The black belt promotion system YES or NO?

[Jared Traveler]

Over the years I have collected a decent number of black belts, and various degrees in different systems.

Currently I'm training in Muay Thai, where there is no belt system. Despite the fact that I'm proud of a few of the belts I have achieved, overall I am greatly enjoying training in a system that has no belt ranking system. It's liberating!!!

My belts have given me legitimacy over the years, and that's been helpful occasionally, to give me a platform to teach. But overall, I dislike what a belt system brings into the culture of a gym.

I'm not saying it's all bad, but what do you guys think of the belt ranking systems? The politics of belts? It seems everyone is either A. Over promoted or B. Under promoted and ultimately it can be all a major distraction from effective training.

Thoughts?

 

[Flying Crane]

I have trained in systems that use a belt ranking method. I currently train in a system that does not. I like it better this way.

 

[Gyakuto]

You don’t have to grade in your chosen art. It’s your decision to engage in the process. But my observation is those that choose not to grade tend not to last in the system. Grading examinations are about motivating you to strive for excellence and push you forwards, but that does place some pressure on you as a practitioner.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I train in systems which have belt ranks and systems which do not. I see advantages and disadvantages both ways. It probably wouldn't change my enjoyment of the training significantly if the systems with belt ranks dropped that aspect or if the non-belt rank systems added it. I just accept the existing structures as part of the cultural heritage of the art.

Some advantages to a (well-executed) belt rank system:

• If the art has a sport competition aspect with a significant number of athletes, it can serve to help sort competitors into different divisions based on ability, so that junior practitioners can have fun getting competition experience without just getting smashed by higher-level practitioners.
• If an art maintains relatively consistent standards for rank, then it can act as an external validation metric for the knowledge and ability of instructors. Suppose you come into one of my classes without the personal background to be able to gauge my skill immediately just from watching me move. I don't have any high-level competition fighting accomplishments you can check out. But I do have a BJJ black belt certificate wherein multiple instructors who do have both high level competition accomplishments and a record of producing high level fighters give their assurance that yes, I am someone who has legit skills you can learn from.
• Some arts have a pedagogical system whereby the belt ranks are used to organize the curriculum for students. At this belt you learn these techniques/kata/whatever. At the next belt you learn these other things. I'm not a big fan of this approach myself. I teach classes that include students from white belt to black belt in such a way that everybody learns something. But some instructors find this method of organizing a curriculum to be helpful and I'm not going to tell them it's wrong if it works for them.

Disadvantages to a rank system:

• People can get too attached to the idea of the belt ranks as a hierarchy. They can have the idea that lower ranks must defer to higher ranks, that a higher rank can always beat a lower rank, that a higher rank can't learn from a lower rank. All of these are nonsense.
• Perhaps as a consequence of the above, people can get caught up in chasing the validation of being awarded (or even awarding themselves) higher ranks. This can sometimes come at the expense of focusing on achieving functional ability in their art.
• Belt promotions can become entangled with organizational politics or with moneymaking goals for the person(s) awarding the rank.

 

[Gyakuto]

• If the art has a sport competition aspect with a significant number of athletes, it can serve to help sort competitors into different divisions based on ability, so that junior practitioners can have fun getting competition experience without just getting smashed by higher-level practitioners.

In my art’s competitions, it’s well known that some nation’s coaches cheat by suggesting team members delay their grading so they are very much more experienced than their opponents. Sometimes by several years! 🙄

 

[Gyakuto]

I have to say, that for me, ‘black-belt’ grades awarded by well-established, national associations with perhaps a direct affiliation to the arts originating country etc hold more credibility.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I have trained in systems that use a belt ranking method. I currently train in a system that does not. I like it better this way.

Over the years I have collected a decent number of black belts, and various degrees in different systems.

Currently I'm training in Muay Thai, where there is no belt system. Despite the fact that I'm proud of a few of the belts I have achieved, overall I am greatly enjoying training in a system that has no belt ranking system. It's liberating!!!

My belts have given me legitimacy over the years, and that's been helpful occasionally, to give me a platform to teach. But overall, I dislike what a belt system brings into the culture of a gym.

I'm not saying it's all bad, but what do you guys think of the belt ranking systems? The politics of belts? It seems everyone is either A. Over promoted or B. Under promoted and ultimately it can be all a major distraction from effective training.

Thoughts?

Since I originally trained in systems with belts and trained the last 30 year in Traditional Chinese Martial Arts, which traditionally has no belt system, and now I find myself in another TCM system that is using belts....I can go either way, belts, no belts, no difference to me

 

[isshinryuronin]

If you take money/business aspects out of the belt question and focus on learning, belts are not at all that important. They are just artificial grids superimposed on an individual's skill continuum. They are a convenient tool/frame of reference to help describe a skill level within a particular school or organization. This can be helpful as a motivator, organizer of info, and an indicator of relative ability amongst the instructors and students. It can make things easier for all concerned, especially in group classes where members/teachers aren't so familiar with each other. Rank is a mere description, not the thing it's describing.

