems to be primarily driven by a desire for profit (and, hey, all schools have a bottom line they need to meet). I have seen very few child black belts that have really left a positive impression on me. I think maybe three over the years have made me really stand up and take notice of them. Which makes me think in some way that the idea that a black belt, junior black belt, poom, or what have you is a very basic level and, therefore, we shouldn't expect too much from people when awarding them, is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. 1st dan might be a beginning level, but does that mean we have to have a low standard for it? Yes, yes, it's all subjective but the more instructors who think that it's an award for little Johnny for showing up the more little Johnnies will get one for showing up. Even those instructors who see it otherwise will, eventually, be tempted to make allowances or lower their previosu standards just to stay competetive with schools in the same area that hand out black belts like they're going out of style.
Well, that's a topic for a whole 'nother thread (and IIRC one that has been beaten to death many times here).
Pax,
Chris
Definitely with you here. I don't expect a first dan to be more than a beginning level, but a person who is awarded a first dan should be able to demonstrate a certain level of proficiency. And regardless of what art you practice, you can generally pick that level out without needing to know what belt they are.
In Kukki taekwondo, the black belt should be able to demonstrate distinct front, long, back, riding, and cat stances, demonstrate distinct front, round house, side, and back kicks, and demonstrate distinct blocks and strikes, and should be able to do all of that in the course of performing pumsae and all with a degree of crispness and power. They should be able to demonstrate skill in offense and defense, and maintain their composure during shihap kyorugi (the style of sparring used in the WTF). They don't need to look like professional fighters or forms competitors, but they should look like they know what they're doing and like they have a level of skill and coordination that reflects proficiency in the skills they have learned up to first dan.
That isn't all that much to ask, so when I see new black belts who have no clear physical handicap (I'll leave handicapped black belts to another discussion) who do not meet that standard, it leads me to internally question the instructor's standard of measurement.
StudentCarl
3rd Black Belt
Going back to the OP, would you clarify what you mean by 'mastered the physical basics'? I'd be interested to know what you believe a 1st dan has mastered.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Outside of the martial arts, the term 'mastered' is used frequently to indicate having learned or having become proficient. Personally, I think we make far to much of the word master, be it verb or noun.
StudentCarl
3rd Black Belt
FWIW, I agree with your post above about expectations for the first dan (#35).
I get what you mean, but in the skilled trades there's quite a difference between apprentice, journeyman, and master. I think of mastery as having a deeper understanding than proficiency.
A journeyman is expected to have mastered the required skills well enough to perform them unsupervised. That sounds, to me, an awful lot like a 1st Dan, who has mastered the required skills well enough to teach them unsupervised (or, in both cases, without direct supervision, if you prefer that wording).
I wasn't even thinking of the skilled trades. I was just thinking of general conversation. Telling your kids that they must master addition and subtraction before they can move onto multiplication, for example.
Also, "mastering" basic skills is not the same as being a master in any way. It simply means that you have learned the basics and can consistently perform them. I learned and could consistently and correctly perform a front kick and a reverse punch, probably during my first month of class back in the seventies. I had "mastered" two very basic skills.
As far as the skilled trades go, there are various requirements that one must meet to be a master tradesman, all of which presume that you have long since mastered the raw basics of your craft.
As for deeper understanding, that generally goes with mastery well beyond "mastering the basic," which is primarilly a physical endeavor in the martial arts.
