How the Japanese view of the black belt

[HighKick1]

When I was planning to go and train under a couple of 8th Dan in Japan, my teacher said, “ Let’s get you your 5th Dan so you’ll be taken seriously”.

What rank are you now? How long ago was your last testing?

 

[Gerry Seymour10]

Well that just wasn't my experience when I was training under a sensei who was from Japan. You would think that somebody from Japan would run a dojo the Japanese way.

I don't think we can judge the Japanese mind based on a few (or one) instructors. I've had a number of instructors - mostly Americans - and there are a lot of things they did differently from each other. I couldn't begin to construct an "American" way of things from what they did. I certainly wouldn't judge French instructors, overall, from my experience with my Judo instructor.

 

[PhotonGuy4]

I don't think that's even possible. Imagine going to Japan to teach something, and trying to run your class the American way.

Well at the very least you would have to speak the language. Japanese senseis who teach in the USA have to learn English so if you were to teach something in Japan you would have to learn Japanese, but that's not to say you wouldn't teach under the same philosophy that you would in the USA.

I do know there's baseball coaches from the USA that coach in Japan, it would be interesting to see how they do it and how much they do it the American way as opposed to the Japanese way.

 

[Steve]

I don't think that's even possible. Imagine going to Japan to teach something, and trying to run your class the American way.

If I’m missing something, please let me know. I’m dipping in and out of this thread.

But I don’t get it. Why wouldn’t you teach something how you like? Whether that is “the American way” or some other way? I admit, I’m not sure what “American Way” actually means, but why not?

 

[Hyoho1]

So as I said before about how in Japan they view the rank of Shodan, first degree black belt as just another rank, Im not saying that's how I view it or that that's how its viewed in places other than Japan, its just that to the best of my knowledge that's how its viewed in Japan. I say to the best of my knowledge as I could be wrong.

As I already said from a Japanese view and how I was a graded around 15 times in various arts. Its not just another rank. Its a beginners rank. Rank starts at Shodan. You start another art you work your way up from Shodan. Many arts don't wear a belt. but in any case its called "obi" or sash. Rank is generally awarded by "associations". The system in recognised by Monbusho (Japanese Education Authority) No mistake there as Kano Jigoro worked for them and devised it. You can change it all you want in other countries. But Japan's policy on most things is, If it works don't change it.

 

[Hyoho1]

I don't think that's even possible. Imagine going to Japan to teach something, and trying to run your class the American way.

Well they are not adverse to foreigners teaching but that's not going to happen unless you have degree in education.

 

[Hot Lunch]

If I’m missing something, please let me know. I’m dipping in and out of this thread.

But I don’t get it. Why wouldn’t you teach something how you like? Whether that is “the American way” or some other way? I admit, I’m not sure what “American Way” actually means, but why not?

PhotonGuy is speaking of his expectation of Japanese instructors in the US teaching things the Japanese way. Frankly, I don't know what THAT is.

But the underlying implication here is that the Japanese instructors are expecting students in other countries to conform to the Japanese ways of doing things (whatever they maybe).

I'm simply expressing doubts on this. Because if the roles are reversed (i.e., I'm teaching something in a foreign country), I'd be expecting to "do as the Romans do."

 

[HighKick1]

I don't think we can judge the Japanese mind based on a few (or one) instructors. I've had a number of instructors - mostly Americans - and there are a lot of things they did differently from each other. I couldn't begin to construct an "American" way of things from what they did. I certainly wouldn't judge French instructors, overall, from my experience with my Judo instructor.

Agree. It is the classical origin story mentality.
When anything is passed down from father to son over and over and over, things will be changed. Because most of the base martial arts began in Eastern countries, we tend to think anything or anybody coming from that region is a 'purer' version of the original. And at one point in time, that had to be true. But I think we are long past that.

 

[Gerry Seymour10]

If I’m missing something, please let me know. I’m dipping in and out of this thread.

But I don’t get it. Why wouldn’t you teach something how you like? Whether that is “the American way” or some other way? I admit, I’m not sure what “American Way” actually means, but why not?

