To those who don't care about belt rank

[ballen0351]

Then how do you set goals?
I can see belt ranking as one method. Comps may be another. Some people are happy not to set goal. But others need them to focus their training and believe it makes their training more effective.

my goal is to learn and get proficient. I set goal like I want to get good at these 5 throws then when I reach it I say ok now these next 5. Or I want to learn this Kata or that one. It has nothing to do with a belt

So this thing about not having rank.or worrying about it is fine. I don't. But as far as the idea being morally superior. I don't really agree with.

I agree I dont look down upon people that strive for rank just know belt color does not equal skill or ability

It is like saying a mature student who goes back to school to earn his doctorate or something is somehow shallow.

Id depends on the reasons for going back. If its just to brag about a new degree then yes its shallow if its because they want to learn, or need to learn, or they are just bored and looking for something to do then no

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I think the problem here is the opposite though. The OP set up the conversation by basically stating that those who pursue rank are superior. Dirty Dog is responding in that context.

The OP even went beyond that, basically being derogatory towards those that don't care for showing off their rank with a piece of cloth. Perhaps not his best avenue of promoting discussion.

Then how do you set goals?

I can see belt ranking as one method. Comps may be another. Some people are happy not to set goal. But others need them to focus their training and believe it makes their training more effective.

Then this is a placebo effect situation. Dan ranking within karate has been around 90 years (started in 1924). Many systems didn't adopt it until the 1950's. So it really hasn't been around very long. It was added to karate as part of an agreement between Funakoshi and the Japanese government (along with an organized system outline and standardized uniform and a few other things). It wasn't added because it was needed. Thus these venues of arts had no rank beyond Sensei/student for far longer than they've had belts. And they seemed to do just fine without it. If you were serious you trained. If you weren't serious you didn't train. Pretty simple. To be blunt, if you need a piece of colored cloth on the waist to motivate you then you've missed the whole point of the martial arts (generic you and not you personally).

I ran a school for years that had students not just from within my county but the three surrounding counties. Some drove 50 miles to attend training. I don't say that to brag, simply to make a point. We wore belts less than 20% of the time. And a new person joining didn't seem to have any difficulty knowing who was a newbie like themselves and who were senior students and who the instructors were. I don't recall anyone ever asking me what my rank was, yet they listened to me as the sensei because my actions and teaching ability spoke for themselves.

So this thing about not having rank.or worrying about it is fine. I don't. But as far as the idea being morally superior. I don't really agree with.

We had a conversation a couple of years ago, either in the Hapkido or Taekwondo section (don't remember which). The OP starter question was, 'would you train in a school that didn't have belts'? With a caveat that the school provided excellent training, they just didn't wear their belts. Most folks said yes, they'd have no issue with training at a school like this. A couple of notable exceptions were these two posters that stated categorically NO, they would never train at a school if they couldn't wear their belt. That spoke volumes imo as to their view of the arts.

If photonguy's school suddenly came out with a no belt policy....I wonder if he'd still train there?

 

[drop bear]

The OP even went beyond that, basically being derogatory towards those that don't care for showing off their rank with a piece of cloth. Perhaps not his best avenue of promoting discussion.




Then this is a placebo effect situation. Dan ranking within karate has been around 90 years (started in 1924). Many systems didn't adopt it until the 1950's. So it really hasn't been around very long. It was added to karate as part of an agreement between Funakoshi and the Japanese government (along with an organized system outline and standardized uniform and a few other things). It wasn't added because it was needed. Thus these venues of arts had no rank beyond Sensei/student for far longer than they've had belts. And they seemed to do just fine without it. If you were serious you trained. If you weren't serious you didn't train. Pretty simple. To be blunt, if you need a piece of colored cloth on the waist to motivate you then you've missed the whole point of the martial arts (generic you and not you personally).

I ran a school for years that had students not just from within my county but the three surrounding counties. Some drove 50 miles to attend training. I don't say that to brag, simply to make a point. We wore belts less than 20% of the time. And a new person joining didn't seem to have any difficulty knowing who was a newbie like themselves and who were senior students and who the instructors were. I don't recall anyone ever asking me what my rank was, yet they listened to me as the sensei because my actions and teaching ability spoke for themselves.



