How much of what is taught is on the belt test

[skribs]

For those that attend/run a school with belt tests, how much of what is taught in class falls into each of these three categories:

1. Directly on the test, either through rote memorization (i.e. forms, memorized 1-steps) or through similar methods (i.e. sparring).
2. Supports testing items, such as kicking drills to prepare for sparring.
3. Is not on the test, for example if you learn grappling skills as self-defense, but those skills are not tested. These things improve your martial arts skills, but don't necessarily support the test.

In the schools I've been a part of, it's heavily skewed towards 1 and 2, with there being a large amount of items on the test, and the vast majority of class time is devoted to that. I'm wondering how normal it is to do something different.

 

[Holmejr]

I’d say 1 & 2. Everything we learned was open for testing. Techniques were called out randomly by name. Counters were based on whatever was given to us. Tapi tapi, our form of sparring, was judged by simply being able to pull of techniques before being countered or even recognized.

 

[Hot Lunch]

My last school was like #1, and that was one of my many complaints about it. The list of belt testing requirements was unusually long compared to that of most other schools. As a result, this should have left very little room for training outside of the testing requirements, but... they manage to squeeze non-testable training in at the expense of students not getting what they need for the test. If I showed up to class, and some of the specific things I needed for the upcoming test wasn't covered that day, I went home pissed. And I had more of those days than not.

A school that engenders the mindset of "I'm here because I need this specific thing for the test" (especially when there's a probability that they may not get it that day) in its students just isn't for me.

I'm fine with the testing exclusively being on the "Three K's" and nothing else. It leaves more room for other training during class where we can work on proficiency rather than rote memorization.

 

[skribs]

I'm fine with the testing exclusively being on the "Three K's" and nothing else. It leaves more room for other training during class where we can work on proficiency rather than rote memorization.

What are the "Three K's"? Can you elaborate more on what that means for testing and what's not tested?

My last school was like #1, and that was one of my many complaints about it. The list of belt testing requirements was unusually long compared to that of most other schools. As a result, this should have left very little room for training outside of the testing requirements, but... they manage to squeeze non-testable training in at the expense of students not getting what they need for the test. If I showed up to class, and some of the specific things I needed for the upcoming test wasn't covered that day, I went home pissed. And I had more of those days than not.

A school that engenders the mindset of "I'm here because I need this specific thing for the test" (especially when there's a probability that they may not get it that day) in its students just isn't for me.

I had the same feeling in the school I was at. I definitely see the pros and cons of it. It creates an easy-to-define standard that everyone must meet, both in terms of what instructors teach and what students learn. But it also makes it very difficult to bring in outside instructors, as I've found being the outsider coming in.

I also think it limits your school to whatever the Master knew when they created the curriculum. It's a time capsule of their knowledge.

 

[skribs]

I’d say 1 & 2. Everything we learned was open for testing. Techniques were called out randomly by name. Counters were based on whatever was given to us. Tapi tapi, our form of sparring, was judged by simply being able to pull of techniques before being countered or even recognized.

Can you elaborate more on what Tapi tapi is?

I've found that trying to standardize names for techniques is very difficult, and starts to become a vocabulary lesson more than a training lesson. I tried an approach of this when I had my inexperienced friend help me beta test curriculum ideas. For example the difference between a skip kick and a slide kick. Where he could do either fine, it was tough to respond to the specific command under the pressure of a test environment, even when it was just me and him in my living room.

If I have instructors coming in from outside, they may also mix up their vocab with mine. Sort of a curriculum version of Spanglish.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

What are the "Three K's"?

I’m guessing maybe Kata, Kihon, and Kumite?

 

[Prince_Alarming]

Mostly 1 and 2, with a sprinkling of 3. I'm fine with that, but if I ever get my black belt I'm gonna take up a grappling art- ideally, start doing judo again- as well if I can because I'm naturally talented at it in a way I'm not really at striking, and it's a great deal of fun. A lot of it is stuff you're expected to do at home, like technical exercises to improve your kihon and it can't really be any other way given the amount of time we have. I wouldn't want to spend massive amounts of time doing stuff that I can get done just as well at home anyway.