I think he's talking about ignoring the culture, norms, and expectations of those you're going to train. And I do think you can get away with that (even thrive because of it) if the culture you're importing is seen as desirable. So if you took American norms to a group that favored westernization in Japan, even as a fad, they'd likely eat it up. If you took it to a group that was more conservative and traditional, they'd balk at it (and learn less, probably leave much sooner).

 

[Gerry Seymour10]

You start another art you work your way up from Shodan.

Does that mean someone with shodan ranking starts a new art at that rank?

 

[Gerry Seymour10]

PhotonGuy is speaking of his expectation of Japanese instructors in the US teaching things the Japanese way. Frankly, I don't know what THAT is.

But the underlying implication here is that the Japanese instructors are expecting students in other countries to conform to the Japanese ways of doing things (whatever they maybe).

I'm simply expressing doubts on this. Because if the roles are reversed (i.e., I'm teaching something in a foreign country), I'd be expecting to "do as the Romans do."

I suspect there's some of both in most cases. If I go to a new country to teach my MA system, I'm going to take my system with me. I might make some changes to my approach if I know something isn't going to work well, but most likely I'll bring mostly exactly what I already do, then adjust over time if I find out something doesn't work in that culture. And if there are enough folks who like the approach I bring - they may see it as novel and interesting - then I may not need to make any changes other than language (assuming there aren't enough English speakers there).

Unless someone is already an expert in the culture they're moving to, I don't know how they'd be able to adjust in advance.

 

[Gerry Seymour10]

Agree. It is the classical origin story mentality.
When anything is passed down from father to son over and over and over, things will be changed. Because most of the base martial arts began in Eastern countries, we tend to think anything or anybody coming from that region is a 'purer' version of the original. And at one point in time, that had to be true. But I think we are long past that.

I also think there's a bias (especially in the more traditional arts - and I'm not talking about ryuha-traditional) toward "what was, was better than what is". This assumes the founders (or someone else in the past) hit some level of perfection, so things shouldn't be changed. I think that's dangerous for two reasons.

Firstly, as you pointed out, there's always change. I'll never be able to exactly replicate what my instructors in NGA tried to pass along to me. Communication and learning are both imperfect. So if I try not to change it, all the change I bring is my misunderstandings and imperfections. Those are unlikely to produce a net improvement. If I do my best to improve where I can, then my imperfections may be offset - or even overweighted - by what I bring to the art.

Secondly, we learn. Things should change. Whatever point in time we select as what "should be", it's almost certain the instructor/founder/grand poobah we refer to wasn't done changing things. I believe we should not attempt to replicate what they produced, but the approach they took to producing it. This is one of the things I feel like BJJ got very right. They didn't copy what the early developers did, then enshrine that. They more took the approach the early developers used, and made that the foundation of the art.

 

[Steve]

I think he's talking about ignoring the culture, norms, and expectations of those you're going to train. And I do think you can get away with that (even thrive because of it) if the culture you're importing is seen as desirable. So if you took American norms to a group that favored westernization in Japan, even as a fad, they'd likely eat it up. If you took it to a group that was more conservative and traditional, they'd balk at it (and learn less, probably leave much sooner).

Exactly. I get @PhotonGuy’s point and he isn’t completely wrong. If anything, I think the only problem with his point is that it’s too absolute. Sometimes, subverting cultural expectations and capitalizing on differences can be very successful. And sometimes, not.

The most successful people will be willing to evolve or willing to moderate their own expectations.

Another point that I think is valid is the idea that we teach how we were taught. Not just the techniques, but the methods. And they have a flavor. Look at any of @Bill Mattocks’ recent threads. He loves the method, and more power to him. But the point is, why wouldn’t we expect someone from Japan to come to America and teach how he was taught? Doesn’t mean he won’t evolve. But there will always be that core. And conversely, an American going to Japan will teach how they were taught.

 

[Gerry Seymour10]

Exactly. I get @PhotonGuy’s point and he isn’t completely wrong. If anything, I think the only problem with his point is that it’s too absolute. Sometimes, subverting cultural expectations and capitalizing on differences can be very successful. And sometimes, not.