For serious, self-motivated students who have a close relationship with their instructor belts are not needed at all. This described most all karate students prior to the 1920's, before it went public. Not by coincidence, there was little stress on belts/rank at that time. (Earlier for judo, later for Okinawan karate.)

The Orient is big on hierarchy, much like the military. Rank is very important in the military. But if you look at our Special Forces, rank plays a lesser role, small tactical teams more informal about rank. These elite groups fit the description of "serious, self-motivated." This description does not fit most modern MA students - thus the reliance on ranks.

Where does the relatively more "rankless" Muy Thai and some FMA fit in? Maybe three considerations: I think it's safe to say these two societies are less structured than Japan/China and without the historical military traditions. This perhaps made them less rank conscious. Secondly, their teaching was not institutionalized in the school system on a large scale like karate and judo were (I don't think). Thirdly, MT and FMA students are a smaller and perhaps more serious esoteric group, resembling the early karate students and not so rank conscious. But with growing popularity in the West, it would not be surprising to see a belt/rank system evolve in the future.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

In my art’s competitions, it’s well known that some nation’s coaches cheat by suggesting team members delay their grading so they are very much more experienced than their opponents. Sometimes by several years! 🙄

This happens in BJJ as well, although there are some countervailing forces to help limit the degree to which it happens.

 

[lklawson]

Over the years I have collected a decent number of black belts, and various degrees in different systems.

Currently I'm training in Muay Thai, where there is no belt system. Despite the fact that I'm proud of a few of the belts I have achieved, overall I am greatly enjoying training in a system that has no belt ranking system. It's liberating!!!

My belts have given me legitimacy over the years, and that's been helpful occasionally, to give me a platform to teach. But overall, I dislike what a belt system brings into the culture of a gym.

I'm not saying it's all bad, but what do you guys think of the belt ranking systems? The politics of belts? It seems everyone is either A. Over promoted or B. Under promoted and ultimately it can be all a major distraction from effective training.

Thoughts?

The Advantages and Disadvantages of a Ranking System

The Advantages and Disadvantages of a Ranking System

cbd.atspace.com

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Thirdly, MT and FMA students are a smaller and perhaps more serious esoteric group, resembling the early karate students and not so rank conscious. But with growing popularity in the West, it would not be surprising to see a belt/rank system evolve in the future.

There are already a number of FMA and Muay Thai organizations, at least in the U.S. which have some version of a rank system. Usually I've seen those ranks take the form of specific titles or something simple like "level 1", "level 2", etc rather than the Japanese inspired colored belt system.

I think the reason you don't see such a rank system for Muay Thai in Thailand has less to do with how structured and hierarchical the society is and more to do with the fact that just about everybody who trains MT actually fights in the ring (a lot). You don't need an artificial belt rank when your status in the art can be measured by your fight record and/or the record of fighters that you have trained.

 

[geezer]

You don't need an artificial belt rank when your status in the art can be measured by your fight record and/or the record of fighters that you have trained.

^^^ This.

Also, you don't need an external patch, badge or belt to indicate rank in a small, traditional class where the instructor or coach knows each individual's experience and ability.

Right now I'm still using different colored shirts with the school logo to denote beginner, intermediate and advanced levels: White to start, then light grey, dark grey and finally black. But that's really more about motivation than anything else. And, after a while your shirts do get pretty ratty and it's time for a new one.

Oddly I like the white shirt so much, I occasionally wear it myself inside class and out. When asked, I told my group that if they needed me to wear a black shirt to remember that I was the instructor, they better dump me and get someone else!

On the other hand, if you are teaching a bigger group where you don't personally know each student, a belt system makes as much sense as having grades in school. Same if you are pare of a large organization with a standardized curriculum. I was, but finally quit. Now I can do what I want.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Over the years I have collected a decent number of black belts, and various degrees in different systems.

Currently I'm training in Muay Thai, where there is no belt system. Despite the fact that I'm proud of a few of the belts I have achieved, overall I am greatly enjoying training in a system that has no belt ranking system. It's liberating!!!

My belts have given me legitimacy over the years, and that's been helpful occasionally, to give me a platform to teach. But overall, I dislike what a belt system brings into the culture of a gym.

I'm not saying it's all bad, but what do you guys think of the belt ranking systems? The politics of belts? It seems everyone is either A. Over promoted or B. Under promoted and ultimately it can be all a major distraction from effective training.

Thoughts?

I have only done two systems.
Both FMA.
One uses Belts
The other did not.

As I was asked to teach by my instructor in the one that does not use belts, I have broken it down to a level (belt just not a color) for documentation purposes.
Yes it helps with the target lesson plan for the class and students.

 

[Buka]

A belt system is okay, a no belt system is okay. As long as everyone is training, learning, having fun and rocking and rolling - it's all good.

 

[Gyakuto]

Most humans operate on an ‘effort-> achievement -> reward ->…’ type of incentive modality. I think Kano Jigoro realise this when he devised/refine the Dan-i system of ranks with coloured belts, especially with children’s progression in mind. Some are motivated by executing a subjectively really good kick/punch/throw…it’s all they need to spur them on. Others prefer external, objective validation.