We had a conversation a couple of years ago, either in the Hapkido or Taekwondo section (don't remember which). The OP starter question was, 'would you train in a school that didn't have belts'? With a caveat that the school provided excellent training, they just didn't wear their belts. Most folks said yes, they'd have no issue with training at a school like this. A couple of notable exceptions were these two posters that stated categorically NO, they would never train at a school if they couldn't wear their belt. That spoke volumes imo as to their view of the arts.

If photonguy's school suddenly came out with a no belt policy....I wonder if he'd still train there?

Ritual is important to some people. Belts are a part of that. So does willingness to participate change for people if we remove all ritual from the art?

So if we remove the traditional aspects from x martial arts.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Ritual is important to some people.

Very true.

Belts are a part of that.

They can be considered as such, but as such, they really aren't part of the martial arts. It is an esoteric add-on that isn't necessary for serious training.

So does willingness to participate change for people if we remove all ritual from the art?

Unfortunately, yes, if you remove some of the esoteric trappings associated with the arts then some people will stop training. And this speaks to the seriousness of their training pretty clearly.

So if we remove the traditional aspects from x martial arts.

This is a fragmented sentence that doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean.

 

[PhotonGuy]

It sounds like you're referring to people who lack concern or motivation while that may be true for some in some aspects a belt is proof of accomplishments, recognition for becoming a certain level of skill and or knowledge inside a martial arts style and there are some styles that don't use belts thus taking away the significance

I like belts myself but the belt, hopefully isn't the main reason for joining a martial arts some people join for self defense or other reasons as well
Best of luck

A belt can be proof of accomplishments depending on the sensei you get it under. People take up the martial arts for all sorts of reasons and belts aren't the only reason I train in the martial arts but if I get a certain belt under a certain sensei than I know I've met that sensei's standards for the belt. So its not about the belt, its about the belt AND who I get it under.

 

[PhotonGuy]

In the eight years (or whatever it was) of you being stranded at brown belt because you didn't ask about testing, did you not learn anything? Did your skill not develop? Did you really spend that time doing absolutely rote renditions of what you had done before with no improvement?

Actually it was closer to ten years that I was at high level brown belt. Yes I did learn stuff during that time and I developed skill but the important thing was to make it to first degree black belt so I could take my training to the next level. As somebody said in this thread that getting a black belt is like getting a high school diploma and somebody else said its like getting a bachelor's degree in college. I would have to agree, it means you learned the basics and now you're ready to learn the art, that's what I mean by taking it to the next level. I've got a bachelor's degree in psychology. That means I've learned the basics of psychology. If I were to go for a master's degree in psychology it would be more focused and I would start to really push forward in learning about psychology. The same thing with getting a black belt, now you're ready to really push forward. And if anything, once you make black belt, you expect more out of yourself.

 

[Blindside]

Actually it was closer to ten years that I was at high level brown belt. Yes I did learn stuff during that time and I developed skill but the important thing was to make it to first degree black belt so I could take my training to the next level.

Argh. There is nothing magical about getting a black belt. It is an arbitrary division in the curriculum that says you are X good to your instructor. It doesn't jump start your training, the "next level" is just a continuum. The academic comparison to martial arts is flawed, I can't study and practice high school physics and get to understand relativity and string theory on my own. However, in almost every martial art that I have seen, the important bits of the art should be taught in the underbelt material (lets say the first three years of study.) Then you have to practice the heck out of it.

 

[drop bear]

Very true.



They can be considered as such, but as such, they really aren't part of the martial arts. It is an esoteric add-on that isn't necessary for serious training.



Unfortunately, yes, if you remove some of the esoteric trappings associated with the arts then some people will stop training. And this speaks to the seriousness of their training pretty clearly.


This is a fragmented sentence that doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean.

OK in its basic terms everything that is not just learning to be the most effective kill monster is an esosteric add on and not necessary for effective training.

Except people respond to the ritural. So leaving it in there is probably important. And even though belts may be a newer ritural does not diminish the importance of them.

So treating the ritural as important and that includes the belts is not necessarily a bad thing.

