Hapkido "time in grade"

[IcemanSK]

In Kukki-TKD (and other types of TKD) there are minimum "time in grade requirements" before one can test for the next BB rank. Does Hapkido have a time in grade requirement as well? If so, what are they?

 

[Kong Soo Do]

In Kukki-TKD (and other types of TKD) there are minimum "time in grade requirements" before one can test for the next BB rank. Does Hapkido have a time in grade requirement as well? If so, what are they?

This would depend on the school and what organization (if any) they belong to. TIG requirements can vary widely or be non-existant. Also, it seems rather typical for skipped ranks in Hapkido (and other arts like TKD as well).

It is hard in some respects to justify a set TIG since some of Hapkido's seniors had rather quick TIG advancements. For example, Ji was an 8th Dan at age 28 or so with only 13-16 total training time. That is quick. Others in Hakido appear to have had accelerated advancement as well, and some simply won't supply their TIG at all. My point is it is hard to generate/justify a TIG standard based upon prior precedence. Should it be a year from first to second? Two years from second to third? If so, why? If so, what is the precedent/justification for this TIG standard being set? Was it followed by the seniors of the organization in question? If not, why? If some had accelerated advancement and/or skipped rank(s), what was the justification for such a thing? Not necessarily a bad thing, but does/would it apply to anyone meeting those same justificaitons?

 

[oftheherd1]

The Hapkido I studied when I was in Korea from about 1984 to 1987, there was no time limit. The limit was on properly learning and being able to execute the techniques. But that was based on the fact that most students were US service persons and only there for 1 year. I was very difficult, but possible to earn a BB in one year. Going beyond that, at least to 2nd Dan, was pretty much the same thing. Beyond that, I don't know if there was a set TIG or if it was simply sort of understood that one should study for two or more years before the next advancement. I have the impression that it was generally understood that TIG for 2nd and above would be around 3 years, give or take. I know my GM's son has some 4th Dan and I believe he has been teaching where he now lives for something like 10 years or more.

 

[Instructor]

Our org likes to see at least a year between 1st and 2nd Dan, two years between 2nd and 3rd, and three years between 3rd and 4th. These are not carved in stone though and it's largely a case by case basis.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Alright, not to shift the thread too much, but...

A new member here in the Hapkido section mentioned that his son (age 7 or 8 IIRC) has his 2nd Dan. Furthermore, a fellow child in the class is a 9 year old 3rd Dan. No disrespect intended, but this seems (like many arts) too much too soon. Okay, TKD has a plethora of 5 year old BB's running around. And to be fair, a majority of these types of TKD schools don't have a whole lot of substance to them i.e. if you can kick, throw some punches and learn the required form-per-colored belt then there isn't much else to the art (note that some TKD schools have a LOT of substance and a LOT of material so I'm not broad-brushing TKD as a whole). My point is that Hapkido, in addition to punches and kicks has throws, locks, chokes etc. Are you going to tell me a 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 year old has delved that deeply into the art as to be able to do these techniques to the level of a first, second or third Dan? When did this 9 year old start in order to 'earn' 3rd Dan by age 9?

I'm sorry, I just can't help but feel that the Dan grades have been so watered down to make money and pump up mom and dad as to make them laughable. I know this has been debated multiple times, and I'm sure will be again. But that's how I feel.

 

[Instructor]

I dont' teach kids with the exception of my daughter and occasionally my son. Neither of them are anywhere near Dan level.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

This would depend on the school and what organization (if any) they belong to. TIG requirements can vary widely or be non-existant. Also, it seems rather typical for skipped ranks in Hapkido (and other arts like TKD as well).

It is hard in some respects to justify a set TIG since some of Hapkido's seniors had rather quick TIG advancements. For example, Ji was an 8th Dan at age 28 or so with only 13-16 total training time. That is quick. Others in Hakido appear to have had accelerated advancement as well, and some simply won't supply their TIG at all. My point is it is hard to generate/justify a TIG standard based upon prior precedence. Should it be a year from first to second? Two years from second to third? If so, why? If so, what is the precedent/justification for this TIG standard being set? Was it followed by the seniors of the organization in question? If not, why? If some had accelerated advancement and/or skipped rank(s), what was the justification for such a thing? Not necessarily a bad thing, but does/would it apply to anyone meeting those same justificaitons?