Our society sometimes requires us to objectively prove our level before allowing us to progress to further knowledge and perhaps special jobs. Why else do we have school exams, University degrees, Masters degrees and PhD’s?

 

[Jared Traveler]

Most humans operate on an ‘effort-> achievement -> reward ->…’ type of incentive modality. I think Kano Jigoro realise this when he devised/refine the Dan-i system of ranks with coloured belts, especially with children’s progression in mind. Some are motivated by executing a subjectively really good kick/punch/throw…it’s all they need to spur them on. Others prefer external, objective validation.

Our society sometimes requires us to objectively prove our level before allowing us to progress to further knowledge and perhaps special jobs. Why else do we have school exams, University degrees, Masters degrees and PhD’s?

Certainly Kano was inspired by the grade system in western education. Most people don't realize this. Also Thailand had some bad experiences with Japan, which likely influenced not just their decision to not create a belt system for Muay Thai, but also the banning of certain throws that looked too much like Judo.

 

[skribs]

I'm of the opinion that "good" and "bad" aren't absolutes, but a sliding scale. There's something of value in nearly everything in martial arts, but if taken to the extreme, it can be a bad thing.

Let's take for example kata/forms. I think there are many benefits to kata, and anyone who says they are useless is not giving them enough credit. I also think there are many limitations to kata, and someone who claims that they're teaching you how to fight is probably giving them too much credit.

I look at belt systems the same way. There are advantages and disadvantages (as @Tony Dismukes said). Although, I may lay out the pros and cons a bit different.

Pros:

1. Separate students into classes within their approximate skill level, which is useful for drilling partners and for instructors.
2. Separate competitors into brackets within their approximate skill level.
3. When a new student walks in, they know how much experience each of the others have (big difference in taking advice about Taekwondo from a yellow belt than a red belt).
4. Useful narrowing the scope of the curriculum for beginners. I will disagree a bit with Mr. Dismukes, in that he labels this a pro and then describes it as a con. I've spent a lot of time teaching Taekwondo, and it doesn't make sense to teach someone a tornado kick until they can already do jumping roundhouse kick and a spinning back kick, which don't make much sense until they can do a roundhouse kick and a side kick or non-spinning back kick. On the other hand you have something like BJJ (which I have much less experience in), where wrist locks aren't really allowed at white belt, and it's more about how much there is already to learn.
5. There are two reasons people really push themselves to improve: competition and belt tests. If you are competing, belt systems can provide alternate motivation, or just be superfluous. If you are not competing, belt systems are the main reason you would try to fix technique.

Anti-Pros: (Items that are not cons of belt systems, but rather ways in which non-belt systems can still be Pros)

1. You can separate based on time (which is what BJJ no-gi does). A coach will also probably know which players have been around for a while and which are new.
2. There are many tournament ranking systems that are not based on a belt system (especially in other sports), which could be used. When you enter the system, you start with a low rank, and if you outskill your opponents you should quickly climb that ladder.
3. Listen to the coach, listen to who he tells you to listen to.
4. Beginner's class and advanced class don't require a belt. Students can go where they feel more appropriate.
5. You can push to improve based on competition.

Cons:

• When a belt system is used as the be-all-end-all of skill level. For example, in Taekwondo, "I'm a red belt, you're a blue belt, so you don't know what you're talking about." (That conversation might be a bit different in BJJ).
• When a belt system is guaranteed progression based on time or money, instead of learning the material.
• When the rote curriculum becomes 90% of class because that's how you progress in the belt system.
• Schools that promote without merit because it keeps students engaged.
• Schools that hold off on promotions (because they don't want to be McDojos) and end up sandbagging their students.
• Students that worry too much about the belt.
• Students that don't care enough about the belt.
• I've seen many students quit after promotion because of variations of imposter syndrome. In my experience, it's kids who get promoted to the next class. They knew everything in the white/yellow class, so they think they know everything. Then they know nothing in the purple/orange class, and it's a huge shock to go from knowing everything to knowing nothing.

 

[Buka]

Belts do come in handy. You know that cardboard box of stuff you no longer use that you have in the back of your closet?

It would get squished if it wasn't filled with belts, patches and old fighting gloves.

 

[jks9199]

This happens in BJJ as well, although there are some countervailing forces to help limit the degree to which it happens.

Happens without belts, too...

"Novice" -- even with quite a few fights, especially if some of them were smokers or other "unofficial" matches, with all the trappings of a real match.

My son's t-ball team was pulled together for the first time that spring. About half the teams we played against had played a "t-ball lite" the spring before, and fall t-ball together... I mean -- t-ball teams trying to turn double plays?

 

[Holmejr]

Typically in the FMA arts, if there is a belt then it’s only a black belt. In Eskrido De Alcuizar it is the same. My position is that, as long as I’m progressing I’m satisfied. My teacher Ron Manrique is my litmus test. When I interact with him, I quickly realize my growth and my weakness. Now, I am a BB and must say, my pride in my black belt comes most from my grandchildren. Giving them bragging rights is more important to me than the belt.
With that all said, it is kinda cool that at 67 years old in can say I’m an active black belt…