Disabled students as black belts

[dancingalone]

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.

Indeed. That's the very definition of holistic.

 

[Steve]

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

Lol. Okay. Would a university strip a phd from a man who suffers from Alzheimer's or some other form of dementia? Let's keep it real, guys.



Sent using Tapatalk. Please ignore typos.

 

[puunui]

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.

That's what board breaking is today, but that isn't the original reason. And really it wasn't even board breaking, at least with respect to korean martial arts. That's because wood is highly prized in south korea and it is a waste of wood to use it for martial arts purposes. Wood is so valued there that the paper in books is made out of stone, not wood. Try lugging back a bag full of books from Korea; it's like dragging around a bag of rocks. Instead, korean martial artists used roofing tiles to break.

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

Kicking shields and heavy bags are the same as a makiwara. I consider makiwara like an okinawan soloflex.

 

[Steve]

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.

and this is relevant how?

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.

and if you believe this, you have fundamentally misunderstood my posts. My point is the same independent of style. It would be the same regardless of sport.

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.

presuming this is true, you don't see how this supports exactly what I'm saying?

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.

frankly, it's beginning to sound like you're changing your story from post to post in order to disagree with a straw man that you're pretending represents my posts. The relative standards between Hawaii and the mainland are irrelevant. If the standards of the school are consistent, that's enough. As an aside, are you digging on my rank? Pretty lame. If Hawaii standards were too far out of whack, the Hawaiians would be killing at the pan ams and Mundials.

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.

once again, this is anecdotal, but taking your statements at face value, how do you not see that you are helping me make my point?


Maybe you should back up and try to be specific about where you think you disagree with me. From what I see, you're providing anecdotal evidence that directly supports my previous posts. While I have no idea if anything you're posting is true, if taken at face value, you're providing a specific instance where a well respected instructor is fostering dissent, damaging the credibility of his rank structure and causing problems among his students because he chose to arbitrarily bend his own rules.


Sent using Tapatalk. Please ignore typos.

 

[puunui]

and this is relevant how?

It's relevant to the point that there are no standards, even within the same small organization. Ranking is subjective. Every teacher has a different point of view on it. When some students grumbled about this or that person getting promoted, my hapkido teacher used to point to his hand and ask "Which finger is the same as any other?" His point was that everyone is different, and therefore you have to treat them differently. When I was about to open my own school, I asked him if he wanted me to concentrate on anything, his response was to do whatever I wanted, that for me, hapkido had no rules. However, for other students, he doesn't say that and in fact tells them that they have to this or that technique a certain way. Different people get treated differently. That's how it always is and that is how it always will be. I don't know if you have brothers and sisters, but the lament of older children tends to be that the younger kids have it easier, that their parents don't treat the younger kids or the baby in the same way that they were treated. People change, their standards change, their perspective changes. Let's have this same conversation in five or ten years and perhaps both of our perspectives and positions will change. I know I do not think the same thoughts as I did ten years ago. Are you?

and if you believe this, you have fundamentally misunderstood my posts. My point is the same independent of style. It would be the same regardless of sport.

You think it is independent of style, but in reality, how can it be? After all, your perspective comes in part from the style that you study, which I think is brazilian jiujitsu.

presuming this is true, you don't see how this supports exactly what I'm saying?

Perhaps. Or perhaps it is yet another example of the type of unnecessary judgmental behavior that it out there.

frankly, it's beginning to sound like you're changing your story from post to post in order to disagree with a straw man that you're pretending represents my posts.

Not at all. Within the same school, higher ranks in theory should be able to consistently defeat lower belts. At least that is how it was explained to me. But that concept gets thrown out the window when you move outside of that particular school and start interacting with other schools. For example, one club here is very good in gi. Another is very good in no gi, because that was the instructor's interest. And now their students reflect that, even though they all came from the same instructor.

The relative standards between Hawaii and the mainland are irrelevant. If the standards of the school are consistent, that's enough. As an aside, are you digging on my rank? Pretty lame. If Hawaii standards were too far out of whack, the Hawaiians would be killing at the pan ams and Mundials. once again, this is anecdotal, but taking your statements at face value, how do you not see that you are helping me make my point?

