Disabled students as black belts

[Steve]

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.

Option four is the baby bear standard, just right. You go from too high, to too low and then to tossing standards out the window. There are other options.

 

[K-man]

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.

Steve, well done on resurrecting this thread. I think I kept out of it when it was first running because most of the practitioners involved are TKD. But of most interest was your passionate arguing of your position, something I haven't seen you do before. For what it's worth, I agree with what you were arguing.

What I am saying is not in the context of TKD as I think it has gone well beyond that at this stage. Can I first say I am entirely responsible for grading my students, at least until they reach a high level of proficiency when I want them to be graded on their merit outside of my small world.

Can I say at the outset, I put a high value on a black belt. I had to work hard to get mine and although that doesn't mean I want to punish those who follow me, I do want them to achieve a level of proficiency of which they are proud. Can I also say that when I did teach juniors I did not award a single junior black belt. Juniors had a junior rank, designated by a white stripe through their belt. To get their black they had to be able to match it with adults. If a someone wearing a black belt, junior or not, can be towelled by an adult white belt then the black belt loses all meaning.

Where does that leave us with disability? Well, for a start, not everyone can be an astronaut. Many may dream but few are chosen. Most of the early guys were top fighter pilots. Not many of us could get there either. Even to be an airline pilot has stringent requirements. Very few if any airline pilots with an obvious mental issue will pass the medical. Some of us may have had dreams of being in the special forces. How many guys with a severe physical disability would be selected for the basic training? I guess what I am saying is that most of us have had dreams of being something that in the end we really had little hope of being.

So back to the martial arts. Back a hundred years or so we wouldn't be having this arguement. Until Kano introduced coloured belts to denote progress there was no such thing as a black belt. People just learned whatever they were learning. Some people got very good and some people didn't. There was no marker to say I'm good or I'm really good.

To me, and I think to the broader non-martial art community, a black belt denotes a level of martial ability above your average punter. I would not give a black belt to anyone I thought could not match up to a blackbelt from a similar style. I have had my coloured belts come back from other places where they have encountered black belts with less ability than them and I would prefer to keep it that way.

So can a person with a disability be a black belt? Of course they can but they must be capable of reaching a certain level of proficiency. Someone in a wheelchair with limited use of his legs may well be able to hit hard and grapple strongly. Why would such a person expect to reach black belt level in say TKD where such emphasis is on kicking? He would be much more suited to a different skill set that he might find in say Aikido or Jujutsu or even Karate.

It is admirable that someone with a disability would take on a martial art. Years ago we had a guy with a wooden leg (literally), below knee amputee. His mobility was pretty good but his kick was awesome. I never did find out if he got through to black belt but I have no doubt he had the ability.

What I am saying is, to me a black belt is an important marker of ability. Not everyone, disabled or not, will reach that level. We all have to live within our limits and make appropriate choices.

 

[Jenna]

I do not know about any of this though I feel some times we all need to get our noses out of our bowls and see there is a bigger world than our own MA, our own petty standards, our protected fragile traditions, our own dogmas.. Perhaps our own prejudices.. I see in all of this debate the attitude that never ask what is the purpose of our MA teachings? What are we even trying to achieve?

If your BB in your art is a measured standard PURELY of technical competence, is rigid and immovable because it was written on a tablet of stone on an ancient mountaintop then fine, plainly there is a market for it and you will produce the most technically proficient and socially narrowest range of BBs.. 'twas ever thus in MAs

And but surely then you MUST make this policy clear on your front door "NO ADMITTANCE HERE FOR GRADING IF YOU CANNOT PERFORM X, Y & Z THE WAY IT WAS DONE IN THE BEGINNING" then every one will know where they stand, nobody will whinge at you about discrimination nonsense and any one who has an infirmity, a disability (or the parents or guardians of those persons) can take their interest and their business elsewhere.

Jx

 

[TrueJim]

Option four is the baby bear standard, just right. You go from too high, to too low and then to tossing standards out the window. There are other options.

I'm sorry, but I believe you are mistaken. Logically, there are only three options:

• Either set a high standard
• Or set a standard that is lower than that
• Or set a varying standard

Your "just right" approach is really the same thing as my option #2: set a standard that is lower than high.

I think what you're trying to say is that the "just right" standard (aka the "lower standard") may be low, but it should not be TOO low, and that seems fair. I would argue though that that approach still doesn't get you out of the original pickle: your athletically gifted students will still not be challenged by the "just right" standard. In order to keep them engaged and interested as they advance, you'll be tempted to challenge them to excel at a higher standard, and then you're back to square one: using approach 3, a varying standard.