I'm familiar with the post to which you refer.

I would need to know more about the curriculum before saying anything (is it a kiddie curriculum?) but I will repeat what I repeated on that thread: I cannot see an HKD ildan in a year, and two is really pushing it without some very relevant prior experience (such as an aikido black belt, judo black belt, prior hapkido training, etc.). However, I am told by virtually everyone who has trained in Korea over the past twenty years that a black belt in HKD or TKD is one year, and that it is simply viewed as having completed the basic class.

RE. children, I don't believe that children should be learning hoshinsul beyond escapes from holds, rolling and falling. There are more than enough HKD striking techniques, more hand/arm and leg/foot than are in taekwondo, to fill up a two year curriculum for kids.

The reason that I don't believe that children should be learning hapkido is physiological. Children's bones, joints, and tendons are still growing and are not developed and are more susceptible to damage than a teen's or adult's.

I still train in hapkido and taekwondo, but it is purely for enjoyment. Any income derived from teaching others is enough to cover costs of materials, mainly pizza. I have a much more formal kendo class that I teach, but regardless, advancement is based on when the student is ready. I have only promoted one student to shodan and her time in kyu grades (we don't use belts in kendo) was roughly four years. I have a very athletic student who just gets it. He picks up everything right away and excels. He also practices a lot outside of class. He will probably get there in less time. I have another student who has been training for over a year and has just gotten to the point where he isn't tripping over his own feet. He will probably take longer than the young lady did.

I use grades to track where a student is in the curriculum. Nothing more. I only charge enough to cover the costs of renting space and fuel costs. I do not charge for tests, so I am in no particular hurry to promote students. When they're ready, they're ready.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

In Kukki-TKD (and other types of TKD) there are minimum "time in grade requirements" before one can test for the next BB rank. Does Hapkido have a time in grade requirement as well? If so, what are they?

When I learned hapkido, I had already spent a few years in a taekwondo class with hapkido hoshinsul and where we trained in rolling and falling for self defense. It took me aproximately two years to earn my HKD ildan. Whether it would have been the same without prior training is something that I have never actually given any thought to. The time between belts was one year for each current dan grade. My GM at the time had broken off from the IHF (long story behind that and I'm not getting into it) and started his own federation. He pretty much adhered to the model that I described above. I have been told that that is how the IHF does it as well, but I don't know first hand. After I earned my yidan, I was asked to teach classes. After teaching for about a year, I was skipped to sadan. I currently have the time in grade for that rank and have little interest in seeking further promotion.

I have since joined the World Hapkido Association. Time in grade is essentially what I have experienced in other KMA; 2+ years to ildan, then one year per current dan grade to the next dan. I have not sought further promotion or confirmation of my current grades in the WHA. I train and teach purely for enjoyment and camraderie. As I said previously, I ask my students to throw into the kitti so that we can cover the cost of belts, boards, and pizza. With kendo, I teach at a ballet studio and they pay the studio owner. It is enough to cover the cost of the space rental and fuel to get there. I do not charge for tests. I've never liked the idea of doing so.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I would need to know more about the curriculum before saying anything (is it a kiddie curriculum?) but I will repeat what I repeated on that thread: I cannot see an HKD ildan in a year, and two is really pushing it without some very relevant prior experience (such as an aikido black belt, judo black belt, prior hapkido training, etc.).

RE. children, I don't believe that children should be learning hoshinsul beyond escapes from holds, rolling and falling. There are more than enough HKD striking techniques, more hand/arm and leg/foot than are in taekwondo, to fill up a two year curriculum for kids.

The reason that I don't believe that children should be learning hapkido is physiological. Children's bones, joints, and tendons are still growing and are not developed and are more susceptible to damage than a teen's or adult's.