Are you a Relson Gracie student? If not, then the discussion about Relson Gracie and his students doesn't apply to you. And I don't know what your rank is. But the point is, even within the same organization, under the same instructor, there are different standards, because people are different. And those standards get stretched even further when the geographical distances become greater. My understanding is that Relson holds higher standards for hawaii students because he has been here first, he has lived here for 25 years, he spends the most time here, and so forth. The people on the mainland learn primarily at infrequent seminars, as opposed to the hawaii people who have more access. And when they come to Hawaii to roll, it shows.

But it is not a cookie cutter world. I understand your point, but the practical reality of a school and an instructor, especially one who has multiple schools under him, makes for exceptions.

 

[Steve]

What exactly do you think my position is, Punuui? Because, you say you understand my point, but everything else you say is either completely irrelevant or directly in support of my point, but said like you're disagreeing with me. If it's not too much trouble, instead of telling me that you understand my position, if you could just sum it up in a couple of sentences it would help me understand where we're missing each other.

 

[puunui]

Would a university strip a phd from a man who suffers from Alzheimer's or some other form of dementia? Let's keep it real, guys.

I think that once you obtain a certain rank, especially dan rank, then you pretty much keep it for the rest of your life, even if you stop training and participating. But I know there are others out there that subscribe to the "boiling water" theory, that if you don't constantly apply heat to your water, and let it get cold, then you no longer deserve your rank and should give it up.

 

[puunui]

What exactly do you think my position is, Punuui? Because, you say you understand my point, but everything else you say is either completely irrelevant or directly in support of my point, but said like you're disagreeing with me. If it's not too much trouble, instead of telling me that you understand my position, if you could just sum it up in a couple of sentences it would help me understand where we're missing each other.

Within the context of this topic, your basic position is that there should be consistent standards and because of that, a disabled person may not be able to obtain a black belt, because they may be unable to meet that consistent standard due to the disability. But you do feel that even if they are unable to obtain a black belt because of those consistent standards, that they should still be allowed to train.

My position in summary is that I agree with you that everyone should be allowed to train. But where we disagree is on the idea that allowances can and should be made for individual students, including but not limited to rank standards.

To me, anyone can and should be able to obtain a 1st Dan black belt. You don't, which is where our opinions basically differ.

 

[shesulsa]

I think the conversation is pointing more towards what a black belt means - which I understand is a bit of a sub-discussion here of the convo, but let's not travel on that tangent too far for much longer.

I'm interested in specific circumstances where we might alter standard material for a challenge. Can we get into the specifics of this? I think this may help supplement the quality debate.

For instance - I have a different student who clearly has some kind of undiagnosed challenge. It became clear he is just completely unable to recall the first three ranks of material in their sum. With my autistic student, I conceded to focus on current rank requirements and work on his memorization by review. This has been a long-time challenge. He has advanced more rapidly than this other student. So, I recently decided to be more flexible on this. This required him to get REALLY GOOD at his current rank. As these skills improve, his retention improves as well. I worry about both of these kids having the ability to retain ALL color rank information in the future and will not consider giving full rank to them without it, hence they are currently both "decided ranks."

Should they each continue to improve on their recall and contain all the information and the ability to understand it as a progressive learning module, I may reconsider and I think this is reasonable.

Thoughts?

 

[lifespantkd]

I think that once you obtain a certain rank, especially dan rank, then you pretty much keep it for the rest of your life, even if you stop training and participating. But I know there are others out there that subscribe to the "boiling water" theory, that if you don't constantly apply heat to your water, and let it get cold, then you no longer deserve your rank and should give it up.

Yes, I have seen the "boiling water" theory, too.

Cynthia

 

[lifespantkd]

I think the conversation is pointing more towards what a black belt means - which I understand is a bit of a sub-discussion here of the convo, but let's not travel on that tangent too far for much longer.

I'm interested in specific circumstances where we might alter standard material for a challenge. Can we get into the specifics of this? I think this may help supplement the quality debate.

For instance - I have a different student who clearly has some kind of undiagnosed challenge. It became clear he is just completely unable to recall the first three ranks of material in their sum. With my autistic student, I conceded to focus on current rank requirements and work on his memorization by review. This has been a long-time challenge. He has advanced more rapidly than this other student. So, I recently decided to be more flexible on this. This required him to get REALLY GOOD at his current rank. As these skills improve, his retention improves as well. I worry about both of these kids having the ability to retain ALL color rank information in the future and will not consider giving full rank to them without it, hence they are currently both "decided ranks."

