rank-age-time

[tshadowchaser]

In the TKD area there is a thread on 14 year old Black Belts. In that thread Gorilla has brought up a valid question that I would like to expand on a little.
Should certain ranks be held for those that show a life long dedication to the art?
If so what rank and how many years already in the arts should the person have already in the arts.

and last how many Grand Masters should a system have. This may need a separate thread but I'll throw it in here

 

[PhotonGuy]

In some systems ranks above 5th degree black belt are earned based on dedication to the art. Its your teaching ability, contributions to the art and how much of an impact you make on the art that such ranks are based on. And as for time, in some systems to ger to 2nd degree black you have to be 1st degree for at least a year, and then to get to 3rd degree you have to be 2nd degree for two years, to get to 3rd degree you have to be 2nd degree for three years, ect.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Should certain ranks be held for those that show a life long dedication to the art?

Good question. Assuming we're talking about Dan ranks, from what I've seen (generally speaking), fourth or fifth Dan is usually considered 'Master'. So those could be assumed to be instructor ranks where the person is moving (ideally) from an assistant instructor up to a master instructor. And I'd offer that by these ranks, everything has been learned in the system. Now some may require a kata for Dan ranks above master, but I'd offer that pretty much everything has been learned and 'mastered'. So any rank above the 'master' Dan rank (whatever that is depending on the art) should be more of an administrative rank that should depend more upon total time in the art, what you've offered back to the art, perhaps the quality or quantity (or both) of students taught etc. Otherwise, in most arts, what is the difference between a 6th Dan master and a 7th Dan master besides TIG/TIA? Shouldn't there be something of more substance?

Just some thoughts.

As far as Grandmaster. Well, shouldn't there only be one in the art? Why would we need more than one. At what point does it change from the need to establish a hierarchy to one of plain ego.

I became a GM when my instructor (who was the GM) retired and hung it on me. Too me, it is an administrative title to establish the hierarchy of the association and nothing more. I don't particularly use it much except for the official stuff and that is more for them than me. Well too be honest, it's all for them. I prefer Sensei.

But then Dr. Professor Ultimate Supreme Grand Master Ph.D. MA has a nice ring :rofl:

 

[donald1]

Good question. Assuming we're talking about Dan ranks, from what I've seen (generally speaking), fourth or fifth Dan is usually considered 'Master'. So those could be assumed to be instructor ranks where the person is moving (ideally) from an assistant instructor up to a master instructor. And I'd offer that by these ranks, everything has been learned in the system. Now some may require a kata for Dan ranks above master, but I'd offer that pretty much everything has been learned and 'mastered'. So any rank above the 'master' Dan rank (whatever that is depending on the art) should be more of an administrative rank that should depend more upon total time in the art, what you've offered back to the art, perhaps the quality or quantity (or both) of students taught etc. Otherwise, in most arts, what is the difference between a 6th Dan master and a 7th Dan master besides TIG/TIA? Shouldn't there be something of more substance?

Just some thoughts.

As far as Grandmaster. Well, shouldn't there only be one in the art? Why would we need more than one. At what point does it change from the need to establish a hierarchy to one of plain ego.

I became a GM when my instructor (who was the GM) retired and hung it on me. Too me, it is an administrative title to establish the hierarchy of the association and nothing more. I don't particularly use it much except for the official stuff and that is more for them than me. Well too be honest, it's all for them. I prefer Sensei.

But then Dr. Professor Ultimate Supreme Grand Master Ph.D. MA has a nice ring :rofl:

I remember meeting someone that rank teaching a seminar about brick breaking... He was demonstrating how to break a brick wall by blinking your eyes

 

[WaterGal]

As far as Grandmaster. Well, shouldn't there only be one in the art? Why would we need more than one. At what point does it change from the need to establish a hierarchy to one of plain ego.

Well, I think that depends on what a "grandmaster" is. Is it the head of the style/organization? It sounds like with your organization that's what that means. I've heard others describe it as someone who has "master"-rank students. The Korean term "kwanjang(nim)" is usually translated into English as "grandmaster" , but it actually means more like "school chief", the owner/head master at a school or chain of schools.

But then Dr. Professor Ultimate Supreme Grand Master Ph.D. MA has a nice ring :rofl:

Hahaha. That stuff always cracks me up. There's a "Supreme Grandmaster Dr So-and-So Ph.D. MA 12th Dan" (or something like that) around here, who invented his own martial art that he teaches at the rec center once a week.