 

[Hot Lunch]

What are the "Three K's"? Can you elaborate more on what that means for testing and what's not tested?

Kata, kihon, kumite

Of the three, kata is the one that requires rote memorization.

If you data dumped everything at the end of class with the exception of the kata, you'll be told what you need to do for the kihon portion of the test.

Afterall, what you memorized is not what's being evaluated for kihon and kumite. You proficiency in executing techniques is evaluated in kihon (in kata and kumite too, but it's the sole focus in kihon), and your problem-solving skills is what's being evaluated in kumite.

 

[skribs]

Kata, kihon, kumite

Of the three, kata is the one that requires rote memorization.

If you data dumped everything at the end of class with the exception of the kata, you'll be told what you need to do for the kihon portion of the test.

Afterall, what you memorized is not what's being evaluated for kihon and kumite. You proficiency in executing techniques is evaluated in kihon (in kata and kumite too, but it's the sole focus in kihon), and your problem-solving skills is what's being evaluated in kumite.

Are the kihon taken from the kata? I know for some techniques there's variation (or how I mentioned above - different people know things by different names). How do you eliminate any such confusion during testing?

 

[isshinryuronin]

Are the kihon taken from the kata?

What I like about martialtalk is questions come up that I have never really thought about or just took for granted and make me dig a little deeper into my own understanding.

To answer your seemingly simple question, for the most part (depending on the style), no. At least for the older TMA kata since they predate the kihon as commonly practiced in class. Much of these kata involve techniques associated with grappling. Thru the development of modern karate, a lot of this aspect was lost and the importance of drilling blocks, kicks and punches grew. So, there are a lot of kata technique not found in kihon, nor in kumite. It's true many kata technique cannot be used in sparring, but many can. We just don't think of kata this way.

I would like to see this changed with more emphasis put on kata bunkai and adding more kata technique into drilled kihon. I'd really like to see a movement to (re)integrate the three K's into one unified view of karate. IMO, it's OK to practice technique using the three K format as each K will emphasize the techniques in a different way. But the three K's should not be seen as separate things, but rather 3 aspects of the same thing. I think this will bring us closer to the way karate was originally practiced.

 

[Simfers]

Numbers 1 and 2 for my former schools. Unknown for my current one, since I have yet to test, but I don't think there's gonna be a lot of butterfly/DLR guard techniques required for a blue belt test, so maybe a sprinkling of 3 as well? But I don't know.

I always assume I could get tested on everything that's taught.

 

[skribs]

Numbers 1 and 2 for my former schools. Unknown for my current one, since I have yet to test, but I don't think there's gonna be a lot of butterfly/DLR guard techniques required for a blue belt test, so maybe a sprinkling of 3 as well? But I don't know.

I always assume I could get tested on everything that's taught.

Is it a BJJ school that tests or is it something like a TKD school with some jiu-jitsu mixed in?

I'm planning on opening the later in the intermediate future, and this thread is a consideration point for how I want to run tests. I have a curriculum based heavily on the way my old TKD Master did things, which is very useful at teaching the tests, but as with @Hot Lunch above, it does start to feel a bit like a test factory after a while. (I am splitting hairs when I call it this than a "belt factory", because the focus is on getting folks ready for testing, rather than speedrunning the belts).

I'm also considering how I want to handle stripes, because I feel stripes are a useful tool, but I don't want to have a "stripe factory" either.

What I like about martialtalk is questions come up that I have never really thought about or just took for granted and make me dig a little deeper into my own understanding.

To answer your seemingly simple question, for the most part (depending on the style), no. At least for the older TMA kata since they predate the kihon as commonly practiced in class. Much of these kata involve techniques associated with grappling. Thru the development of modern karate, a lot of this aspect was lost and the importance of drilling blocks, kicks and punches grew. So, there are a lot of kata technique not found in kihon, nor in kumite. It's true many kata technique cannot be used in sparring, but many can. We just don't think of kata this way.

