Promotion stanrdards (Split from Is it disrespectful to ask [...])

[Axiom]

Rebreakables are cheaper (in the long term), more environmentally supportable, and more consistent break to break than wood. If breaking is a part of a test, there's no reason not to use them.

If those are as hard as wood I must have some freaky knuckles, because smashing them did not feel like anything approximating wood, and I tried the hardest variant.

 

[TrueJim]

The first ITF World Championship was held in 1974. There were National Championships prior to that under different names.

As soon as any activity starts to conduct tournaments, that thing becomes a sport. In the 1960s the tournaments had rules, athletes, coaches, and spectators. Hence: sport.

I'm not sure what you mean by referencing the 1974 date of the ITF World Championship. Are you saying that something doesn't become a sport until it has its first world championship?

 

[Dirty Dog]

If those are as hard as wood I must have some freaky knuckles, because smashing them did not feel like anything approximating wood, and I tried the hardest variant.

A - You don't have enough credibility to convince me that you're a reliable judge.
B - There are lots of different brands of rebreakables. Not knowing what you used, I have no opinion on the accuracy of their engineering.
C - I doubt it's your knuckles that are freaky.

 

[Axiom]

Of course, one shouldn't judge all grandmasters and presidents of federerations based on one guy. Let's hear from Grandmasters Gardner and Rhee Hi Ka:

- How long would it take to get a black belt in TKD? - Gardner: Approximately 3 years, of hard training.

He also adds that: you'd have to want it really bad. Excellent criteria for judging TKD proficiency!

We have 5 years of hard training and people were outcrying. Somehow I don't think switching schools would make any difference. My school looks hard-core in comparison.

 

[JR 137]

Of course, one shouldn't judge all grandmasters and presidents of federerations based on one guy. Let's hear from Grandmasters Gardner and Rhee Hi Ka:

- How long would it take to get a black belt in TKD? - Gardner: Approximately 3 years, of hard training.

He also adds that: you'd have to want it really bad. Excellent criteria for judging TKD proficiency!

We have 5 years of hard training and people were outcrying. Somehow I don't think switching schools would make any difference. My school looks hard-core in comparison.

So you think a fluff piece on a morning talk show shows anything significant?

 

[Axiom]

So you think a fluff piece on a morning talk show shows anything significant?

No, I was referring to their time required to get a black belt.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No, I was referring to their time required to get a black belt.

Minimum time to get a black belt (which sounds like they are saying the minimum possible) isn't much of a measure of anything.

 

[Axiom]

Minimum time to get a black belt (which sounds like they are saying the minimum possible) isn't much of a measure of anything.

They did not say minimum. It takes approximately 3 years of consistent training, which frankly is on the higher end of TKD schools of today. Many award it with in 1 and a half and 2 years

 

[marques]

Some websites say you can get your black belt within 3 years, providing you attend 80% of the classes. Weather it is true or not, it sound bad. For the sellers and for the buyers. It looks like the eventual skill is a side effect of getting a black cotton belt.

 

[marques]

They did not say minimum. It takes approximately 3 years of consistent training, which frankly is on the higher end of TKD schools of today. Many award it with in 1 and a half and 2 years

I hope you're wrong. I met a guy that got his black belt in 3 years, but he was training 5 times a week. It seems reasonable to me. But less than 3 years...

 

[Axiom]

I hope you're wrong. I met a guy that got his black belt in 3 years, but he was training 5 times a week. It seems reasonable to me. But less than 3 years...

I disagree.

 

[marques]

I disagree.

I am sure you know what you're saying. I was just hopping it was not true (2 years or less for a black belt). Do you think 2 years, a few hours a week, may be enough?

 

[Axiom]

I am sure you know what you're saying. I was just hopping it was not true (2 years or less for a black belt). Do you think 2 years, a few hours a week, may be enough?

5 years is good IMO. Students get the hang of it earlier, but I think time should pass after that as well.

 

[Steve]

I think it should take 20 years to get your black belt. Otherwise, what's the point?

 

[Axiom]

I think it should take 20 years to get your black belt. Otherwise, what's the point?

Ehmm.. A TKD instructor in ITF requires 5 Dan. He will be 150 years old by that time if he starts training as an adult.

 

[MA_Student]

I think it should take 20 years to get your black belt. Otherwise, what's the point?

Maybe not 20 years but I'd say at least 8 years. It took me 10 but if you get it after say 2 years. You won't have much more experience than a beginner. I think 5 years is way to short frankly. You need experience as a black belt which you definently don't have after 5 years

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Some websites say you can get your black belt within 3 years, providing you attend 80% of the classes. Weather it is true or not, it sound bad. For the sellers and for the buyers. It looks like the eventual skill is a side effect of getting a black cotton belt.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of advertising for black belt. There may be folks who are well-motivated by that far-off goal, at least when they first join, but they wouldn't fit with my teaching, anyway.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

They did not say minimum. It takes approximately 3 years of consistent training, which frankly is on the higher end of TKD schools of today. Many award it with in 1 and a half and 2 years

My response was based on the quote you posted, which said 3 years of hard work, and you'd really have to want it (meaning it would take a lot of dedication and commitment to get it in that time).

When you say "many" - how many have you actually surveyed for that?

In the end, though, as others have pointed out, it doesn't matter how quickly they promote to BB, so long as it is consistent in its meaning. If they awarded a BB for knowing the first form fairly well, then that's what BB would mean within their system. The only issue comes when the rank doesn't mean anything specific, because there's no consistency.

That said, I'm a fan of BB having more stringent requirements. Many people, on starting MA, view BB as having a vague aura of high competence, and I prefer the requirements to meet that expectation.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think it should take 20 years to get your black belt. Otherwise, what's the point?

I think it should take a minimum of 90 days - maybe a year. More than that, and you're just making it hard...like there's any value in working hard for it. Pfft.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Maybe not 20 years but I'd say at least 8 years. It took me 10 but if you get it after say 2 years. You won't have much more experience than a beginner. I think 5 years is way to short frankly. You need experience as a black belt which you definently don't have after 5 years

Again, it depends what your expectation of a black belt student is. I tend to think 5 years is a minimum, for someone who works hard and consistently (say, 3 classes a week, plus seminars, plus training on their own, maybe some previous experience to aid understanding). 7 years (pretty close to your 8) is more reasonable for most folks (I think the "normal" in NGA is about 7.5 years - I took 13).