The most successful people will be willing to evolve or willing to moderate their own expectations.

Another point that I think is valid is the idea that we teach how we were taught. Not just the techniques, but the methods. And they have a flavor. Look at any of @Bill Mattocks’ recent threads. He loves the method, and more power to him. But the point is, why wouldn’t we expect someone from Japan to come to America and teach how he was taught? Doesn’t mean he won’t evolve. But there will always be that core. And conversely, an American going to Japan will teach how they were taught.

Yep. I think we're on the same page on this.

 

[PhotonGuy4]

As I already said from a Japanese view and how I was a graded around 15 times in various arts. Its not just another rank. Its a beginners rank. Rank starts at Shodan.

So in Japan they don't have any ranks that come before Shodan? They don't have the Kyu ranks and the rainbow of belt colors that you see so much of in American dojos that come before the black belt? In Japan you just start with a black belt on day one? That's what it sounds like when you say rank starts at Shodan.

You start another art you work your way up from Shodan. Many arts don't wear a belt. but in any case it's called "obi" or sash. Rank is generally awarded by "associations". The system in recognised by Monbusho (Japanese Education Authority) No mistake there as Kano Jigoro worked for them and devised it. You can change it all you want in other countries. But Japan's policy on most things is, If it works don't change it.

Yes I know what we call a belt in the USA is called an obi in Japan and obi or sash would perhaps be a more accurate term as its used to hold the jacket closed, not to hold your pants up. Nonetheless it's usually called a belt in the USA and the terminology has stuck, the same way a tomato is often called a vegetable even though it's technically a fruit. And yes there are some arts that, depending on the uniform, don't wear a belt or sash at all although Im not sure just how common such arts are in Japan.

 

[HighKick1]

I also think there's a bias (especially in the more traditional arts - and I'm not talking about ryuha-traditional) toward "what was, was better than what is". This assumes the founders (or someone else in the past) hit some level of perfection, so things shouldn't be changed. I think that's dangerous for two reasons.

Firstly, as you pointed out, there's always change. I'll never be able to exactly replicate what my instructors in NGA tried to pass along to me. Communication and learning are both imperfect. So if I try not to change it, all the change I bring is my misunderstandings and imperfections. Those are unlikely to produce a net improvement. If I do my best to improve where I can, then my imperfections may be offset - or even overweighted - by what I bring to the art.

Secondly, we learn. Things should change. Whatever point in time we select as what "should be", it's almost certain the instructor/founder/grand poobah we refer to wasn't done changing things. I believe we should not attempt to replicate what they produced, but the approach they took to producing it. This is one of the things I feel like BJJ got very right. They didn't copy what the early developers did, then enshrine that. They more took the approach the early developers used, and made that the foundation of the art.

And just like the original Grand Poobah's were reacting to and making their style to combat the issues of Their time, it is logical for people of today to do the same.
Bruce Lee comes to mind here. No, I don't think he was exceptional specifically in A martial art, or even as a fighter at all, but he was great at melding the temporal things he had learned into his own style.

 

[Hyoho1]

Does that mean someone with shodan ranking starts a new art at that rank?

What I meant was you don't really get started until you are qualified beginner.

 

[Hyoho1]

So in Japan they don't have any ranks that come before Shodan? They don't have the Kyu ranks and the rainbow of belt colors that you see so much of in American dojos that come before the black belt? In Japan you just start with a black belt on day one? That's what it sounds like when you say rank starts at Shodan.

What I meant was you don't really have foot on the ladder (degree) until you become a qualified beginner. As I mentioned before it's mostly kids. I was teaching junior high schoolers that were already shodan.

 

[Gerry Seymour10]

What I meant was you don't really get started until you are qualified beginner.

Thanks for the clarification - that makes more sense. More an attitudnal beginning, then?

 

[Hyoho1]

What rank are you now? How long ago was your last testing?

My old mentor and relative Fujii Okimitsu told me it felt so wasted studying under Oasa Yuji Judan. Just too young to understand the finer points of lessons.