By the way, nobody ever suggested "tossing standards out the window." What I said was, assess the potential of each student, and make that the standard for that student.

 

[TrueJim]

Where does that leave us with disability? Well, for a start, not everyone can be an astronaut. Many may dream but few are chosen. Most of the early guys were top fighter pilots. Not many of us could get there either. Even to be an airline pilot has stringent requirements. Very few if any airline pilots with an obvious mental issue will pass the medical. Some of us may have had dreams of being in the special forces. How many guys with a severe physical disability would be selected for the basic training? I guess what I am saying is that most of us have had dreams of being something that in the end we really had little hope of being.

By this line of reasoning then, would you say that if a black belt were to become disabled, would we then take away his or her black belt? Perhaps we should give them a special stripe on their belt that denotes, "This person used to be a black belt, but is no longer?"

 

[Steve]

I'm sorry, but I believe you are mistaken. Logically, there are only three options:

• Either set a high standard
• Or set a standard that is lower than that
• Or set a varying standard

Your "just right" approach is really the same thing as my option #2: set a standard that is lower than high.

I think what you're trying to say is that the "just right" standard (aka the "lower standard") may be low, but it should not be TOO low, and that seems fair. I would argue though that that approach still doesn't get you out of the original pickle: your athletically gifted students will still not be challenged by the "just right" standard. In order to keep them engaged and interested as they advance, you'll be tempted to challenge them to excel at a higher standard, and then you're back to square one: using approach 3, a varying standard.

By the way, nobody ever suggested "tossing standards out the window." What I said was, assess the potential of each student, and make that the standard for that student.

I'm sorry, truejim, but logically, it is you who is mistaken. I'm not suggesting lowering or compromising standards. I don't think that's a good idea at all. I'm suggesting that standards can be reasonable, and not arbitrary. I do think that often, the standards are not well thought out, and that's the root of the problem. I've explained it at length earlier in this thread.
Having different standards for each student is functionally the same as not having standards at all. Better,min think,mot have reasonable standards that reflect the core requirements for the rank, while providing flexibility for measuring the standards. I've explained this at length earlier in the thread, and think that you will see this is perfectly reasonable if you read my earlier posts.

 

[Steve]

By this line of reasoning then, would you say that if a black belt were to become disabled, would we then take away his or her black belt? Perhaps we should give them a special stripe on their belt that denotes, "This person used to be a black belt, but is no longer?"

Truejim, this was asked earlier. As I said then, would you take away a professors phd if he suffers from a brain injury or Alzheimer's? Of course not.

 

[TrueJim]

Back a hundred years or so we wouldn't be having this argument. Until Kano introduced coloured belts to denote progress there was no such thing as a black belt. People just learned whatever they were learning. Some people got very good and some people didn't. There was no marker to say I'm good or I'm really good.

They say that once upon a time everybody's belt was white, and the belts would just naturally darken with age...hence the connotation of expertise associated with a dark belt. So arguably then, if we were to return to our roots, a black belt would not denote any standard at all, but merely the fact that the practitioner has been working at the art for a very long time. I'm not arguing in favor of this, I just think you raise a good point: in the oldest traditions, there were no standards associated with a dark belt at all, other than the single standard "he's been at this for a very long time."

 

[Instructor]

Our standard has always been effectiveness when it counts. If you judge a student on that standard you should be okay. So what if he can't do a jump spinning crescent kick, how many would use that technique in an actual fight? We live in a day that soldiers lose a leg, strap on a prosthesis, and grab their rucksack and weapon and go back to war. Combat effectiveness..

 

[K-man]

By this line of reasoning then, would you say that if a black belt were to become disabled, would we then take away his or her black belt? Perhaps we should give them a special stripe on their belt that denotes, "This person used to be a black belt, but is no longer?"

Not at all. It was an achievement that was earned. As has been said earlier, an academic achievement is the same. In my previous life I had to demonstrate competency to retain my registration. When I retired I lost the right to practice but I still have the degree. Flying is the same. Once you have your flying licence it is for life. However to fly you need to have a current medical certificate and demonstrate competency every two years.

If you have earned a black belt then you retain the rank. What you do with it is up to you. If you cannot demonstrate competency are you going to flash it about?

But let's look at disability after someone has reached the rank of Shodan or higher. If that person wishes to continue training to the level of his ability, there is nothing to say he shouldn't. It is up to him to decide if he can keep going. If the disability came about at say brown belt level, again, he may or may not be able to continue training and he may or may not ever achieve that next level.

