Disabled students as black belts

[Steve]

Great post, Steve. To clarify a point on the value of a black belt, I do agree different arts view these values at different levels. Some arts do recognize the black belt at the ultimate goal. In Taekwondo, black belt represents someone who has demonstrated acceptable ability of the fundamentals to begin their training. Regardless of which camp you're from, it most certainly would have an impact on your perspective.

I think I have a good understanding of what you see and how you see it. I do not begrudge your opinion or even those whose opinion is completely opposite of mine. I believe it simply reflects the difference in those that live in world of the handicapped and those that only visit it.

I don't know what kind of experience you have with accommodating disability. But for what it's worth, I'll share a little about mine. I have worked directly with people who have any number of disabilities for over 15 years now. I have worked with them from the position of a case manager as a claims representative, dealing with all manner of physical and mental disabilities, often compounded by substance abuse, homelessness and a lack of consistent medical care. I have worked with them as their subordinate, having had several direct supervisors who have been disabled, including blindness, deafness and loss of mobility. I have worked with them as peers, and I have supervised them. On a professional and social level, I would bet that I have experience with a wider and more severe array of physical and mental challenges over my career than just about anyone else on here. And my experience is specific to this kind of interaction. While medical professionals have lots of experience with disability, there is a clear difference between treating disability as a medical professional and working/living/teaching people who are disabled outside of the medical profession. I have been involved in some extremely creative ways to accommodate severe impairments that have allowed disabled employees to be fully successful in their jobs. This isn't to say that my experience is more valuable than yours. I'm simply saying that this isn't a world I am visiting. It's an issue that is very close to me, and one that I think about often.

Also, to be clear, whether you believe that a black belt is the pinnacle of training or merely a low level stepping stone, if your expectations are inconsistent, you are compromising your standards. And that's not good for anyone. I'm not advocating that you change your personal position on what a black belt means. It is what it is, and your definition is no more or less correct than mine. I'm talking about being internally consistent. If you tell me one day that a black belt is worth while, but then through your actions on another day make it clear that literally anyone who trains for a certain length of time can get one, you are losing credibility with me. Simply put, your actions have to match your rhetoric.

 

[StudentCarl]

If you tell me one day that a black belt is worth while, but then through your actions on another day make it clear that literally anyone who trains for a certain length of time can get one, you are losing credibility with me.

Would you explain your implied position that for something to be worthwhile it must not be available to everyone?

 

[Steve]

Would you explain your implied position that for something to be worthwhile it must not be available to everyone?

In order to explain it, it would have to be my position (implied or otherwise). Could you be a little more clear what I've said that led you to this question? I'll be happy to explain further, but I can't comment on something being available to everyone, because I've never intentionally said anything of the kind.

Edit: I think I might understand the mix up. First, you're ascribing value judgements to me that I haven't made and don't believe. Worthwhile isn't something I've said in a negative way (or at least I don't think so...). In fact, just the opposite. I have specifically said that an activity can be worthwhile even without rank or the potential of achieving a black belt. And taken a step further, I've said that it is my belief that an activity is MORE worthwhile if the rank given is earned without compromising standards, regardless of whether a person has a physical/mental impairment or not.

Second, I'd recommend substituting "available" with "attainable." The first is unnecessarily discriminatory and often untrue. The second, however, is absolutely true. There are people who cannot do what must be done to meet the minimum standards for... anything, really. Name an activity and there are some people who cannot do it, regardless of how badly they want to or how hard they try. That shouldn't keep us (anyone in a position of influence or authority) from trying to be creative in approaching these situations because, as we all know, "can't now" doesn't mean "can't ever."

But, that's the entire point I have made consistently about distinguishing between standards and measurements. Standards should be consistent, whatever standards we choose to apply. Measuring success in these standards, however, can be done in many different ways that are unique to the individual. Make sense?

 

[puunui]

In TKD, maybe. Has it always been so? I don't know. Means something in many other arts.

I believe 1st dan has always been considered an "accomplishment", but not a particularly great or high one, especially when you look at it from the standpoint that it is the lowest grade that goes from 1 through 9 or 10, with increasingly longer time in grade for each promotion. No one is saying that a 1st Dan means, nothing, rather they or at least I am saying that it isn't a particularly great or lofty one. It's a 1st Dan.

