Rank in the martial arts is often a hot topic. So naturally, I'd like to make a few points on it.
My points stem from two major ideologies on the subject:
1. Rank should take a long time
2. Rank should not take a long time.
Let me say that if you have created your own martial art, you may rank people according to your own criteria, and that is fine. However, there are limitations to several common ranking concepts. I'm here to point those out and give alternatives.
Originally, the black belt rank was developed by Jigoro Kano, founder of Judo, in the early 1900's. The Black Belt did not indicate mastery. It indicated mastery of the foundational principles and techniques of the art.
Later, colored belts were introduced, as were degrees of black belt, to indicate progress to black belt and beyond. And for different reasons, different people had different ideas of what these ranks meant, and things blossomed from there into full-blown disorder.
Rank in martial arts is often based on performance - particularly in competition. The problem with this is it does not allow persons with physical detriments to advance. Another problem is that on any given day, a person may win or lose. Wins and losses may be attributed to hundreds of factors other than skill. Why rank someone based on luck, size, speed, or athletic ability? Those qualities are not consistently measurable.
Sometimes, rank in martial arts is based on personal growth. This is a disservice to those who get pandered to because they have not yet learned to perform certain (achievable) tasks. This is also a disservice to those that are naturally able to catch on better, as they might not be allowed to advance, despite learning the material.
To accommodate for all of these factors, some martial arts schools impose artificial time limits on ranks. Most are expressed in minimum numbers of classes or months. Herein lies the problem. The instructors get distracted from judging the student's ability with a certain skill set and focus more on time in training. Alternately, they will revert back to looking for competitive victories, or personal growth.
Actual learning of actual skill sets gets lost in the shuffle.
Take modern karate or taekwondo classes, for example. There was a time when a black belt meant something. Now, there are students who go to class once a week for 18 months that are awarded a black belt, regardless of skill.
Conversely, in Aikido and Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ), there are students that know the material, but do not get Black Belts for 10 years or more. In the case of BJJ, the instructor is too caught up in tournament wins and competitive ability. In Aikido there is no competition, so instructors must have the student attend a minimum number of classes. That number is prohibitively large.
Two arts that have the right idea are Olympic Tae Kwon Do, and Judo. One may get a black belt in either in one year, or eight years, depending on personal skill. In both arts, a person will average 4-6 years to black belt, with rare exceptions beyond that. In both arts, a new black belt will have comparable skill sets to other new black belts the world over.
Great post. I wasn't aware of the history of ranking, but this is a topic I discuss (with frustration) with some of my classmates on a near-weekly basis. We attend a "Mixed Martial Arts" school that formerly taught Karate. Jumping on the MMA bandwagon to attract clientele with a growing interest in the sport, they neglected to redefine their ranking system in a way that makes sense and that addresses student still levels. For example, although the school teaches Brazilian Jiu-jitsu for ground work and Muy Thai for stand up, there is only one belt ranking system, and it's based on class attendance. We often ask ourselves, "What exactly do I have a belt in?" Certainly not Karate, nor Jiu-jitsu, nor Muy Thai. And there's no such thing (that we know of) as an "MMA belt". The question weighs on our minds even more because we're unsure how we'd explain our training progress if we ever had to go to another school. Also, we are able to observe first-hand how a ranking system based on attendance isn't at all indicative of skill. There are students who are clearly long-time clients of the business and have black belts, but are unable to perform (or remember) basic skills. Training with them is an exercise is futility and frustration.
ReplyDeleteGrant,
ReplyDeleteExcellent points. And thank you for reading.
Understand, I am not necessarily against using strictly time as a rank criteria - but when time is a major factor, one of two possible unfair outcomes is made possible:
1. People with skill but not enough time are held back - unfairly.
2. People without skill, but enough time are promoted - without basic understanding.
Neither of these outcomes is good for the martial arts. But for teachers who don't know a better way, then using time in grade is a fall-back method.
Also, from your comments, I suppose your school might not yet have identified basic material. To do so (like Ryron and Rener Gracie have) is one of the best ways to resolve the problem.
I'd also suggest setting up a pre-designed testing system, where students must demonstrate technical knowledge. Set a pass/fail score. Stick to it. Drill the basics most, and in a basics class.
Add to the basics with a more advanced set of techniques. These techniques must rehash the basics, and add to them.
Just my $0.02