Who - when & why?

[Brad Dunne]

"Well, I will point out that back in the 1950s-1960s, it was fairly common that someone would earn their shodan in under two years. I'm just pointing this out, not because I'm advocating quick ranking, but rather noting the contrast between now and then. Who decided that shodan should take 4 or 5 or 8 years, instead of two? When did that happen, and what brought it about?"....... (Flying Crane)

This is from another thread (McDojo) and it's a great question........

My own opinion is that when the large influx of instructors hit America from Korea, back in the early 70's, they soon found that keeping students training longer = more money in the pocket. It didn't take all that long for other styles/instructors to catch on and follow suit. Now during that time frame, most instruction would still be considered strong, as opposed to what we generally discuss today, but with the advent of the sports direction (80's), well we have what we have and it only looks to be getting worse.

So what's your thought's on the question?.......................

 

[jks9199]

Regarding time... and I'll have to add this in another thread, too...

When my teacher was first learning, I have it on reliable authority that they trained for several (like close to 8) hours, almost every day of the week. Often more. They lived and breathed martial arts in a way that few of us do today. Even when I compare when I started about 23 years ago... I trained hours, every day. But today, I have a hard time getting students to commit to a single night each week for class. It's clear that some of them don't practice at all outside of class...

If you look at the raw intensity of training hours, you might find a justification for a change in the training duration before 1st black. (Though my system has maintained a minimum of 5 years for 1st black for several decades...)

 

[Kacey]

When Gen. Choi set up his guidelines for training time, they were in hours of training per day; the more hours per day, the fewer months it took to reach a particular rank. Given that most people trained 1.5-3 hours per day, 2-4 times per week, that was later codified into 2.5-3 years minimum training to reach the hours necessary for I Dan. See attachment for the guidelines from Gen. Choi's Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do.

 

[MasterWright]

I always thought that it took much longer to reach black belt ranking in Karate than Taekwondo.

 

[miguksaram]

Also keep in mind that "back in the day" you didn't have as much curriculum to learn as most schools do now. You had basic punches kicks and a forms. Now you may have several different forms from different arts thrown in, weapons curriculum, SD curriculum, etc.. I believe that may have contributed to the 5 year time range as well.

 

[YoungMan]

Black belt should take between 2-3 years to earn. This assumes that a student is practicing twice a week, 1.5-2 hours a night. Too short is no good, but 5-6 years is no good either. If someone took 5-6 years, my first question would be "why did it take you so long?"

 

[miguksaram]

Black belt should take between 2-3 years to earn. This assumes that a student is practicing twice a week, 1.5-2 hours a night. Too short is no good, but 5-6 years is no good either. If someone took 5-6 years, my first question would be "why did it take you so long?"

Depends on the curriculum, the ability to comprehend and execute the curriculum. Our average time is around 5 years. We are on a 10 belt system and we do stripe testing every month and belt testing every other month (That doesn't mean you are testing every other month. It just means you have the opportunity to if you are ready). Too many factors can play into 2 years vs 5 years. Neither one is better than the other just different.