Ultimately, how you value the belt doesn't matter to me. Or, maybe better put, I completely understand that a black belt represents something different to you than to me.

ok.

I do think, however, that if you want to run a program with integrity, the belts represent a consistent standard across the board. And if it's really meaningless, I'd frankly get rid of it and move to a system that does have value. If the belts are barely an accomplishment, that directly translates in my mind to a functionless process that is a waste of everyone's time.

1st Dan is "barely an accomplishment", when compared to and looked at from the perspective that the rank is the lowest grade that goes from 1 through 9 or 10, with increasingly longer time in grade for each promotion. I think you are thinking that it means nothing, and therefore get rid of it. And at some point, there is that idea, but perhaps that is not a concept for a 1st Dan to grasp. I know I couldn't grasp the idea that "rank is nothing" when I was a newly promoted 1st Dan.

 

[puunui]

Not true. People train in BJJ ALL THE TIME who never expect to get a blue belt, much less a black belt. And they train because they love it. Surprisingly, many of those people do very well over time, but it takes years.

I don't know how it operates in other places, but I will say that here, at least under Relson Gracie, if you are a blue belt, you should be able to consistent beat white belts. If you are a purple belt, then you should consistently beat white and blue belts, and so on. It is very hard to earn a black belt in Hawaii under Relson Gracie. People come from the mainland all the time and they get beat by lower ranks here. I do believe that the standard is different for jiujitsu. My next door neighbor is a Relson Black Belt and we often talk about how slow his promotions are, and why.

Ultimately, you guys are, IMO, seriously undervaluing your training. You are on the one hand saying that a black belt isn't that big a deal, and on the other suggesting that without the carrot of a black belt, people won't train. That's the point I'm making. It's not a rhetorical trick. It's trying to get you to see what I see.

There is no undervaluing training, or a rhetorical trick. A 1st Dan black belt isn't a big deal, in taekwondo, especially when looked at ffrom the standpoint that it is the lowest grade that goes from 1 through 9 or 10, with increasingly longer time in grade for each promotion. So it does have value, just maybe not what you believe it is. And it is also true that even though a 1st Dan is a low rank, "barely an accomplishment" especially when looked at ffrom the standpoint that it is the lowest grade that goes from 1 through 9 or 10, with increasingly longer time in grade for each promotion, the fact remains that reaching black belt is a motivator for students to continue training.

 

[Twin Fist]

black belt doesnt mean much when you give them away after a year a training like some orgs do.

in other, more serious schools, 1st dan means a lot, but 2nd means a LOT more, and so on.

 

[lifespantkd]

I believe 1st dan has always been considered an "accomplishment", but not a particularly great or high one, especially when you look at it from the standpoint that it is the lowest grade that goes from 1 through 9 or 10, with increasingly longer time in grade for each promotion. No one is saying that a 1st Dan means, nothing, rather they or at least I am saying that it isn't a particularly great or lofty one. It's a 1st Dan.

When I was a colored belt, my view of first dan was very different from what it is now. Continued study of Taekwondo has been and continues to be a humbling experience for me because the further I go the more I realize how much there still is for me to learn. In my experience, the practice of Taekwondo rather mirrors the living of life. Rank attained is just a moment in a lifetime of practice, just like attainment of a particular age is just a moment in living one's life. It's the learning, the process, the journey that matters.

Cynthia

 

[StudentCarl]

If you tell me one day that a black belt is worth while, but then through your actions on another day make it clear that literally anyone who trains for a certain length of time can get one, you are losing credibility with me. Simply put, your actions have to match your rhetoric.

Hopefully I can be more clear. Your wording of the sentence suggested to me that he loses credibility with you because the two clauses you wrote before your conclusion are somehow incompatible, i.e. that a black belt cannot be both worthwhile and available as you say and still meet your standard for credibility. Perhaps your intent was to reduce his position to the idea that one is being awarded a black belt based upon time served, which is not how I read it. I ascribed your value judgements to your grammar. Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant, and thanks for the courteous clarification.