I would like to see this changed with more emphasis put on kata bunkai and adding more kata technique into drilled kihon. I'd really like to see a movement to (re)integrate the three K's into one unified view of karate. IMO, it's OK to practice technique using the three K format as each K will emphasize the techniques in a different way. But the three K's should not be seen as separate things, but rather 3 aspects of the same thing. I think this will bring us closer to the way karate was originally practiced.

Sounds like your complaints about Karate are similar to ones I've had about Taekwondo. I could tell people that the sparring, forms, and self-defense came from 3 different arts and they'd probably believe me, because there's not much connecting them together.

As alluded above, I'm planning on having a much more open curriculum, which makes it difficult to define what should be on the test. I think I've figured it out, though. Loosely defined tests means I can put in items that must be problem-solved based on the skills that have been learned. That would be a far better test of what I want to teach, anyway.

 

[skribs]

What I like about martialtalk is questions come up that I have never really thought about or just took for granted and make me dig a little deeper into my own understanding.

I know a lot of folks learn when people ask questions they've never asked themselves, even if they already know the answer, they learn it and learn that they know it.

 

[isshinryuronin]

For those that attend/run a school with belt tests, how much of what is taught in class falls into each of these three categories:

1. Directly on the test, either through rote memorization (i.e. forms, memorized 1-steps) or through similar methods (i.e. sparring).
2. Supports testing items, such as kicking drills to prepare for sparring.
3. Is not on the test, for example if you learn grappling skills as self-defense, but those skills are not tested. These things improve your martial arts skills, but don't necessarily support the test.

If it's important enough to be taught in class, it's important enough to be on a test. That's what my common sense tells me.

When I took my brown and black belt tests there were random combos of basics to do (some solo, some against an attacker), some we had done in class at some time or another, some not. For example: "Step back, open hand high block, grab, side kick front foot and then reverse punch." Maybe we had done that exact combo before, maybe not. Either way, we were expected to be able to do it. Some parts were open to our discretion: "Defend against a shoulder grab with a takedown." How we accomplished this was up to us.

IMO, beginner tests should be like "true/false" tests in difficulty. Intermediate tests add "multiple choice." Advanced tests more like short essay with independent, creative thinking and action involved.

 

[skribs]

When I took my brown and black belt tests there were random combos of basics to do (some solo, some against an attacker), some we had done in class at some time or another, some not. For example: "Step back, open hand high block, grab, side kick front foot and then reverse punch." Maybe we had done that exact combo before, maybe not. Either way, we were expected to be able to do it. Some parts were open to our discretion: "Defend against a shoulder grab with a takedown." How we accomplished this was up to us.

Do you have to do the combo as described, or is it more a guideline?

• The combo as-described is different if you step back with the left or right leg, which isn't specified.
• The combo might be different depending on what stance you step back into, for example you may need to do a skip side kick if your back leg is too far, or kick the knee instead of the body if you're too close.
• Do you hold the wrist the entire time or just through the side kick?
• What if you step out to the side instead of stepping back? You can still block-grab-kick-punch with that setup.
• What if you do a different block (everything else same) or a roundhouse kick instead of a side kick?

The combo as described also is about half of what I'm used to, because usually in the TKD drills that punch is used to position your hands to set up an armlock, take-down, and finishing strike. That starts to make the sequence more complex.

If it's important enough to be taught in class, it's important enough to be on a test. That's what my common sense tells me.

The problem I'm having with that is: if it's something that proves difficult to appropriately test, does it then not get taught?

 

[isshinryuronin]

Do you have to do the combo as described, or is it more a guideline?