I would be very surprised to learn that the children's training mirrored the adult for the very reason(s) you've stated. It would actually be irresponsible to subject children to the adult version as it would/could be detrimental to their growth/health.

However, I am told by virtually everyone who has trained in Korea over the past twenty years that a black belt in HKD or TKD is one year, and that it is simply viewed as having completed the basic class.

I agree with you that two years + in Hapkido is more realistic. Having a third Dan by age 9 is simply, imho, unrealistic and states another agenda i.e. money. I do not necessarily agree with the Korean view that BB is simply basic skills in and of itself. Yes, the curriculum needs to have been learned, but to a certain degree of proficiency. Although this can, and has been done in a year it would seem that this has become a 'standard' of sorts for the masses. And that again isn't realistic and imho is detrimental to the learning curve by providing the student with a sense of security/achievement that hasn't actually been achieved. I fully think this move is motivated more by $ than anything else. Get them to the almighty BB level as quick as possible to pump up the ego regardless of whether it has been earned or not. Then delay the certificate a few months to a year to 'help them adjust to the new position' even though it is just a 'basic' level (read dangle the carrot a bit longer to get them hooked in for the next Dan level...cause that is just right around the corner).

At some point they're going to have to expand the Dan system from 9th or 10th upwards to 15th or 20th just to have more to offer. After all, if you're a BB by age 5 or 6 and can get some rapid fire promotions upwards of 3rd or maybe even 4th before you've hit puberty then what happens if you stick around into your teens, 20's, 30's etc? What's the justification of slowing it down? Age requirements? Why?

I still train in hapkido and taekwondo, but it is purely for enjoyment. Any income derived from teaching others is enough to cover costs of materials, mainly pizza. I have a much more formal kendo class that I teach, but regardless, advancement is based on when the student is ready. I have only promoted one student to shodan and her time in kyu grades (we don't use belts in kendo) was roughly four years. I have a very athletic student who just gets it. He picks up everything right away and excels. He also practices a lot outside of class. He will probably get there in less time. I have another student who has been training for over a year and has just gotten to the point where he isn't tripping over his own feet. He will probably take longer than the young lady did.

+1

I use grades to track where a student is in the curriculum. Nothing more. I only charge enough to cover the costs of renting space and fuel costs. I do not charge for tests, so I am in no particular hurry to promote students. When they're ready, they're ready.

Same here. I think the same approach (they're ready when they're ready) should be upheld regardless of whether one teaches for the love of the art or for $. Perhaps a naive belief, but I'll hold to it nonetheless.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I agree with you that two years + in Hapkido is more realistic.

Personally, I think that two years in hapkido for an ildan is unrealistic without prior relevant experience. Personally, I'd say three minimum simply based on the volume of material.

I do not necessarily agree with the Korean view that BB is simply basic skills in and of itself.

It isn't a question of whether or not you and I agree with it; that is the way that it is there. Blackbelts are apparently so commonplace that there is no mystique about them. That may or may not be a good fit for other environments, but in that environment, that is the norm.

Same here. I think the same approach (they're ready when they're ready) should be upheld regardless of whether one teaches for the love of the art or for $. Perhaps a naive belief, but I'll hold to it nonetheless.

I believe that one can have love of the art and teach for a living. But doing so puts the school owner into a position of having to deal with issues that a not for profit school doesn't need to consider. If the norm is $90 a month and $500 for a black belt test and $20 - $50 belt tests along the way, it can be hard to see outside of that box.

 

[Manny]

For me, any martial arts school or academy wich has a lot of black belt peewes is ........., I will never give a black belt (1st degree) to a kid/girl below 17 years old, below that is the colored belts and in some cvases the poom belt (black belt).

In a tourney I went I saw a teen or maybe ma around 20 years old that has 4 striops in his black belt, c'mon 4th Dan at such an early age! Also I saw a lot of second dan black belts around 12 years.

A black belt or dan is earned tru hard work, dedication,good tech,etc. and I blieve kids have not what it takes to earn a black belt because of the lack of maturity.