I wonder if the difference of opinions here is in the idea of the standard to be met, that your position is perhaps that the standard to earn a black belt should be an objective, fixed standard and not a relative or flexible one? I think that issue is at the root of a number of posts in this thread. I'll share my opinion in hopes that we can explore this further. I understand the position that fixed standards are more palatable and commonly preferred because they ascribe definite meaning. The question for me is when it's appropriate to consider a fixed standard vs. a flexible one. I'm open to others, but I think the best example of when a standard should be fixed is when the safety or material impact on others is causally tied to the standard. For example, I am in favor of a fixed standard for how good a person's vision needs to be to get a driver's license. A relative standard would not preserve safety; "My vision is better than last year" isn't good enough if you're still legally blind because you might kill someone if allowed to drive. If there is no physical or material harm to others, I don't think that is a valid reason to keep a standard fixed. I'll have to work on other situations that argue for a fixed standard, but I want to get the gist of this idea down before training.

It's good to ask what argument there is in favor of relative/flexible standards at all. Should all standards be fixed? Much of parenting and teaching is based on successive approximations--praising improvement and effort. I think that relative/flexible standards are appropriate as milestones on a path of continuing progress. If a black belt represents, for example, four years of dedicated training for an average person, and your disabled student has trained with dedication, effort, and improvement relative to his/her potential and where he/she began, I think there's a point where the student can earn a black belt relative to his/her place on his/her path of development. I think that awarding a belt in that situation considers the growth of the whole person relative to him/herself. We look at how an average toddler walks differently from the average six year old. I don't tell toddlers their walking is ugly and wrong because it's appropriate for their development. With the high school special education students I teach, I am aware of their absolute progress but evaluate vs. where they begin and how they work to improve.

I don't think that awarding a black belt to a dedicated student with a disability diminishes the quality of others' achievements. I do think that an instructor can appropriately award a black belt based on the relative growth of a student on that student's path. As with all junior black belts, I hope such a student continues on his/her journey of growth.

Carl

 

[puunui]

It always boils down to this for me. Why is there such a disconnect between the idea that we are all better for earning what we receive. I agree 100% with you guys that everyone is different. We all bring different things to the table. I've said before that I'd rather be actively training in BJJ as an 80 year old purple belt I've earned, than to be a 45 year old black belt who has to stop training for any reason. This is only meaningful, however, if the rank I wear is one I've earned.

And who decides whether you have "earned" your rank or not? You or your instructor? I think the biggest issue here is that you are applying your jiujitsu mentality and standards to a different art and using that different standard from a different art, that the different art (in this case taekwondo) has lost credibility. Do you think that is a fair approach to take? Frankly, I don't see any taekwondo practitioners here making any sort of judgments on how you promote in jiujitsu. Having said that, the question that begs to be asked is why do you feel the need to judge taekwondo instructors on how they promote their students, using jiujitsu standards?

 

[Steve]

I don't know how it operates in other places, but I will say that here, at least under Relson Gracie, if you are a blue belt, you should be able to consistent beat white belts. If you are a purple belt, then you should consistently beat white and blue belts, and so on. It is very hard to earn a black belt in Hawaii under Relson Gracie. People come from the mainland all the time and they get beat by lower ranks here. I do believe that the standard is different for jiujitsu. My next door neighbor is a Relson Black Belt and we often talk about how slow his promotions are, and why.

I think that's a fair assessment of how it goes in BJJ just about everywhere. While there is some slight variation from area to area, the belt standards in BJJ are pretty consistent.

There is no undervaluing training, or a rhetorical trick. A 1st Dan black belt isn't a big deal, in taekwondo, especially when looked at ffrom the standpoint that it is the lowest grade that goes from 1 through 9 or 10, with increasingly longer time in grade for each promotion. So it does have value, just maybe not what you believe it is. And it is also true that even though a 1st Dan is a low rank, "barely an accomplishment" especially when looked at ffrom the standpoint that it is the lowest grade that goes from 1 through 9 or 10, with increasingly longer time in grade for each promotion, the fact remains that reaching black belt is a motivator for students to continue training.

Thank you for further explaining your perspective on rank in TKD. I appreciate it.