Should they each continue to improve on their recall and contain all the information and the ability to understand it as a progressive learning module, I may reconsider and I think this is reasonable.

Thoughts?

This is a great example of how the need for accommodation can come into play. Sometimes, the accommodation has to be made in terms of *how* we teach. *In theory* a student may be able to learn what is required of him or her, but may not be able to learn it in the way that most others can learn it. If we cannot figure out how to make that accommodation in our approach to teaching, that student may not be able to meet whatever criteria is set for a particular rank. But, is this a true inability? Or is it a failure of the instructor to respond effectively to the diversity in the dojang?

Please note that I am *not* saying that you are failing. On the contrary, it is evident that you are carefully observing what is happening and thinking deeply about how to be effective. I just think it's an excellent example of a situation in which an instructor *could* be the road block to a student's ability to earn a particular rank. Figuring out how to teach a particular student could require an instructor to learn more about teaching, in general, or about specific situations that can influence what a student needs to learn successfully, such as learning disabilities, autism, sensory integration, and so on. In such a case, the student's learning is dependent on the instructor's willingness and ability to learn how to effectively teach.

Cynthia

 

[lifespantkd]

Lol. Okay. Would a university strip a phd from a man who suffers from Alzheimer's or some other form of dementia? Let's keep it real, guys.

I am hardly arguing for such an action. But those who subscribe to the "boiling water" theory in the context of Taekwondo would. In the context of Taekwondo the right to wear a particular belt, like the right to hold some types of professional certifications and licenses, depends on what that belt is believed to represent. The nature of that belief is not a universal understanding across schools.

Peace,

Cynthia

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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?

No, I would not advocate for such demotions. It would be like taking a college degree away from a person who has lost their mental faculaties; the degree represents work that they have done, not what they currently are. And colleges do not accept everyone. The degree represents that you were accepted and completed whatever course of study you received your degree in.

That degree qualifies you to take jobs for which is required. If you lose your mental faculties and are unable to do the job, the degree has no bearing on that. Likewise, a first dan allows you to compete in certain divisions within the confines of your age, weight, and gender. If you are already disabled, and if your art has competition geared towards disabled practitioners, then that factors in as well.

As I age, I am moved from one age bracket to the next in competition. In my last TKD competition I was in super executive, meaning over forty. So having the black belt did not put me in the ring with eighteen year olds.

If you're not competing, then being aged/disabled/injured/whatever doesn't really matter with regards to having the belt. You still have the knowledge, and besides, it isn't as if a mugger is going to ask for our dan card prior to mugging us, and leave us alone should we present one.

Modern martial arts are as much about growing as people as they are about learning the system. The black belt represents a milestone that we reached at a point in time in our lives. Successive degrees represent later milestones. We should never stop growing as people.

Consider that the words we translate as 'martial arts' in JMA and KMA are budo and mudo, which actually mean, 'martial way,' not martial art. A crippled person can still follow the martial path in the way that they live their lives. It has nothing to do with how high you can kick.

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

Absolutely!

 

[dancingalone]

That's what board breaking is today, but that isn't the original reason. And really it wasn't even board breaking, at least with respect to korean martial arts. That's because wood is highly prized in south korea and it is a waste of wood to use it for martial arts purposes. Wood is so valued there that the paper in books is made out of stone, not wood. Try lugging back a bag full of books from Korea; it's like dragging around a bag of rocks. Instead, korean martial artists used roofing tiles to break.

That is an interesting factoid.

I continue to use breaking in tests because it is a tangible test with the results clearly visible for both the examinee and any onlookers. It's always a crowd-pleaser and the spectacle is good for both the students and their family members.

 

[Steve]

Within the context of this topic, your basic position is that there should be consistent standards

Yes. And that there is an important difference between a standard and how that standard is measured. The two are often confused, making real life situations like this unnecessarily complicated.

and because of that, a disabled person may not be able to obtain a black belt, because they may be unable to meet that consistent standard due to the disability.