Manny

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Blackbelts are apparently so commonplace that there is no mystique about them. That may or may not be a good fit for other environments, but in that environment, that is the norm.

(Note that my commentary to follow isn't directed at you Daniel, or anyone in particular. Your comment just brought stuff to mind that I thought I'd ramble on about this morning )

I think this tends to be an uncomfortable area that many wish to avoid discussing. To begin with, there really should be no mystique about being a black belt other than an acknowledgement of the hard work that should be required to obtain one. It should of course not be viewed as an automatic ninja-killer belt. Secondly, in Korea it has been generally acknowledged on this board and others, by those living/training in Korea that the martial arts (in general) is for children. Adults for the most part don't have the time or enthusiasm for the martial arts outside of G.I.'s and the like. Again, this is a general statement, from those living/training in Korea. So most of these BB's walking around in Korea obtained them as a child but probably haven't done much/anything with it after becoming an adult. And in general, again according to many of those living/training in Korea who have been forthright enough to speak frankly, often times the level of training in Korea isn't up to snuff. The romantic notion that Korean training MUST be superior/hard core/mystical is often simply wishful thinking. Members have posted videos here of Korean children and their demonstrations/training methods and (in general) it hasn't really been impressive. This isn't to put down Koreans or their training methods, that isn't my point. I'm sure there are schools of exceptional caliber just as in most countries. My point is that the Dan ranks, in many Korean arts, have been watered down to generate a higher profit margin. The bottom line is just that, the bottom line. Looking at the KKW as a prime example, according to their own stats the VAST majority of KKW BB's are Koreans. These Koreans earned a BB in a year or less as a child. The quality of these BB's has been brought into question many times. So really, I can fully see/understand why it there is no mystique about all the BB's running around in Korea. For the most part, I would suggest that the standards are woefully sub-par (in general and recognizing that there are always exceptions) and the Dan ranks are watered down intentionally for material gain.

In the end, if you lower the standards, lower the TIG, water down the training and sell out to commercialism you'd expect BB's to be coming out of the wood work. That shouldn't be looked upon as a good thing or a selling point for any particular art.

 

[Jaeimseu]

(Note that my commentary to follow isn't directed at you Daniel, or anyone in particular. Your comment just brought stuff to mind that I thought I'd ramble on about this morning )

I think this tends to be an uncomfortable area that many wish to avoid discussing. To begin with, there really should be no mystique about being a black belt other than an acknowledgement of the hard work that should be required to obtain one. It should of course not be viewed as an automatic ninja-killer belt. Secondly, in Korea it has been generally acknowledged on this board and others, by those living/training in Korea that the martial arts (in general) is for children. Adults for the most part don't have the time or enthusiasm for the martial arts outside of G.I.'s and the like. Again, this is a general statement, from those living/training in Korea. So most of these BB's walking around in Korea obtained them as a child but probably haven't done much/anything with it after becoming an adult. And in general, again according to many of those living/training in Korea who have been forthright enough to speak frankly, often times the level of training in Korea isn't up to snuff. The romantic notion that Korean training MUST be superior/hard core/mystical is often simply wishful thinking. Members have posted videos here of Korean children and their demonstrations/training methods and (in general) it hasn't really been impressive. This isn't to put down Koreans or their training methods, that isn't my point. I'm sure there are schools of exceptional caliber just as in most countries. My point is that the Dan ranks, in many Korean arts, have been watered down to generate a higher profit margin. The bottom line is just that, the bottom line. Looking at the KKW as a prime example, according to their own stats the VAST majority of KKW BB's are Koreans. These Koreans earned a BB in a year or less as a child. The quality of these BB's has been brought into question many times. So really, I can fully see/understand why it there is no mystique about all the BB's running around in Korea. For the most part, I would suggest that the standards are woefully sub-par (in general and recognizing that there are always exceptions) and the Dan ranks are watered down intentionally for material gain.

