Time-in-grade requirements and prior experience, catch-up mechanics

[pdg]

So all of the instructors in your system follow the same format?

I'm just curious of the dynamics of it, because at my school, every instructor has slightly different ideas of the best way to approach teaching. While we might teach the same material, some people think different things are important for each belt level. Some are looking at the full body movement during punches, some are looking at the stances during forms, and some are looking at other things.

So I'm just picturing the stance guy teaching his yellow belts the forms and paying attention to the stances, and then judging the other guy's test and seeing stances that are going to be cleaned up later. Or something like that.

This is what goes through my head, too. If I was still a member of the association I came up in, I could see some students passing tests with other instructors when I wouldn't pass them, and vice-versa - all because of some different emphasis.

There are standards set by the organisation.

So, the base curriculum (or format if you will) is set. If they want to go over and above that in some or all areas (with some or all students) that's hardly frowned upon.

If your instructor values more precision in stances, fine - but you still have to meet the standard for punching (and everything else) as well.

A stance can meet the required standard for 8th kup (say) and not meet the requirement for 2nd kup - but that doesn't mean an instructor isn't allowed to try to make all his 8th kup students have 2nd kup stances.

However, if those students have perfect stance but too sloppy body mechanics between stances, they probably won't pass.

Basically, you have to judge based on the standards set by the org, not by the standards set by yourself.

Hopefully, nobody has standards lower than the org minimum



Edit: that last statement isn't to imply that the org has low standards, but to be an instructor you should be able to have everyone you submit for testing meet them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I was thinking the opposite. Where you might fail some that their instructor would pass, because they're following their instructor's guidelines but it's not what you would look for.

Surely that would also happen.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There are standards set by the organisation.

So, the base curriculum (or format if you will) is set. If they want to go over and above that in some or all areas (with some or all students) that's hardly frowned upon.

If your instructor values more precision in stances, fine - but you still have to meet the standard for punching (and everything else) as well.

A stance can meet the required standard for 8th kup (say) and not meet the requirement for 2nd kup - but that doesn't mean an instructor isn't allowed to try to make all his 8th kup students have 2nd kup stances.

However, if those students have perfect stance but too sloppy body mechanics between stances, they probably won't pass.

Basically, you have to judge based on the standards set by the org, not by the standards set by yourself.

Hopefully, nobody has standards lower than the org minimum



Edit: that last statement isn't to imply that the org has low standards, but to be an instructor you should be able to have everyone you submit for testing meet them.

The issue is understanding what the standards mean. For instance, in my old association, everyone tested the same things at each belt. So for green, I tested the first 3 Classical sets (30 techniques total), 9 kicks, 2 stances, 6 hand/arm strikes, and probably something else I'm forgetting. When I was teaching at my instructor's school, I had students visit from other schools. They wouldn't have passed the green belt test I took (and probably vice-versa), though they took exactly the same test. My instructor expected something different when testing those techniques than their instructor did - sometimes a dramatic difference.

 

[skribs]

The issue is understanding what the standards mean. For instance, in my old association, everyone tested the same things at each belt. So for green, I tested the first 3 Classical sets (30 techniques total), 9 kicks, 2 stances, 6 hand/arm strikes, and probably something else I'm forgetting. When I was teaching at my instructor's school, I had students visit from other schools. They wouldn't have passed the green belt test I took (and probably vice-versa), though they took exactly the same test. My instructor expected something different when testing those techniques than their instructor did - sometimes a dramatic difference.

Can you give a specific example of what those differences were, and why they existed?

 

[pdg]

The issue is understanding what the standards mean. For instance, in my old association, everyone tested the same things at each belt. So for green, I tested the first 3 Classical sets (30 techniques total), 9 kicks, 2 stances, 6 hand/arm strikes, and probably something else I'm forgetting. When I was teaching at my instructor's school, I had students visit from other schools. They wouldn't have passed the green belt test I took (and probably vice-versa), though they took exactly the same test. My instructor expected something different when testing those techniques than their instructor did - sometimes a dramatic difference.

I would view that as a lack of communication and understanding within the organisation, or a lack of definition of minimum standard.

Well, it would be if it was consistently that way - if pretty much every student from a specific school underperformed in a certain area.

If individual, that's a different matter. A couple of for instance - I know a black belt woman who at first glance most people probably wouldn't think should have a BB at all, but spend 30 seconds with her and you realise that she's more BB than a hell of a lot of others... Also, there's a guy with no arms (thalidomide effects I believe), he'll obviously never punch correctly, but does that mean he should never get out of his white belt?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Can you give a specific example of what those differences were, and why they existed?