• The combo as-described is different if you step back with the left or right leg, which isn't specified.
• The combo might be different depending on what stance you step back into, for example you may need to do a skip side kick if your back leg is too far, or kick the knee instead of the body if you're too close.
• Do you hold the wrist the entire time or just through the side kick?
• What if you step out to the side instead of stepping back? You can still block-grab-kick-punch with that setup.
• What if you do a different block (everything else same) or a roundhouse kick instead of a side kick?

The combo as described also is about half of what I'm used to, because usually in the TKD drills that punch is used to position your hands to set up an armlock, take-down, and finishing strike. That starts to make the sequence more complex.


The problem I'm having with that is: if it's something that proves difficult to appropriately test, does it then not get taught?

Some combos were specified which foot steps and how, and the specific techniques to use, other times it was up to us how to defend/counter the attack, including stepping method/direction.

If you are defending a punch, there should be no need to skip or step in to kick. If so, you moved too far away during the block. And as for grabbing the wrist, it's good to hold on to it as long possible to maintain control. I would let go if I needed my hand for a finishing strike or to use it to change to a different type of control or if my other hand took over control.

 

[Badhabits]

All three where I attend. We do learn grappling in both sporting and self defense contexts but it's not included in testing. One steps, self defense and such, we're taught material that is tested. But you're allowed to deviate from that as long as what you do works. Overall we do quite a bit that isn't included in testing. As far as fighting combos during testing he'll mix it up between what we're required to memorize and letting us do our own thing. The stuff we have to memorize, he'll call out the moves super fast on purpose. If you can't do the combos as a reflex you can't keep up with him calling them out. No thought allowed.

 

[Simfers]

Is it a BJJ school that tests or is it something like a TKD school with some jiu-jitsu mixed in?

I'm planning on opening the later in the intermediate future, and this thread is a consideration point for how I want to run tests. I have a curriculum based heavily on the way my old TKD Master did things, which is very useful at teaching the tests, but as with @Hot Lunch above, it does start to feel a bit like a test factory after a while. (I am splitting hairs when I call it this than a "belt factory", because the focus is on getting folks ready for testing, rather than speedrunning the belts).

I'm also considering how I want to handle stripes, because I feel stripes are a useful tool, but I don't want to have a "stripe factory" either.

It's a BJJ school under Alliance (at least the professor, Danny Fung, got his black belt from Alliance, I don't know if they're still affiliated though). I'm pretty sure they have a certain set of techniques they require for the various belts (I think I overheard someone saying they have 12 techniques that are required for blue belt). As for stripes, they seem to be given out as the professor feels the student is ready, but they have a minimum time-in requirement.

I seem very unsure because I never really asked. This is my fourth martial art and I decided a long time ago to stop worrying about belts and enjoy the ride. I cared a lot more when I was doing Can-Ryu JJ, since the classes were gated behind belt levels, so if I wanted to learn more stuff, I needed to rank up. That's the the case here, everybody's welcome even in the advanced classes. So I can relax more.

Sorry, i don't think I'm being very helpful.

 

[MadMartigan]

I think we do a combo of 1, 2, & 3.
For our color belt tests, there are 3 sections:
Fundamental Movement, Patterns, & Sparring.
The Fundamental Movement portion is made up of preset moves or combos. The students don't have to memorize them... except to know what combo is being called out (i.e. front leg jumping front snap kick, double punch).

We keep the portion to be tested focused, then work on lots of skill building drills and self defense principles that are not part of the tests.

 

[HighKick]

For those that attend/run a school with belt tests, how much of what is taught in class falls into each of these three categories:

1. Directly on the test, either through rote memorization (i.e. forms, memorized 1-steps) or through similar methods (i.e. sparring).
2. Supports testing items, such as kicking drills to prepare for sparring.
3. Is not on the test, for example if you learn grappling skills as self-defense, but those skills are not tested. These things improve your martial arts skills, but don't necessarily support the test.

In the schools I've been a part of, it's heavily skewed towards 1 and 2, with there being a large amount of items on the test, and the vast majority of class time is devoted to that. I'm wondering how normal it is to do something different.

It varies person-to-person somewhat, but approx. 75/25.