In the end, if you lower the standards, lower the TIG, water down the training and sell out to commercialism you'd expect BB's to be coming out of the wood work. That shouldn't be looked upon as a good thing or a selling point for any particular art.

I honestly don't think it's all about increasing profits. It's easy to think that way from an American point of view. In Korea, people tend to only do things recreationally to a certain point. After that point, it's your life. Students find out at a relatively young age if they have the potential to be a "player" on the big stage. If they don't have that potential, they tend to gravitate to more "important" things.

So having said that, the training in Korea is hardcore for hardcore students. It's very similar to football in America in that generally the only adults still playing are big time and their training is different from a guy playing in the park with his friends on Saturday.

I'd say training in just about everything in Korea is hardcore at a certain point. This is a country where high school students attend school from 8am to 10pm and may even spend their weekends in private academies studying more. There just isn't much time for hobbies here. Everything is super competitive and wasting time on hobbies is frowned upon.

Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk 2

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I honestly don't think it's all about increasing profits. It's easy to think that way from an American point of view. In Korea, people tend to only do things recreationally to a certain point. After that point, it's your life. Students find out at a relatively young age if they have the potential to be a "player" on the big stage. If they don't have that potential, they tend to gravitate to more "important" things.

So having said that, the training in Korea is hardcore for hardcore students. It's very similar to football in America in that generally the only adults still playing are big time and their training is different from a guy playing in the park with his friends on Saturday.

I'd say training in just about everything in Korea is hardcore at a certain point. This is a country where high school students attend school from 8am to 10pm and may even spend their weekends in private academies studying more. There just isn't much time for hobbies here. Everything is super competitive and wasting time on hobbies is frowned upon.

Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk 2

Good post. I would suggest, in general, that this demonstrates a lack of depth in Korea in regards to the martial arts. It seems to be more of a game or hobby than an art. As you mentioned, if they don't have/show the potential to excell in the game they move on to more important things. This imho is the problem with viewing the arts through the prism of sport. And that apparently isn't enough to have a holding interest on the youth-to-adult population. If you excell at the game then its fine. If you don't excell at the game the evidence points to a drifting away in mass. And that's a shame.

In many martial arts, the sport version really doesn't have a lot of depth. Before anyone gets offended, let me explain what I mean. Sport versions of arts, by necessity, are block, punch, kick with a certain amount of memorization of forms and drills. Now if you're a gymnist and can excell and/or you're a tough competitor and can win and/or you can put a lot of flash in your form then you can win. Where does this leave everyone else? Obviously we're seeing them drift away to other pursuits. Basically I can see where a kid can get a BB in a year or less in some of these arts...they're just isn't a lot to the art in-and-of-itself. Then I look at older arts and/or Korean arts that don't focus on sport (at least not to the exclusion of all else). They have the same block, punch, kick, drills and kata...but there is something else. Something different. There is depth. In some schools, at least the ones in my experience, a single form could take a year or more to learn because of bunkai associated with it along with all the rabbit trails that it produces (in a positive sense). And these schools, again speaking only of my experience, don't rush rank or even make it a real issue.

I really think it boils down to the cash and that it has been detrimental to the KMA's as a whole. This isn't to demonize or poo-poo sport or to turn this into a sport-bashing thread. But I'm looking long term/big picture here for a moment. If something is important to a person, they will make time for it. KMA's in Korea (as just an example of the home country) doesn't seem to be important enough for some/many/most to continue for the long term. And perhaps, with what is offered, that is a justifiable postion for them to take. Since I'm rambling on, let me continue just a moment longer. What is better; learning 10 or 15 or 20 forms that are basically the same block, punch, kick movements rearranged into different patterns of longer length and maybe complexity? After all, a straight punch is a straight punch. How many forms do you need for that?

Or

Learning a small number of forms/kata where you really, really, REALLY have a full understanding? It isn't just block, punch and kick. I always use Uechi Kanbun Sensei as an example. It took him ten full years to learn three kata. But he was so powerful with those three forms, and had such an intimate understanding of them that 70+ years later people in and out of the art of Uechi Ryu talk about it. And that was passed down to his students as well.