In some cases, it was something as simple as angles being different. In other cases it was which principles were emphasized. It's hard to explain if you're not familiar with the techniques, so let me try to sketch out what I'm talking about.

One of our techniques is the Spin Around (similar to Irimi Nage in Aikido, in some ways). Here's someone doing the technique:

While that's outside the association, I've seen it done inside the association like the last version you see there. Even as a Classical version (a form, essentially), that wouldn't pass at my instructor's dojo, because he didn't finish with his hand down, and didn't complete the reverse. At other schools, that's not a consideration, and making contact in the Classical version might be a failure (we were expected to make contact, though very light).

If we looked at my own version, none of those I've described would pass my test, because they aren't using the neck to move the uke, just depending upon the lead at the wrist. To me, the movement at the neck is a key principle in the technique for application.

Within the association, I also saw that same technique taught straight-line (180 degree pivot), 270 degree pivot, and nearly 360 degree pivot - with each instructor requiring their version for their testing.

 

[TSDTexan]

As a 43 year old martial artist, along the way I have had a fair number years of studying karate, and karate derived arts.

My training in Tangsoodo currently would allow me to test out at 3rd dan in most schools. If I could show proficiency in a number of jumping kicks that are 4th dan, and if I had the TIR/TIG I could be a 4th.

My own independent TSD instruction is not a belt rank driven school. A few years ago I decided that my school wouldn't use belts as indicator of progress through the curriculum.


[About 4 years ago, I decided to enroll in a traditional Japanese/Okinawan karate art. And I started as a white belt (10th kyu), I had a very easy time showing
proficiency in basic techniques.
4 months in, I double promoted white belt (8th kyu) and after all this time I am only Orange (6th kyu).
Why so slow?
Mostly, because I am in no rush, and there is an insane amount of curriculum to learn, and the as of late, the testing intervals are spreading further apart]

During this time....
I soul searched for a long time, and decided that because the kyu/dan belt tradition has gone through so many permutations since the 1930s/1940s. And because the commonplace blackbelt mill mcdojo has become a blight on "Te" in the USA, that I didn't want to produce blackbelts. I don't want my students to think the color of their belt has anything to do with their journey. Old School "Te" didn't even know belt rank. That was modern karate that gave us the belt ranks.

l have since abandoned grading the kyu/dan system, in my school.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I would view that as a lack of communication and understanding within the organisation, or a lack of definition of minimum standard.

Well, it would be if it was consistently that way - if pretty much every student from a specific school underperformed in a certain area.

If individual, that's a different matter. A couple of for instance - I know a black belt woman who at first glance most people probably wouldn't think should have a BB at all, but spend 30 seconds with her and you realise that she's more BB than a hell of a lot of others... Also, there's a guy with no arms (thalidomide effects I believe), he'll obviously never punch correctly, but does that mean he should never get out of his white belt?

It's a different approach - leaving more to be determined by the individual instructor. Oddly, it's pretty open in some ways like that, but not in other ways (exact stance may vary from school to school for a technique, but not whether the Classical form starts with entry or exit).

 

[pdg]

It's a different approach - leaving more to be determined by the individual instructor. Oddly, it's pretty open in some ways like that, but not in other ways (exact stance may vary from school to school for a technique, but not whether the Classical form starts with entry or exit).

I know what you're getting at, but we'll have to have different opinions by the looks of it.

My opinion is that if there are many schools in an organisation, then anything that is truly left open for the instructor to decide shouldn't be used as a measure of testing.

One of the big pluses of being in an org (from a student perspective) is the ability to move between schools and be able to carry on pretty much where you left off.

So, every (say) green belt throughout the org should be able to pass that green belt test under any instructor, because the testing criteria are consistent.

If I go to another ITF school I should be able to slot right in at the same level I'm at now (and I would expect to) because it's the same organisation. If I visit a shotokan school, I'd go in beltless - much of the techniques and methods are extremely similar, but the assessment protocol is going to be very different. Seems that going to another school within the org you describe is more like the latter.

The way you've described the allowable differences in testing I would consider it to be more like a loose association at best rather than branches of an organisation.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I know what you're getting at, but we'll have to have different opinions by the looks of it.

My opinion is that if there are many schools in an organisation, then anything that is truly left open for the instructor to decide shouldn't be used as a measure of testing.

One of the big pluses of being in an org (from a student perspective) is the ability to move between schools and be able to carry on pretty much where you left off.

So, every (say) green belt throughout the org should be able to pass that green belt test under any instructor, because the testing criteria are consistent.