In earlier threads people were talking about different grading requirements, in particular breaking. Now this is a TKD thread so that may apply to TKD but none of my styles require breaking as a grading requirement. So if we go back to my hypothetical guy in a wheelchair, I couldn't care less if he couldn't kick to break a board. Kicking, to me, is vastly over rated, but then I don't train anything that relies on kicks. But if he can punch and grapple there is no reason for him not to reach black belt in another style that recognises the skills he possesses. What I am saying is that a person with a disability must select an art that he can fit into and progress to black belt if that is what he desires. My guy in the chair is obviously not suited to TKD but may well be able to train in another style.

 

[K-man]

They say that once upon a time everybody's belt was white, and the belts would just naturally darken with age...hence the connotation of expertise associated with a dark belt. So arguably then, if we were to return to our roots, a black belt would not denote any standard at all, but merely the fact that the practitioner has been working at the art for a very long time. I'm not arguing in favor of this, I just think you raise a good point: in the oldest traditions, there were no standards associated with a dark belt at all, other than the single standard "he's been at this for a very long time."

Yes and no. I agree with the sentiment and I have heard the story about the darkening belt. Just that, I'm not sure that it is more than a good yarn.

 

[Steve]

They say that once upon a time everybody's belt was white, and the belts would just naturally darken with age...hence the connotation of expertise associated with a dark belt. So arguably then, if we were to return to our roots, a black belt would not denote any standard at all, but merely the fact that the practitioner has been working at the art for a very long time. I'm not arguing in favor of this, I just think you raise a good point: in the oldest traditions, there were no standards associated with a dark belt at all, other than the single standard "he's been at this for a very long time."

Fwiw, if this is the standard and it is consistent and clearly communicated, It's a good example of a happy "just right." Doesn't mean this should or even could the the sole standard for every art or school. Simply a good example.

 

[TrueJim]

I'm sorry, truejim, but logically, it is you who is mistaken. I'm not suggesting lowering or compromising standards. I don't think that's a good idea at all.

This is what I said: There are only three options...

• Set a high standard
• Set a standard that is lower than that
• Use a varying standard

You said: No, there is a fourth option. You claimed that that fourth option is to use a "just right" standard...but that is the same as my second option. How am I "mistaken?"

There only three options: high, lower, or varying.

I'm suggesting that standards can be reasonable, and not arbitrary.

Sir, I believe you are trolling. Nobody has suggested an arbitrary standard. What has been suggested is a sliding standard that's based on an assessment of the potential of a student. That is not arbitrary.

One could argue though that this is arbitrary:

• "It's okay if the standard varies by style"
• "It's okay if the standard varies by school"
• "It's okay if the standard varies by instructor"
  
• "But it's not okay if the standard varies by student"

 

[K-man]

This is what I said: There are only three options...

• Set a high standard
• Set a standard that is lower than that
• Use a varying standard

You said: No, there is a fourth option. You claimed that that fourth option is to use a "just right" standard...but that is the same as my second option. How am I "mistaken?"

There only three options: high, lower, or varying.



Sir, I believe you are trolling. Nobody has suggested an arbitrary standard. What has been suggested is a sliding standard that's based on an assessment of the potential of a student. That is not arbitrary.

One could argue though that this is arbitrary:

• "It's okay if the standard varies by style"
• "It's okay if the standard varies by school"
• "It's okay if the standard varies by instructor"
  
• "But it's not okay if the standard varies by student"

Fair's fair. I have had my disagreements with Steve over recent times but one thing he is not, is a troll. I think you are simply discussing shades of grey.

 

[Steve]

This is what I said: There are only three options...

• Set a high standard
• Set a standard that is lower than that
• Use a varying standard

You said: No, there is a fourth option. You claimed that that fourth option is to use a "just right" standard...but that is the same as my second option. How am I "mistaken?"

There only three options: high, lower, or varying.



Sir, I believe you are trolling. Nobody has suggested an arbitrary standard. What has been suggested is a sliding standard that's based on an assessment of the potential of a student. That is not arbitrary.

One could argue though that this is arbitrary:

• "It's okay if the standard varies by style"
• "It's okay if the standard varies by school"
• "It's okay if the standard varies by instructor"
  
• "But it's not okay if the standard varies by student"

I think you would benefit from reading the entire thread. If after yiu have done this, you still don't understand what I mean when I say that there are options other than the three you suggest, we can continue. In the meantime, it's clear you're getting a little frustrated.