Personally I think you have to place importance on your training. And ritural helps that. Grading is one of those rituals. So I have no issue with people who place importance on their belts.

As a side note we have kyokashin guy who trains with us and goes to Japan to grade. It is not necessary for his skills that he gets the belt. But as he trains for that belt his skills do go up.

We are also all doing judo now. If I am going to do it. Damn straight I want to grade in it.

 

[Buka]

I probably should have mentioned this before - belts were important to me when I was coming up through the ranks. Nothing quite like that feeling of getting gi'd up and putting on your belt - which was now a different color than you were ever used to. And you know you just have to walk by that mirror to grab a peek or two.

And belts are still important to me for all the students coming up through the ranks. When some of my students test their students, I often get asked to either help test, or asked an opinion on some, or invited to the promotion to sit in on the board. I take it all very seriously. And I always will. I just don't give a damn about them when it comes to myself. Because I'm old.

Except, well you know, fashion wise. Black goes with everything.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

OK in its basic terms everything that is not just learning to be the most effective kill monster is an esosteric add on and not necessary for effective training.

Although I don't agree with the term 'kill monster', I agree with the premise of your statement. There are only two elements necessary; a qualified instructor and a serious student. Anything beyond that is fluff. Folks can put whatever level of importance they'd like on the fluff, but it remains fluff. That includes belts, uniforms, patches, organizations and what not. When I taught class last Thursday I was in jean shorts and a T-shirt. I occasionally wear karate pants and a T-shirt but since we train outside and it's getting hot the shorts work pretty well.

Except people respond to the ritural. So leaving it in there is probably important. And even though belts may be a newer ritural does not diminish the importance of them.

It is only important if they were exposed to it as being important. It is what they are used to in training. But that doesn't actually make it important, it really only means that it is what they are familiar with. It isn't a secret or anything that folks trained for longer without belts than with them. Thus they aren't needed. They may be wanted, but not needed.

So treating the ritural as important and that includes the belts is not necessarily a bad thing.

I'm going to disagree. This thread is an example of why I disagree. Many, like the OP put too much emphasis on a belt and what the belt supposedly means. Having a black belt in this day and age is pretty meaningless outside of one's small circle. Standards vary so widely as to be laughable, even within the same organization and sometimes within the same school.

Personally I think you have to place importance on your training. And ritural helps that. Grading is one of those rituals. So I have no issue with people who place importance on their belts.

I agree that you need to place importance on your training. However, if you need a 'ritual' (or just call it a placebo or crutch) then maybe the training isn't really as important as it should be? I'd like to see Photonguy answer my question; if his school stopped using belts tomorrow, would he continue to train there? Reasonable question.

We are also all doing judo now. If I am going to do it. Damn straight I want to grade in it.

Why? If it is because you're intending to compete in Judo then I can see it. If not, why?

 

[Jaeimseu]

Why? If it is because you're intending to compete in Judo then I can see it. If not, why?

I'd just like to say that the thing you're interested in today may or may not be the thing you're interested in tomorrow.

Who knows what you may want to do in the future? Maybe you decide you want to teach, but you're still wearing a white belt.

Of course, ability is the most important, but if you've done the work, put in the time, and the rank is available to you, I would recommend getting it. You never know when it might come in handy in the future.

Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk

 

[blindsage]

I'd just like to say that the thing you're interested in today may or may not be the thing you're interested in tomorrow.

Who knows what you may want to do in the future? Maybe you decide you want to teach, but you're still wearing a white belt.

Of course, ability is the most important, but if you've done the work, put in the time, and the rank is available to you, I would recommend getting it. You never know when it might come in handy in the future.

Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk

Haven't earned a single belt in my current style, but am certified to teach.

 

[drop bear]

Although I don't agree with the term 'kill monster', I agree with the premise of your statement. There are only two elements necessary; a qualified instructor and a serious student. Anything beyond that is fluff. Folks can put whatever level of importance they'd like on the fluff, but it remains fluff. That includes belts, uniforms, patches, organizations and what not. When I taught class last Thursday I was in jean shorts and a T-shirt. I occasionally wear karate pants and a T-shirt but since we train outside and it's getting hot the shorts work pretty well.



