More on Belts in Martial Arts
Overall, I would say I am a traditionalist. That being said, let me clarify some things - specifically in my opinion, when traditions are better and when they are not with respect to the martial arts.
Originally, the concept of the black belt was developed by Jigoro Kano, founder of Judo, in the early 1900's. He wanted a quick reference guide to tell between new persons and experienced persons. Being an educator, he borrowed the idea from Japanese swim teams, who divided contestants in a similar manner.
So, in the beginning, there was a white belt (novice) and a black belt (experienced). There was never any concept of mastery deemed to the black belts. They simply knew the basics and could be given more detailed instruction.
Later, more belts were added. Then, kyu (under black belt) and Dan (black belt) ranks were added and the belt ranks matched up to the kyu/Dan system. Higher Dan ranks indicated degrees of mastery in the art. Colored belts for different Kyu ranks increased participation and personl levels of feelings of acheivement.
These days many things have changed. A black belt does not always mean somebody well versed in the basics. Sometimes, in some arts, a black belt means so much more. I see problems with both schools of thought.
To sum up, I feel a black belt is originally intended to be about the same as a bachelor's degree. Not entirely new to the art, but not a great expert, either.
Some arts - many taekwondo and karate schoold to be specific - have members that reach black belt while still young (grade school and sometimes younger), or in less than a couple of years with great regularity. Obviously, the drawback here is financially motivated - the idea of "selling belts." This is a disservice to the idea of the black belt.
Some arts - Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu and Aikido to be specific - have strict guidelines and folks rarely obtain black belt in less than 10 years. In BJJ (Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu), students rarely get a black belt until or unless they are a world-class athlete. Obviously the drawback here is financially motivated - keep students paying longer and say that they are getting "better than others" when in reality one is "selling ability." This is a disservice to the idea of a black belt.
My feeling - a black belt should take about 3-5 years of dedicated study. It should have a component of minimum time in the art, a minimum amount of knowledge, and some proficiency. None of the three parts is less important than the others. None of the three parts is more important than the others.
Now - higher ranking black belts? That will be a different post!
Originally, the concept of the black belt was developed by Jigoro Kano, founder of Judo, in the early 1900's. He wanted a quick reference guide to tell between new persons and experienced persons. Being an educator, he borrowed the idea from Japanese swim teams, who divided contestants in a similar manner.
So, in the beginning, there was a white belt (novice) and a black belt (experienced). There was never any concept of mastery deemed to the black belts. They simply knew the basics and could be given more detailed instruction.
Later, more belts were added. Then, kyu (under black belt) and Dan (black belt) ranks were added and the belt ranks matched up to the kyu/Dan system. Higher Dan ranks indicated degrees of mastery in the art. Colored belts for different Kyu ranks increased participation and personl levels of feelings of acheivement.
These days many things have changed. A black belt does not always mean somebody well versed in the basics. Sometimes, in some arts, a black belt means so much more. I see problems with both schools of thought.
To sum up, I feel a black belt is originally intended to be about the same as a bachelor's degree. Not entirely new to the art, but not a great expert, either.
Some arts - many taekwondo and karate schoold to be specific - have members that reach black belt while still young (grade school and sometimes younger), or in less than a couple of years with great regularity. Obviously, the drawback here is financially motivated - the idea of "selling belts." This is a disservice to the idea of the black belt.
Some arts - Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu and Aikido to be specific - have strict guidelines and folks rarely obtain black belt in less than 10 years. In BJJ (Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu), students rarely get a black belt until or unless they are a world-class athlete. Obviously the drawback here is financially motivated - keep students paying longer and say that they are getting "better than others" when in reality one is "selling ability." This is a disservice to the idea of a black belt.
My feeling - a black belt should take about 3-5 years of dedicated study. It should have a component of minimum time in the art, a minimum amount of knowledge, and some proficiency. None of the three parts is less important than the others. None of the three parts is more important than the others.
Now - higher ranking black belts? That will be a different post!
Comments
Post a Comment
Your comment will be displayed after approval.
Approval depends on what you say and how you say it.