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

The head of my WC lineage has the title Great Grandmaster. I'm guessing because some of his students became GMs and you need a way to distinguish who's the numero uno. I don't know how any of them got their titles, whether they were awarded or self-appointed.

Other WC lineages also have GMs, but not sure if they have GGMs.

It's worth pointing out that there's no tm on either term so technically anybody can call themselves a WC GM.

 

[Balrog]

In the ATA, we test for all ranks. There are no "reserved" ranks up through 8th Degree.

9th Degree is reserved for the Grand Master. We currently have two 9th Degrees, one of whom holds the title of Grand Master Emeritus because he retired from the position of being the active Grand Master.

 

[Cirdan]

In the ATA, we test for all ranks. There are no "reserved" ranks up through 8th Degree.

9th Degree is reserved for the Grand Master. We currently have two 9th Degrees, one of whom holds the title of Grand Master Emeritus because he retired from the position of being the active Grand Master.

Wow, Grand Master Emeritus does have a nice ring to it. Is the 10th dan reserved for the founder and he is Eternal GM? Think I heard about that somewhere.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Wow, Grand Master Emeritus does have a nice ring to it. Is the 10th dan reserved for the founder and he is Eternal GM? Think I heard about that somewhere.

Depends on the art. Some arts don't have a 10th Dan at all. Some use it as a non-active rank (person has retired or passed). Some use it as an honorary device. And some use it as an active rank or perhaps the founder's rank.

Currently, we don't have a 10th Dan level at all in our art.

 

[Xue Sheng]

and last how many Grand Masters should a system have. This may need a separate thread but I'll throw it in here

In Chinese Martial Arts there are no Grandmasters. It is a title that shows up when it gets westernized. On mainland if a living CMA guy calls another CMA guy a grandmaster it is an insult and if they are both legit you have a fight about to happen. A few students of my taiji shift started calling him Grandmaster one class and he immediately told them to stop... His explanation; "There are no Grandmasters in Chinese Martial Arts"

Now if someone wants to call Ip Man, or Yang Changfu or Chen Fake or Li Tanji or Dong Haichaun or any other CMA guy that is no longer with us, that was considered a good CMA person in his day then I actually have no problem with the term, I won't use it, but if you want to for that go for it. But all these guys out there these days in CMA taking the title grand master are either just plain silly IMO or doing it for sales purposes.

In the TKD area there is a thread on 14 year old Black Belts. In that thread Gorilla has brought up a valid question that I would like to expand on a little.
Should certain ranks be held for those that show a life long dedication to the art?
If so what rank and how many years already in the arts should the person have already in the arts.

I am likely to old school but unless a younger person is at the level of Benny “The Jet” Urquidez was as a kid I see no reason for anyone younger than 18 to have a black belt.

And years in mean nothing to me; Someone shows up once every couple of weeks or once a week for that matter for 18 years and shows little improvement or skill is not more deserving of a rank than someone who has worked and trained hard for 10 years just because it they have 8 years on them

 

[tshadowchaser]

Getting some excellent thoughts on the OP thanks and please keep them coming.

In my opion there should only be one person in a system being called a grandmaster and that should be the head of the system. Now if there is a living person who retired from teaching and handed down his title I am not sure what he should be called but I would still address him as grandmaster until his death.

I do think there should be regurements for getting ranks of master (5th) and up. I believe there definitely should be time requirements between ranks that show a person is devoted to the arts in the number of years he has been in since his last promotion. That being more than a year or 2.
But I'm old school and I know it.

I also reconise that some systems allow people to get dan ranks at an early age and promote them faster than I would but that is there system and they are allowed to do so within their system

 

[Tames D]

The whole Grandmaster thing is silly. Ego driven.

 

[Buka]

The whole Grandmaster thing is silly. Ego driven.

I can see where that opinion comes from. If it's self appointed, yes, probably, but not always. First GM I ever met was Freddy V from United Studios of Money here in Massachusetts. But his wasn't so much ego driven as business driven, opening a jillion schools all over the country and making millions of dollars.
Since he was the first one I ever met my mind tends to go, by default, to him. He was truly the Wizard of Oz.

But other than that, it is an honored title bestowed upon a teacher by a superior or an organization. Folks don't tend to have a choice as to how their instructor or their organization want them to be addressed or thought of. Sometimes it's more administrative at heart, other times, just a fine honor that came about through long, hard work.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

As far as Grandmaster. Well, shouldn't there only be one in the art? Why would we need more than one. At what point does it change from the need to establish a hierarchy to one of plain ego.