It is only important if they were exposed to it as being important. It is what they are used to in training. But that doesn't actually make it important, it really only means that it is what they are familiar with. It isn't a secret or anything that folks trained for longer without belts than with them. Thus they aren't needed. They may be wanted, but not needed.



I'm going to disagree. This thread is an example of why I disagree. Many, like the OP put too much emphasis on a belt and what the belt supposedly means. Having a black belt in this day and age is pretty meaningless outside of one's small circle. Standards vary so widely as to be laughable, even within the same organization and sometimes within the same school.



I agree that you need to place importance on your training. However, if you need a 'ritual' (or just call it a placebo or crutch) then maybe the training isn't really as important as it should be? I'd like to see Photonguy answer my question; if his school stopped using belts tomorrow, would he continue to train there? Reasonable question.



Why? If it is because you're intending to compete in Judo then I can see it. If not, why?

For the last bit. When I learn a style I want to learn it in its entirety. Sort of. Not as such that I have to become a black belt but in that say capoeira. I will learn the songs. muay Thai I will learn the wai khru ram muay. Judo I will go for the belts.

It is a mma thing.

 

[Jaeimseu]

Haven't earned a single belt in my current style, but am certified to teach.

But not all styles will certify without ranking.

Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk

 

[MJS]

The arts are not the boyscouts but the two systems have some stuff in common. They both use ranks (some of the arts do) and I don't see why the philosophy of one can't be applied to the other or why eagle scout and black belt wouldn't be a good analogy. As for people that don't care about rank that's their choice but much of what I have to say would not apply to them. And I've said it a million times and I'll say it a million more. As for belt being an indicator of skill and the result of being good at the art it depends who you get it from. There are some senseis that just hand out rank, or for that matter sell it, but I would never train under such a sensei. As for getting a high belt under a sensei that actually makes you earn it, you would not have such a belt if you haven't reached a high level of skill and knowledge in the art, not if you got it under such a sensei. So for me its not about rank, its about rank AND who I get it from.

And yes you're right, after a certain rank there are no more tech's, kata, ect. That being said, I think it would make sense for a student to at least want to make first degree black belt. Even if you don't care much about rank it would make sense to want to get a first degree black belt and then not care much about rank progression. With a first degree black belt you've at least completed your initiation into the martial arts, and as this other poster said, it could even be equivalent to a bachelor's degree in the martial arts.

You're seriously comparing to boy scouts to the Martial Arts? And saying that the philosophy can't be the same? To be honest, I'm not even sure where this thread is headed at this point. LOL. I've said my piece. I'm really not sure I can add much more to what I've already said.

 

[blindsage]

But not all styles will certify without ranking.

Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk

Absolutely, and there's nothing wrong with that if that's what they do. Again, the OP is implying that without rank people are lazy and wasting their time, and that rank matters as much as skill itself.

 

[PhotonGuy]

And if you have the skills, that will be obvious regardless of the belt.

If I get a certain belt under a certain sensei, that means I've met that sensei's definition of what it means to be skilled enough for that belt rank.

 

[Dirty Dog]

If I get a certain belt under a certain sensei, that means I've met that sensei's definition of what it means to be skilled enough for that belt rank.

You can have a belt without skill. You can have skill without a belt. I'll continue to focus on skills. You, of course, are free to remain focused on belt color.

If you like, I'll send you a black belt. With stripes on it, even. How many would you like?

 

[drop bear]

You can have a belt without skill. You can have skill without a belt. I'll continue to focus on skills. You, of course, are free to remain focused on belt color.

If you like, I'll send you a black belt. With stripes on it, even. How many would you like?

Some belts are only given out to people with skill. Those belts are quite often worth something to the people who receive them. A belt from a quality instructor is different to a belt that is bought on eBay.

 

[blindsage]

Some belts are only given out to people with skill. Those belts are quite often worth something to the people who receive them. A belt from a quality instructor is different to a belt that is bought on eBay.

The brown belt I received (the highest belt I've ever gotten) from my Kyokushin instructors I value highly. I earned it, they made me work hard for it. But doesn't it apply the other way. The skills that people get when there is no belt involved are quite valuable to those who obtain them? At least equal to those who do the same with a belt, sometimes moreso?