If I go to another ITF school I should be able to slot right in at the same level I'm at now (and I would expect to) because it's the same organisation. If I visit a shotokan school, I'd go in beltless - much of the techniques and methods are extremely similar, but the assessment protocol is going to be very different. Seems that going to another school within the org you describe is more like the latter.

The way you've described the allowable differences in testing I would consider it to be more like a loose association at best rather than branches of an organisation.

I'm not sure how you could tie things down much more in grappling arts, without restricting what an instructor can teach. But I agree to an extent. The NGAA is a bit of a different beast, because things were pretty fluid when there was only one school (back in the 1960's). When instructors branched out and started other schools, the head of the style delegated the testing to them (which was necessary, since one of them was 7 states away). That started the differences between schools, and we always somehow were able to work together at seminars and such, in spite of those differences. Changing schools always required some retraining.

 

[drop bear]

I enjoy learning new “advanced” techniques and applications, but honestly the greater part of my practice is still spent refining “basic” movements that I learned in my first six months of training.

Do your higher belts do cooler stuff?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Do your higher belts do cooler stuff?

We have purple belts who use fancier techniques than I do.

 

[pdg]

Changing schools always required some retraining.

That much I would expect, but the core should remain the same.

I'm not sure how you could tie things down much more in grappling arts, without restricting what an instructor can teach. But I agree to an extent. The NGAA is a bit of a different beast, because things were pretty fluid when there was only one school (back in the 1960's). When instructors branched out and started other schools, the head of the style delegated the testing to them (which was necessary, since one of them was 7 states away). That started the differences between schools, and we always somehow were able to work together at seminars and such, in spite of those differences.

If, when the first students went and opened their own schools they were given a test curriculum to follow - as a minimum - then the consistency would have been 'better'...

Seminars and the like aren't really a suitable reference to me, because I'm of a mind that I could go to a seminar of any style and find something to take away having worked with them.

I'm not talking about restricting what they can teach, merely providing a core upon which the testing protocol is based. So test 1 they must show proficiency in technique A, B and C, test 2 also has tech D, E and F. If you want to teach tech Q, T and P go right ahead, but it's not part of the test (or you can include it in your test as part of resilience or something, but don't score it).

Of course, even doing that has it's pitfalls - 10 student generations later (45 years?) you'll have some that class what was intended to be the minimum test material as the entire art - then others who kept the mindset of "test=minimum but teach more" complaining about the first set teaching a watered down version

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That much I would expect, but the core should remain the same.

That's the thing. We all felt the core was the same. It all looked like the same technique to us, and just some details that differed between schools, even when those details were required for testing.

If, when the first students went and opened their own schools they were given a test curriculum to follow - as a minimum - then the consistency would have been 'better'...

What is tested is uniform. There's a standard minimum across the entire NGAA. I could go to any school and know someone with a given rank had at least that stuff. It just might be a different version of some of that stuff. Some of the difference comes down to the youth of the art. Since the guy who brought it to the US became the only surviving instructor some time later, the art is younger in its development than it otherwise would be. Some of the difference, though, comes down to an overall approach. It's expected that the instructors will teach their way, and the head of the style always wanted the art to have that flexibility. He resisted publishing an official book for decades, because he didn't want everyone copying exactly what he taught. He wanted the art to be able to evolve.

Seminars and the like aren't really a suitable reference to me, because I'm of a mind that I could go to a seminar of any style and find something to take away having worked with them.

I was more talking about being able to do the same techniques together, and knowing what to expect. Remember we're mostly talking about grappling and throws, where knowing what your partner is going to do makes the falls and recovery much easier.

I'm not talking about restricting what they can teach, merely providing a core upon which the testing protocol is based. So test 1 they must show proficiency in technique A, B and C, test 2 also has tech D, E and F. If you want to teach tech Q, T and P go right ahead, but it's not part of the test (or you can include it in your test as part of resilience or something, but don't score it).

Of course, even doing that has it's pitfalls - 10 student generations later (45 years?) you'll have some that class what was intended to be the minimum test material as the entire art - then others who kept the mindset of "test=minimum but teach more" complaining about the first set teaching a watered down version

I guess I wasn't clear earlier. Everyone tests the same techniques, at a minimum. In the same order, for the same ranks. I can go to any NGA school (inside or outside the NGA, this is true of every school I'm aware of), and I know at minimum which techniques someone will have and at roughly what level, by looking at the color of their belt.

They just might do the technique differently than I do.