O'well, like I said...I'm just rambling. No one take offense to anything I've touched on as I'm just thinking outloud. Maybe I just think the arts are meant for other things rather than just, "yeah I took that when I was a kid but then I went into soccer...".

 

[Jaeimseu]

Good post. I would suggest, in general, that this demonstrates a lack of depth in Korea in regards to the martial arts. It seems to be more of a game or hobby than an art. As you mentioned, if they don't have/show the potential to excell in the game they move on to more important things. This imho is the problem with viewing the arts through the prism of sport. And that apparently isn't enough to have a holding interest on the youth-to-adult population. If you excell at the game then its fine. If you don't excell at the game the evidence points to a drifting away in mass. And that's a shame.

In many martial arts, the sport version really doesn't have a lot of depth. Before anyone gets offended, let me explain what I mean. Sport versions of arts, by necessity, are block, punch, kick with a certain amount of memorization of forms and drills. Now if you're a gymnist and can excell and/or you're a tough competitor and can win and/or you can put a lot of flash in your form then you can win. Where does this leave everyone else? Obviously we're seeing them drift away to other pursuits. Basically I can see where a kid can get a BB in a year or less in some of these arts...they're just isn't a lot to the art in-and-of-itself. Then I look at older arts and/or Korean arts that don't focus on sport (at least not to the exclusion of all else). They have the same block, punch, kick, drills and kata...but there is something else. Something different. There is depth. In some schools, at least the ones in my experience, a single form could take a year or more to learn because of bunkai associated with it along with all the rabbit trails that it produces (in a positive sense). And these schools, again speaking only of my experience, don't rush rank or even make it a real issue.

I really think it boils down to the cash and that it has been detrimental to the KMA's as a whole. This isn't to demonize or poo-poo sport or to turn this into a sport-bashing thread. But I'm looking long term/big picture here for a moment. If something is important to a person, they will make time for it. KMA's in Korea (as just an example of the home country) doesn't seem to be important enough for some/many/most to continue for the long term. And perhaps, with what is offered, that is a justifiable postion for them to take. Since I'm rambling on, let me continue just a moment longer. What is better; learning 10 or 15 or 20 forms that are basically the same block, punch, kick movements rearranged into different patterns of longer length and maybe complexity? After all, a straight punch is a straight punch. How many forms do you need for that?

Or

Learning a small number of forms/kata where you really, really, REALLY have a full understanding? It isn't just block, punch and kick. I always use Uechi Kanbun Sensei as an example. It took him ten full years to learn three kata. But he was so powerful with those three forms, and had such an intimate understanding of them that 70+ years later people in and out of the art of Uechi Ryu talk about it. And that was passed down to his students as well.

O'well, like I said...I'm just rambling. No one take offense to anything I've touched on as I'm just thinking outloud. Maybe I just think the arts are meant for other things rather than just, "yeah I took that when I was a kid but then I went into soccer...".

I'm going to guess that most students of <insert martial art here> around the world don't study with a tremendous amount of depth. In my opinion, just as with any other area of study, the depth is there for those who want it, but for various reasons few people study any subject that deeply. I believe there is value in even a superficial study of MA. There is always something to be learned, and it's always possible to go deeper. Sport can be very shallow, yet also surprisingly complex, but the accessibility of sport allows for more people to participate. From a cynical point of view, yes this may mean more money, but it also means the opportunity to give the benefits provided by MA to a greater number of people.

Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk 2

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I believe there is value in even a superficial study of MA. There is always something to be learned, and it's always possible to go deeper. Sport can be very shallow, yet also surprisingly complex, but the accessibility of sport allows for more people to participate. From a cynical point of view, yes this may mean more money, but it also means the opportunity to give the benefits provided by MA to a greater number of people.