 

[Steve]

And who decides whether you have "earned" your rank or not? You or your instructor? I think the biggest issue here is that you are applying your jiujitsu mentality and standards to a different art and using that different standard from a different art, that the different art (in this case taekwondo) has lost credibility. Do you think that is a fair approach to take? Frankly, I don't see any taekwondo practitioners here making any sort of judgments on how you promote in jiujitsu. Having said that, the question that begs to be asked is why do you feel the need to judge taekwondo instructors on how they promote their students, using jiujitsu standards?

If your school has standards that are transparent and consistent, you will be confident that you have earned the rank. You mentioned Relson Gracie in Hawaii. If you were awarded a purple belt by him, would you doubt you earned it? The key here isn't the specific style or the specific standards. It's that this academy HAS standards and that they are applied in a consistent, transparent manner. It's not about BJJ vs TKD or the differences between the two.

Backing up just a bit, though, it appears to me that you're attempting to make this a style vs style argument. Once again, whatever value or standards you apply to a black belt are not an issue for me. That is your system, your school and I have no interest in judging you right or wrong.

What I am saying is that if you, in your system, at your school, apply inconsistent standards and/or your rhetoric around promotions and belt ranking is incongruent with your actions, you are damaging your credibility and undermining the integrity of your own rank system. If Relson Gracie began making exceptions for people and awarding blue, purple, brown and black belts to people who did not meet the well established standards of the school and the style, his reputation would quickly diminish. A school in any style which chooses to promote people based upon fluid, inconsistent standards will do the same.

 

[Steve]

Hopefully I can be more clear. Your wording of the sentence suggested to me that he loses credibility with you because the two clauses you wrote before your conclusion are somehow incompatible, i.e. that a black belt cannot be both worthwhile and available as you say and still meet your standard for credibility. Perhaps your intent was to reduce his position to the idea that one is being awarded a black belt based upon time served, which is not how I read it. I ascribed your value judgements to your grammar. Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant, and thanks for the courteous clarification.

I wonder if the difference of opinions here is in the idea of the standard to be met, that your position is perhaps that the standard to earn a black belt should be an objective, fixed standard and not a relative or flexible one? I think that issue is at the root of a number of posts in this thread. I'll share my opinion in hopes that we can explore this further. I understand the position that fixed standards are more palatable and commonly preferred because they ascribe definite meaning. The question for me is when it's appropriate to consider a fixed standard vs. a flexible one. I'm open to others, but I think the best example of when a standard should be fixed is when the safety or material impact on others is causally tied to the standard. For example, I am in favor of a fixed standard for how good a person's vision needs to be to get a driver's license. A relative standard would not preserve safety; "My vision is better than last year" isn't good enough if you're still legally blind because you might kill someone if allowed to drive. If there is no physical or material harm to others, I don't think that is a valid reason to keep a standard fixed. I'll have to work on other situations that argue for a fixed standard, but I want to get the gist of this idea down before training.

It's good to ask what argument there is in favor of relative/flexible standards at all. Should all standards be fixed? Much of parenting and teaching is based on successive approximations--praising improvement and effort. I think that relative/flexible standards are appropriate as milestones on a path of continuing progress. If a black belt represents, for example, four years of dedicated training for an average person, and your disabled student has trained with dedication, effort, and improvement relative to his/her potential and where he/she began, I think there's a point where the student can earn a black belt relative to his/her place on his/her path of development. I think that awarding a belt in that situation considers the growth of the whole person relative to him/herself. We look at how an average toddler walks differently from the average six year old. I don't tell toddlers their walking is ugly and wrong because it's appropriate for their development. With the high school special education students I teach, I am aware of their absolute progress but evaluate vs. where they begin and how they work to improve.

I don't think that awarding a black belt to a dedicated student with a disability diminishes the quality of others' achievements. I do think that an instructor can appropriately award a black belt based on the relative growth of a student on that student's path. As with all junior black belts, I hope such a student continues on his/her journey of growth.

Carl

Just to get this out there, I don't edit my posts. They're all rough drafts. So, thanks for attempting to understand the intent of my sentences rather than getting caught up in diction and grammar.

The point I was making is simply that the actions and the words need to be consistent.

Regarding the rest, if you haven't, please go back and read my posts where I try to make clear a distinction between a standard and a measurement, and the caution that I put out that standards should be general and broad.