 

[andyjeffries]

They say that once upon a time everybody's belt was white, and the belts would just naturally darken with age...hence the connotation of expertise associated with a dark belt.

Actually there was an article by a martial arts historian called Don Cunningham where he stated there is actually no evidence of belts denoting practitioner seniority before Jigoro Kano. Before him, they just used the menkyo system. So while it's a lovely story, it seems more martial myth than martial fact.

 

[andyjeffries]

I think you would benefit from reading the entire thread. If after yiu have done this, you still don't understand what I mean when I say that there are options other than the three you suggest, we can continue. In the meantime, it's clear you're getting a little frustrated.

I've read the thread (originally and now) and don't understand logically what the fourth option is... Could you explain it, maybe a different way, for me?

 

[Steve]

I've read the thread (originally and now) and don't understand logically what the fourth option is... Could you explain it, maybe a different way, for me?

Okay. I'll do what I can. First, let's be clear what I mean when I use the term "standard." In this context, we're talking about the bar that is met. When a manager evaluates your work, they are doing so against a standard which is expected to be met or exceeded.

What TrueJim has created is an either/or situation. You either have high standards or you have low standards. The third option is somewhat illusory, because it's essentially no standards. When you create a unique set of standards for each person, it's no longer a standard at all.

What I am suggesting is that high or low standards is irrelevant. I'm suggesting that consistency is the key, whatever the standard. One can have high standards that are not consistently enforced. One can also have low standards that are inconsistently enforced. Further, the very use of the terms "high" and "low" are subjective. What is a high standard? For you, that may be something completely different than for me.

As a quick aside, when you frame the situation up as TrueJim has done, you are creating a red herring (and also a false dilemma). For what that's worth, it's technically illogical for at least two reasons.

Getting back to the point, though, the key isn't to worry at all about what the standards are elsewhere. Rather, what is the standard in this system, in this school? And how do we measure performance against this standard in a way that is consistent and equitable? Where the standards are arbitrary, they become meaningless. Where they are consistently applied, they are meaningful.

If your school has one single standard for earning a black belt, and that's time on the mats, great. You have a clear standard that can be communicated to all and managed consistently. X hours on the mat = Black Belt. Whether you are in a wheelchair or not, deaf, blind, whatever.

If the standard is that the blue belts should be able to consistently perform well against white belts, and so on, then that is an okay standard. It's clear and able to be managed consistently.

The confusion comes about when people use the term "standard" and "measure" interchangeably. The standard is fixed. How you measure performance against the standard isn't necessarily so, and that's where you can both maintain the integrity of your standards while accommodating disabilities in creative and positive ways.

 

[Buka]

This is an interesting thread. I missed it the first go round, catching up now.

 

[TrueJim]

To my mind, this is the crux of the situation, right here:

If all a black belt means is that you've worked very hard for a very long time, regardless of your impairments, then a black belt means a LOT. But if a black belt also means, "and you happened to have done that while you were young and unimpaired" then a black belt arguably means less.

I believe that you feel like you are arguing in favor of a black belt meaning "more," but I believe you are actually arguing in favor of it meaning less. You are arguing that it's not about: have you worked really hard for a very long time to be the best that you can be. You're arguing that it's about that, plus "...and did you happened to have done that during a time in your life when you were fortunate enough to have no infirmities."

I believe that encumbering the definition of a black belt with that second clause actually diminishes the meaning of a black belt.

Not at all. It was an achievement that was earned...

So you're saying this: "A black belt doesn't mean that you can do X, but it does mean that once upon a time you could do X." Furthermore, if a person has a disability that prevents them from ever being able to do X, they should never receive a black belt.

So then I suppose the question becomes...what should X be? If we make X be something that only very athletic young men and women can do (i.e., requiring a very high standard of athleticism), then a black belt essentially winds up meaning two things: (1) you've worked very hard for a long time, but also (2) you are young and athletic (or at least you were back when you got your black belt).

If on the other hand we make X be something that even young teens and older adults -- or even disabled people -- can do (i.e., requiring a lower level of athleticism), then the black belt means only one thing: (1) you've worked very hard.

Personally, to me, it seems entirely random to encumber the meaning of the black belt to include the second thing: that you were young and athletic with no disabilities back when you get your black belt. Unless one is subscribing to a very Hollywood definition of black belt, why should one's stage in life and physical impairments be part of the definition? It seems to me that the years of effort and level of hard-work put-in is much closer to a good definition of being a martial artist.