 

[TSDTexan]

That's the thing. We all felt the core was the same. It all looked like the same technique to us, and just some details that differed between schools, even when those details were required for testing.


What is tested is uniform. There's a standard minimum across the entire NGAA. I could go to any school and know someone with a given rank had at least that stuff. It just might be a different version of some of that stuff. Some of the difference comes down to the youth of the art. Since the guy who brought it to the US became the only surviving instructor some time later, the art is younger in its development than it otherwise would be. Some of the difference, though, comes down to an overall approach. It's expected that the instructors will teach their way, and the head of the style always wanted the art to have that flexibility. He resisted publishing an official book for decades, because he didn't want everyone copying exactly what he taught. He wanted the art to be able to evolve.


I was more talking about being able to do the same techniques together, and knowing what to expect. Remember we're mostly talking about grappling and throws, where knowing what your partner is going to do makes the falls and recovery much easier.


I guess I wasn't clear earlier. Everyone tests the same techniques, at a minimum. In the same order, for the same ranks. I can go to any NGA school (inside or outside the NGA, this is true of every school I'm aware of), and I know at minimum which techniques someone will have and at roughly what level, by looking at the color of their belt.

They just might do the technique differently than I do.

Hey, question... if someone had done aikikai aikido for 15 years ahowed up at your school... how easy/hard would it be to transition over?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Hey, question... if someone had done aikikai aikido for 15 years ahowed up at your school... how easy/hard would it be to transition over?

We had that. A 4th dan Aikikai practitioner joined my instructor's school. He had to start all over. Most of the techniques are significantly different at the beginner level (though we find more in common if we get to looking at application). NGA's whole approach is less "aiki", more direct. Even my approach to the techniques (which is more circular than most in NGA) doesn't really match up to the principles as they are commonly seen in the Aikikai.

Then there's the falls. We use Judo falls and rely more on the side fall early on. They tend to use a softer fall, and rely on the front roll as an escape more often (something that can be dangerous at the end of our techniques, as we retain control of the arm in many of them).

It's pretty easy to cross-train with them - I've attended seminars and spent a week training at a dojo in Portugal some years ago. But to actually learn the curriculum, the difference in approach simply makes them well-informed beginners (as I would likely be in their curriculum).

 

[drop bear]

We have purple belts who use fancier techniques than I do.

Yeah. Same here. The belts don't really effect my training.

 

[skribs]

Yeah. Same here. The belts don't really effect my training.

I'm definitely doing fancier stuff than the purple belts at my school!

 

[daviddz]

The real answer is this “New instructors school, new instructors rules”.

I my self started back into martial arts about two years ago after after a long (20 year) hiatus. I had my 1st Dan from the Kukkiwon back in 1995, but I certainly did not remember every thing, and I was no wear near as flexible or in as good a shape as I was back in the day.

When I started back, I had a heart to heart talk with the owner/chief instructor at the school. He said he didn’t want me wearing my black belt as I was not familiar with their curriculum. I was fine with that, and was willing to start over at a white belt. He also did not want me to do that as it would be an unfair comparison to the new white belts.

He had me work out the first few weeks, with out a belt until, he as a feel for where I was physically and skill wise. I skipped a couple belts, and started back as orange instead of white so I had a lot of material to learn to catch up

With luck I will be testing for my brown belt in Song moo Kwan in February, and I am looking at about 2 years more to get to black belt. The time does not concern me, as I am getting what I want out of the experience. The exercise is great, and I am (slowly) getting back into shape. By the time I test for my black belt, I will be ready.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The real answer is this “New instructors school, new instructors rules”.

I my self started back into martial arts about two years ago after after a long (20 year) hiatus. I had my 1st Dan from the Kukkiwon back in 1995, but I certainly did not remember every thing, and I was no wear near as flexible or in as good a shape as I was back in the day.

When I started back, I had a heart to heart talk with the owner/chief instructor at the school. He said he didn’t want me wearing my black belt as I was not familiar with their curriculum. I was fine with that, and was willing to start over at a white belt. He also did not want me to do that as it would be an unfair comparison to the new white belts.

He had me work out the first few weeks, with out a belt until, he as a feel for where I was physically and skill wise. I skipped a couple belts, and started back as orange instead of white so I had a lot of material to learn to catch up

With luck I will be testing for my brown belt in Song moo Kwan in February, and I am looking at about 2 years more to get to black belt. The time does not concern me, as I am getting what I want out of the experience. The exercise is great, and I am (slowly) getting back into shape. By the time I test for my black belt, I will be ready.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Sounds like a good journey. Glad you're enjoying it!