Punuui brought up Relson Gracie and provided what I believe is a very succinct example of a standard. A blue belt should be able to consistently beat a white belt. A purple belt should be able to consistently beat blue and white belts. Now, without going into whether or not I agree, this is an excellent example of a standard. If a blue belt isn't flexible enough to make certain positions work, or maybe doesn't know a lot of techniques, or maybe only knows a handful, but executes them perfectly... or maybe has lost use of his right hand and has had to adjust his execution of techniques... all of that doesn't matter. Does the blue belt consistently "beat" other blue belts and white belts? If yes, he meets the standard. If no, he does not.

Taken a step further, should the standard be waived if he's disabled? I'd say no. Does that mean he should be precluded from training? Absolutely not. He should be encouraged to train, and every effort should be made to adjust the style to him, just as would be done for a 50 year old guy, or an overweight guy or a very small guy. Will he benefit from training? Of course, just like anyone else would.

And, presuming all of the above is true, a guy who has lost the use of a hand, or arm or eye or both legs or whatever, who is given a blue belt in Relson Gracie's school in Hawaii can be very sure that he has earned his blue belt just like everyone else.

Does that make sense? I am trying to make things as plain and clear as I can.

 

[lifespantkd]

A similar question--the answer of which may help clarify key issues related to the original question--is what should be done if a black belt *becomes* disabled? *If* the qualifications of black belt status are defined purely on a practitioner's physical ability meeting a universally applied standard without exception or variation or flexibility of any kind and the ability of the dan holder has suddenly or gradually decreased (e.g., due to injury, accident, aging, disease), then, logically, one could argue that he or she should be stripped of his/her rank. If the dan holder can no longer perform physically better than practitioners of a lower rank in an art/organization/school in which criteria are purely physically based, then none of us should retain our dan rankings as we age--no matter how devoted we remain to our own physical, mental, and/or spiritual development to the best of our ability and no matter how much we contribute to the development of our art and/or the development of our students. Would any of you advocate for such demotions? And, if not, then shouldn't there be room for at least some accommodation for variation in ability evident prior to rank attainment?

I certainly don't have all of the answers for the many hypothetical situations one could propose related to disability, especially given my relatively low level of experience as an instructor. Yet, in my view, I feel certain that Taekwondo was not intended to be only for elite athletes of extraordinary physical ability. I believe that it is a vehicle through which people--gifted, ordinary, and challenged--may develop to the best of their abilities. Exactly how I will enact that philosophy while teaching real people is something I look forward to discovering.

Cynthia

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

black belt doesnt mean much when you give them away after a year a training like some orgs do.

This is an obvious reference to the KKW. You are also mistaken; The KKW doesn't issue black belts; they register the student according to the paperwork submitted by the school owner. The school owner issues the belt.

If the KKW did as they do in the AUSKF, and required candidates for ilgeup and ildan to test before a panel of federation examiners, you'd probably feel that they're telling you how to run your school and interfering with your right to grade your own students. But they don't; they set a base curriculum to which you can add if you wish, and give school owners the latitude to grade their students as they see fit.

It is not the organization that signs off on the the student's qualification, but the instructor. A KKW school owner could force his students to train for twenty years if they so chose, as there is no organizational time in grade for geub ranks.

The national average for time in grade for a first dan candidate is one year in Korea. Schools in the same organization in different parts of the world do not have the same time in grade average.

When it comes down to it, in the KKW, it is the school owner who determines if a person, disabled or not, is promoted to first dan. If you were a KKW school owner, you could make the same time in grade requirements that you currently do. Nothing is stopping any KKW school owner from doing so. In the US, the average for a KKW school is from two to four years.

in other, more serious schools, 1st dan means a lot, but 2nd means a LOT more, and so on.

I disagree with your connecting of time in grade with the seriousness of the school. I also don't find the jab at the KKW to be appropriate in the context of this thread.

You run an independent school and you have designated the first dan rank as the marker for a four year time in grade and test your students accordingly. Which is fine. Other schools have different time in grade requirements and designate different grades to correspond to them.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I don't have a set time in grade for first dan candidates in my own independent school.

When I think that they're ready, they test. I teach material and as the students gain proficiency, I teach them more material. When they've learned the kyu grade syllabus, we talk about testing. My tests are very physical. I am mainly concerned that students are proficient in the material, physically fit enough to get through the test, and mentally prepared.