What value do you see coming from a superficial study of MA's? It would appear that this training methodology has very little holding power to keep people interested/motivated in the arts. And perhaps this is a self fullfilling prophesy or sorts. Provide a shallow, cookie-cutter art for mass consumption (coupled with easy, ready-made promotions when they're barely out of the first grade) and then wonder why so many leave the arts for some other pursuit. I don't think it is cynical to hold the opinion that its more about money than anything else. That is simply an honest assestment.

I think an honest discussion on the topic would include the aspect that the arts have been watered down to the point that a 9yr old can be a 3rd Dan. By watering down the arts in this way we can make it more accessible to the masses (read children which keep the schools open), charge ridiculous fees (read make a lot of money for the school and some organization so they can issue a piece of paper that cost them a dollar to print), make them feel good with lots of promotions every couple of months (read keeps them happy and coming back) and keep the parents pumped up (and paying) because now little johnny is a martial arts master while in middle school. And we see what holding power it has as the vast majority go on to something else. But that's okay as there is another crop of kids right behind them that just shed their diapers and are ready to strap on the black belt.

I guess I'm getting to old to be politically correct. Its a racket. And when it becomes a racket it is no longer a martial art.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I think this tends to be an uncomfortable area that many wish to avoid discussing. To begin with, there really should be no mystique about being a black belt other than an acknowledgement of the hard work that should be required to obtain one. It should of course not be viewed as an automatic ninja-killer belt.

I agree, but with the caveat that in prior discussions on the subject, and likely in subsequent discussions on the subject, for most people who oppose child black belts and who dislike black belts who don't look as skilled/polished/intense as they think they should look, hard work is not enough. Time in grade, sport vs. non-sport, and a number of other issues are consistently brought up in addition to the student's hard work. T

hen you have the issue that "hard work" is sujective. A very athletic person who intuitively picks things up can sometimes take a class and pick up literally everything the first time and do it very well pretty much right away. In the same class, you may have a very unathletic person who has to work four times harder than the average student just to do a decent front kick. One works hard but never looks particularly graceful or polished after two to four years, the other looks like an ildan at white belt and cruises through the class.

Not coincidentally, when his ildan test goes up on youtube, all of those who oppose kiddie belts or who want a black belt to reflect a higher standard point to that video as being what the black belt should look like, while the unathletic student's video is held up as crap, even though he may have worked ten to twenty times harder than his counterpart and probably only put up his video to share it with friends but didn't think to change his privacy settings.

Then you have varying degrees of natural ability and work between the two, the middle area being where most fall.

Secondly, in Korea it has been generally acknowledged on this board and others, by those living/training in Korea that the martial arts (in general) is for children. Adults for the most part don't have the time or enthusiasm for the martial arts outside of G.I.'s and the like. Again, this is a general statement, from those living/training in Korea. So most of these BB's walking around in Korea obtained them as a child but probably haven't done much/anything with it after becoming an adult. And in general, again according to many of those living/training in Korea who have been forthright enough to speak frankly, often times the level of training in Korea isn't up to snuff.

Up to snuff is relative. I'm sure that it is more than adequate for kids and teens in grade school or high school, or for adults who train for lifestyle and fitness. People who want to take it further and either compete at a higher level, be a hard core self defense guy, or perhaps get into cinematic martial arts in movies or theatre train in more intense programs aimed at what they're interested in doing. The same is probably true of many studios in the US. I'm sure that Stephen Lopez preparation for his next grade looks very, very different from that of the average student of the same level at even a very good school.

The romantic notion that Korean training MUST be superior/hard core/mystical is often simply wishful thinking. Members have posted videos here of Korean children and their demonstrations/training methods and (in general) it hasn't really been impressive. This isn't to put down Koreans or their training methods, that isn't my point. I'm sure there are schools of exceptional caliber just as in most countries.

I suspect that that comes from the image of training in Japan, which based on what I have heard, is generally a step above training in JMA outside of Japan.

My point is that the Dan ranks, in many Korean arts, have been watered down to generate a higher profit margin. The bottom line is just that, the bottom line.