I would even remove the word disabled. Laziness could, in some situations, be considered a more serious impediment to earning a black belt than loss of vision.

But you do feel that even if they are unable to obtain a black belt because of those consistent standards, that they should still be allowed to train.

This is close. I think that if there is value in an activity, whatever that activity might be, than rank and pursuit of promotions is irrelevant anyway. However, if you're learning to do an activity in a structure that includes rank promotions, it's an issue if that structure lacks integrity. In other words, these are two separate issues that are being conflated.

Will a lazy but otherwise healthy person benefit from training in TKD? I don't know firsthand, but I would presume so. Even if he only did it for a year and failed to reach black belt. Would you agree? The rank is a side issue, and I see it as being less about the style, (although systemic issues can come up), and more about the integrity of the school and the system in which you're training. It just simply causes problems and erodes trust. Your anecdotes about Relson Gracie support this. He compromised his standards only one time, according to your story, and it caused strife among his students. Just one time, in your story. Imagine the lack of faith in his system were he to apply no visible, consistent standards.

My position in summary is that I agree with you that everyone should be allowed to train. But where we disagree is on the idea that allowances can and should be made for individual students, including but not limited to rank standards.

To me, anyone can and should be able to obtain a 1st Dan black belt. You don't, which is where our opinions basically differ.

This is fair. See above. I'm not suggesting that you hold black belts to a high standard. That's for you to decide. I'm saying that whatever standards you determine are fit for you, you should apply them consistently. Further, how you MEASURE those standards is where you have room to be very creative, making allowances for each individual. This is where I used Relson's blue belt standard. The standard is pretty clear. How that standard looks on different people will be very different.

Hope this clears things up.

 

[puunui]

I continue to use breaking in tests because it is a tangible test with the results clearly visible for both the examinee and any onlookers. It's always a crowd-pleaser and the spectacle is good for both the students and their family members.

The instructors who are moving away from board breaking are those who are finding people are quitting due to apprehension or fear of increasingly harder breaks as you progress in ranks. Personally, I think the solution is to train people in board breaking, if that is what you want them to do at tests. Most instructors devote very little or no time in class to prepare students for breaking.

Some instructors that keep board breaking are using skinnier boards rather than the standard 3/4 inch pine.

PS: The books in korea really are made out of stone. I brought back a duffel bag filled on one trip, and when I got to baggage claim, the handles on the bag had ripped off and were missing.

 

[Steve]

where we disagree is on the idea that allowances can and should be made for individual students, including but not limited to rank standards.

To me, anyone can and should be able to obtain a 1st Dan black belt. You don't, which is where our opinions basically differ.

I want clarify another thing. If anyone can get a black belt in your school, I'm totally cool with that. That speaks to your standards, and once again, if you are transparent (ie, ALL of your students are aware of your standards and understand them) and you are consistent, you're fine in my book.

For the record, I haven't yet shared my own standards, as they are completely irrelevant to this discussion.


Sent using Tapatalk. Please ignore typos.

 

[puunui]

I want clarify another thing. If anyone can get a black belt in your school, I'm totally cool with that. That speaks to your standards, and once again, if you are transparent (ie, ALL of your students are aware of your standards and understand them) and you are consistent, you're fine in my book.

I do believe that everyone should be able to reach the 1st dan level, just like I feel that everyone should be able to obtain a high school diploma. I don't believe that everyone can make it to 9th Dan though.

For the record, I haven't yet shared my own standards, as they are completely irrelevant to this discussion.

ok.

 

[Steve]

A bit of time has gone by, but the topic of disability within the martial arts has resurfaced. We have a lot of new people on the boards, and I'd be very interested in hearing some new opinions weighing in on this.

 

[TrueJim]

It seem to me there are only three choices when deciding upon a standard for achieving black belt:

• Have a universal standard for all students that is rather high
• Have a universal standard for all students that is somewhat lower
• Adjust the standard to fit each student individually

If you go with the first option, then really only your very fit (and probably youthful) adults are going to pass the test.

If you go with the second option, then your very fit students are not going to feel very challenged (the test will be too easy).

The third option seems to me to make the most sense. Adjust the standard so that it challenges the student to the limits of their potential. Given that, I don't see why a disabled person can't be a black belt...you adjust the standard to reflect their potential in light of their disability.