Since I don't issue belts in kendo, nobody cares when they test for first dan anyway; it only means that I'm pickier about their technique. Since I don't collect a fee, I have nothing riding on how quickly students test.

In response to the OP, I have no students that could be legally classified as handicapped, so the premise of this thread does not apply to me at present.

However, I would be more than willing to accommodate a student with a disability and would grade them based in part on how well they do what they are able to do, but mostly on the same things I grade everyone else on, which is all non-physical.

In spite of the fact that my tests are very physical, it is actually the mental that I am evaluating. Yes, I evaluate the physical, but that is a formality. If the student is there mentally, the physical will tell. Kind of like refining gold in fire, I suppose.

Thus, I am less concerned with whether or not a disabled person can do the exact same physical things that an able person can, but whether or not they display the elements of mind and spirit that I am looking for. Again, if those elements are there, then the physical will bear that out.

I have people fill out an extensive questionnaire prior to taking them on. Mainly, I want to be aware of anything that is a risk factor for the student. I have no problem with giving a student with health problems or some other issue a pace that they can manage without injury.

 

[dancingalone]

A similar question--the answer of which may help clarify key issues related to the original question--is what should be done if a black belt *becomes* disabled? *If* the qualifications of black belt status are defined purely on a practitioner's physical ability meeting a universally applied standard without exception or variation or flexibility of any kind and the ability of the dan holder has suddenly or gradually decreased (e.g., due to injury, accident, aging, disease), then, logically, one could argue that he or she should be stripped of his/her rank. If the dan holder can no longer perform physically better than practitioners of a lower rank in an art/organization/school in which criteria are purely physically based, then none of us should retain our dan rankings as we age--no matter how devoted we remain to our own physical, mental, and/or spiritual development to the best of our ability and no matter how much we contribute to the development of our art and/or the development of our students. Would any of you advocate for such demotions? And, if not, then shouldn't there be room for at least some accommodation for variation in ability evident prior to rank attainment?

A big difference in that scenario is that the BB has already earned his belt through passing presumably a set of requirements with some objective evaluation of his performance to a set standard. He knows what it is like to throw thousands upon thousands of good kicks. He has excellent precision in his techs and patterns. He has broken the required number of boards.

That's not the same as someone who hasn't earned the rank yet.

I certainly don't have all of the answers for the many hypothetical situations one could propose related to disability, especially given my relatively low level of experience as an instructor. Yet, in my view, I feel certain that Taekwondo was not intended to be only for elite athletes of extraordinary physical ability. I believe that it is a vehicle through which people--gifted, ordinary, and challenged--may develop to the best of their abilities. Exactly how I will enact that philosophy while teaching real people is something I look forward to discovering.

I don't think anyone is saying that TKD is only for athletes only. Some believe however as I do that the award of rank needs to be tied to a clear progression of skills. I believe such an evaluation can be holistic and tailored as needed to the individual, but at the same time just saying 'this is the best this particular person can do' seems too lenient to me. TKD is still a physical martial art once we get down to the nitty gritty. If someone is overweight, autistic, old, has a bad back or knees, whatever - I wouldn't have a problem with modifying the requirements around their needs. In the end however, there's some objective measures of skill I won't compromise on, like a display of power and precision by breaking boards along with some exhibition of technique and heart in sparring.

 

[puunui]

If your school has standards that are transparent and consistent, you will be confident that you have earned the rank. You mentioned Relson Gracie in Hawaii. If you were awarded a purple belt by him, would you doubt you earned it?

Relson doesn't have his own school anymore and he may have moved out of state. Or at least I heard that was the plan. But irrespective of that, the black belts under him have different standards of what the color belts mean. I think that they are generally consistent within the same school, but might not be once you venture to other schools under the Relson Gracie banner. And the standards for Relson's mainland students are much more laxed than what is going on in Hawaii.

Backing up just a bit, though, it appears to me that you're attempting to make this a style vs style argument.

Incorrect. What I am saying is it seems that you are applying jiujitsu standards and a jiujitsu mentality, especially regarding the rank of 1st dan, to taekwondo and judging taekwondo by that jiujitsu standard and mentality.