While I think that that varies more from school to school and area to area, my general rule of thumb is that 80% (hyperbolic) of everything is lousy filler. Go into a book store and you will find a small number of good authors amidst a sea of literary drivel. Go into a record/cd store and you will find a small number of fine musicians (all styles) amidst a sea of corporate product and just plain junk.

The smaller the total number of anything is, the greater the general quality. Once the field widens, there is more room for lesser players in the field. Martial arts is no exception. Of course with more room for lesser players also comes a larger talent pool, so you have to take the good with the bad.

Looking at the KKW as a prime example, according to their own stats the VAST majority of KKW BB's are Koreans.

I'm not saying that you're mistaken, but could you cite the source?

These Koreans earned a BB in a year or less as a child. The quality of these BB's has been brought into question many times. So really, I can fully see/understand why it there is no mystique about all the BB's running around in Korea. For the most part, I would suggest that the standards are woefully sub-par (in general and recognizing that there are always exceptions) and the Dan ranks are watered down intentionally for material gain.

I won't comment on the motivations, nor on whether the standards are "woefully sub-par," but you could easily say the same thing about the US. Lots of people go in, but lots of people drop off.

In the end, if you lower the standards, lower the TIG, water down the training and sell out to commercialism you'd expect BB's to be coming out of the wood work. That shouldn't be looked upon as a good thing or a selling point for any particular art.

Personally, I see many of these things as being interconnected, but not necesarilly all at the same time.

Some schools lower the standards because they're lousy schools. Some schools maintain high standards but lower time in grade to BB in order to weed out those who just want to chase belts.

I see watering down (the addition of material to the art's curriculum) as a combination of commercialism (we offer more, come train with us, we offer more, so pay more money) and the mistaken idea that more material is qualitatively better than less. More can be good, but you cross a line where you get diminishing returns, and if you add too much, you cross a line where students are just spinning their wheels.

Having said all that, in the US (I won't comment on other countries), commercialism is the biggest enemy of quality martial arts, or quality anything else for that matter (look at the music industry).

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Double post. Sorry.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

What value do you see coming from a superficial study of MA's?

Mostly lifestyle/fitness value, which is why many people take up the martial arts in the first place. Even kids programs that focus on self esteem and such fall into the lifestyle/fitness category, albeit on a child's level.

As for why "so many leave the arts for some other pursuit," I don't think that shallow, cookie cutter art for mass consumption is the reason. I'd wager that the majority of people who started in the seventies left prior to or shortly after earning their black belt. I know a lot of people my age who started in the seventies and stopped sometime after green belt. People try things and find that it isn't for them and move on. Many people leave because regardless of the program, it is a lot of physical work. Others have a personal goal of "get a black belt in karate" and once they check it off of the bucket list, they move on.

I would venture that the percentage of lifers in the martial arts hasn't actually changed much over the past forty years. There simply aren't that many people who have the passion for an MA. Usually, they practice the MA for some personal goal, be it fitness, confidence, self defense, getting a black belt, or even just for the sake of checking it out. Once they've achieved their goal (I lost 20 pounds/I feel more confident/I can fight/I got my black belt/hey, I tried it), they move on. Some come back later in life. Some do not, but their kids get into it with their encouragement. Some never have an encounter with the martial arts again for the rest of their life.

The big question is what they took away from the experience. A great school that doesn't sell out and maintains high standards will always have more drop out than stay in. Those who leave such a school and don't continue to train often say that the experience profoundly impacted them and greatly influenced them to be better people.

If all students take away from a school is a piece of fabric and a certificate, it likely isn't worth attending. And unfortunately, many (not all) commercial schools fall into that category.

 

[WaterGal]

I suspect that that comes from the image of training in Japan, which based on what I have heard, is generally a step above training in JMA outside of Japan.

I think some of it may also be from the way (some) Korean masters talk about old Korean training. I don't know if you've read any of Marc Tadesci's "Hapkido" book, but it's got a bunch of interviews with old Korean grandmasters, and practically all of them complain about how lazy American students are and how when they were a kid they trained for 5 hours every single day on the mountain outside in the snow barefoot etc etc.