In my opion there should only be one person in a system being called a grandmaster and that should be the head of the system.

So this brings up another question. What, if any, is the benefit of having someone designated at the "head" of a system? Why do you need that sort of hierarchy?

 

[tshadowchaser]

So this brings up another question. What, if any, is the benefit of having someone designated at the "head" of a system? Why do you need that sort of hierarchy?

If there is an organisation it is nice if only one person runs it and we usually give that person a title. You know someone to set the rules and have a place in the heritage of the organization. Heck in any business out there today someone is usually the head of it

 

[Tony Dismukes]

If there is an organisation it is nice if only one person runs it and we usually give that person a title. You know someone to set the rules and have a place in the heritage of the organization. Heck in any business out there today someone is usually the head of it

This raises more questions. Does a martial arts system need to have an organization? Does it need to be a single organization? What is the purpose of the organization? Does it need to be run by one person as opposed to a board of some kind? Does that one person need to be a "grandmaster" with all the assorted baggage of that title? Could it instead be a "president" who serves a limited term and just carries out certain specified duties?

 

[tshadowchaser]

I think by the use of the term system we have an organization. The purpose is to teach a specific martial art with in a set
guidelines that may include age requirement and time for grades.
If run by a board then any lineage is almost deleted from the art ( not saying that is bad but how do you trace your roots if the lineage is not there).
The head of the system could be called " cactus tree" but I think GM indicates more what the position is.

actualy this is flowing a little off the OP so TONY why not start another thread with you r last post as the opener I think it would be a good opening topic

 

[Tony Dismukes]

actualy this is flowing a little off the OP so TONY why not start another thread with you r last post as the opener I think it would be a good opening topic

Done.

 

[tshadowchaser]

Thanks Tony, I think It will be a good thread.
Now back o the OP.

I think that between 1st and 2nd maybe a year or 2 is or after that I think a minimum of 3 years but I would prefer a 5 year span between grades after after 2nd. I feel that the 5 year period gives the person a chance to prove that he/she is still learning, studying, and advancing the art.
I do fell that the rank of master is one that should show a devotion to learning and advancement of the art in both the mental aspect and the physical. I fell that a master should know the history of his art and he should know many if not all of the people his instructor has studied with be they in his particular system or in other systems, because those people helped mold his instructor in what he became.

 

[Mark Lynn]

Should certain ranks be held for those that show a life long dedication to the art?
If so what rank and how many years already in the arts should the person have already in the arts.

Generally I think somewhere around 5th dan should be reserved for those teaching and dedicated to the arts, and I think it becomes more of an administrative type rank. As to how many years I believe it should be a minimum of say 15-20 years. Perhaps it should be for 6th dan and a jump then in years of training/teaching. For instance let's say that for 1st it takes 4 years, then 2 years in grade after that up to 5th that would put a person at about 12 years in training. Then say 5 years for each grade after.

However this is all subjective because if you have a set time limit on the age of say 1st black (like my instructor does) at the age of 16, and a student comes to you at 5 and trains for 11yrs and promotes to 1st black physically that student will be able to do all of your requirements, but mentally is he prepared for responsibilities of teaching etc. etc. Likewise you have a karate mom that comes for 4 years works hard etc. etc. and has raised kids and is in her 30's, between the two who is better equipped to lead. Fast forward 12 years and the kid is now 28 and been training for 23 yrs and the mom is in her mid 40's and training for 16 yrs. I'd say at this point in their life both are able to teach, they both know the art etc. etc. but that younger kid has much more experience now and is in the prime of life.

I started at 19 and it took me 8 years to get 1st black under my sensei, then 7 more for 2nd dan. Rank wasn't something he was really concerned about with us.

I believe in our American Karate/TKD organization 6th dan and up are reserved for more life time in the arts. However they also want you to earn a black belt in a 2nd art for 6th dan so while they have a time in grade/art requirement they also want the 6th dans to have a broader education in the martial arts as well. I also think that is where I saw a jump of like 5+ years in between grades from 5th/6th and above

and last how many Grand Masters should a system have. This may need a separate thread but I'll throw it in here

I believe there should be one GM per system. I think that the whole SGM (Supreme Grand Master), SSGM (Super Supreme Grand Master) etc. etc. is a misguided attempt at marketing.