What I am saying is that if you, in your system, at your school, apply inconsistent standards and/or your rhetoric around promotions and belt ranking is incongruent with your actions, you are damaging your credibility and undermining the integrity of your own rank system. If Relson Gracie began making exceptions for people and awarding blue, purple, brown and black belts to people who did not meet the well established standards of the school and the style, his reputation would quickly diminish. A school in any style which chooses to promote people based upon fluid, inconsistent standards will do the same.

Relson actually did do that, for at least one black belt here. Or at least some feel that way. The particular black belt had ok skills, but he went to every seminar, took notes, opened his own school, put on seminars for Relson, etc. So Relson promoted him to black belt. This black belt has a lot of students, but the other Relson black belts dislike him tremendously. Plus this black belt will not roll with other black belts, or even brown belts, preferring instead to "teach" white and blue belts.

Then there is the noticeable difference in standards for the mainland students and the hawaii students. Hawaii students are held to a much higher standard and take longer to promote than those on the mainland. Or so I am told.

But I don't think that diminishes Relson's reputation any. Certainly no one is willing to say such things to his face, or while they are rolling with him for example. Instead, they choose to quietly understand why he does what he does, and instead of judging him, they cut him slack and realize that he can do whatever he wants with any of his students or student's students, since he is, after all, the man in charge.

 

[puunui]

I don't think anyone is saying that TKD is only for athletes only. Some believe however as I do that the award of rank needs to be tied to a clear progression of skills. I believe such an evaluation can be holistic and tailored as needed to the individual, but at the same time just saying 'this is the best this particular person can do' seems too lenient to me. TKD is still a physical martial art once we get down to the nitty gritty. If someone is overweight, autistic, old, has a bad back or knees, whatever - I wouldn't have a problem with modifying the requirements around their needs. In the end however, there's some objective measures of skill I won't compromise on, like a display of power and precision by breaking boards along with some exhibition of technique and heart in sparring.

I used to have board breaking at testing. But there came a point where I stopped the board breaking, as a waste of time and money. No one asks about it or misses it. I notice other schools are also moving away from board breaking as well. Board breaking, in reality, was test of one's training diligence with a makiwara. Today, few schools do makiwara training. And if that is the case, no makiwara training, then in my opinion, there is no need for makiwara training testing, which is what board breaking is.

 

[lifespantkd]

A big difference in that scenario is that the BB has already earned his belt through passing presumably a set of requirements with some objective evaluation of his performance to a set standard. He knows what it is like to throw thousands upon thousands of good kicks. He has excellent precision in his techs and patterns. He has broken the required number of boards.

That's not the same as someone who hasn't earned the rank yet.

Yes, of course.

I don't think anyone is saying that TKD is only for athletes only. Some believe however as I do that the award of rank needs to be tied to a clear progression of skills. I believe such an evaluation can be holistic and tailored as needed to the individual, but at the same time just saying 'this is the best this particular person can do' seems too lenient to me. TKD is still a physical martial art once we get down to the nitty gritty. If someone is overweight, autistic, old, has a bad back or knees, whatever - I wouldn't have a problem with modifying the requirements around their needs. In the end however, there's some objective measures of skill I won't compromise on, like a display of power and precision by breaking boards along with some exhibition of technique and heart in sparring.

I agree that either end of the spectrum--"anything is acceptable" vs. "nothing but strict adherence to inflexible standards is acceptable"--is not workable (for lack of a better word) when teaching real people in the real world. In my opinion, finding the right place on the spectrum will be unique to the art, the instructor, and the student in question.

Cynthia

 

[dancingalone]

I used to have board breaking at testing. But there came a point where I stopped the board breaking, as a waste of time and money. No one asks about it or misses it. I notice other schools are also moving away from board breaking as well. Board breaking, in reality, was test of one's training diligence with a makiwara. Today, few schools do makiwara training. And if that is the case, no makiwara training, then in my opinion, there is no need for makiwara training testing, which is what board breaking is.

It's a test of precision and power. If you can't break a few stationary pieces of wood, you'd probably find it even more difficult to actually hit a moving person with sufficient force to hurt him.

I'm all ears if anyone had a substitute that will save trees (and don't say rebreakable boards).

And yah I am a big fan of makiwara practice, though we get by with kicking shields and heavy bags at my dojang.