The standard of karate exams

[deckerdude]

Not graded just yet, but am about to in March.

I have to say though, not all dojo's are 'mc'dojo's!

Yes there ARE unscrupulous ''Sensei's'' out there who operate in this way, and take as much money as they can and teach nothing whilst giving out 'candy belts' and false praise.

But there are SOME decent and hard-working Sensei's out there in different parts of the world who are not really interested in the money, but give of their time gladly to help and to teach others what THEY have learn't from those who have trod the Martial Way before them.

[Shizentai]

At my first school, everyone failed their shodan exam the first time unless you did exceptional...real exceptional. This was how that school was, if you were going to get a black belt you were going to earn it their way. It developed a certain spirit and determination in the students, taking a test you were going to fail. I remember my first attempt, I was doing my kata in front of the everyone (each tester did kata one at a time). I let the iminent fail get the better of me and my shihan told me to stop. "Is that the best you can do...do it again." I started over, properly this time and he told me to stop, do 50 push ups, and sit down. It was humiliating, but I have never let an iminent failure hinder me ever since, in life and in karate.

I like that story. It is universally understandable I think. I feel like many martial artists must feel a similar sentiment.

When I took my nidan exam last year I was certain that I had failed when in the first three seconds of the kumite portion I began having an asthma attack in response to my opponent (who was twice my size) glancing a partially deflected gyaku-zuki off my solar plexus. The match stopped. I tried for about thirty seconds to breathe to no avail. I squeaked and growled and spit but nothing helped. My senpai reffing the match shouted "Yame yame! Sit down," but I knew that if I did, everyone around me would not blink an eye. I am small, weak, and had only been training half the time of my opponent. It would only be logical if I gave up. So naturally I did the opposite and refused to sit. Then, just as my vision got kind-of funny and the doctors started running at me I somehow took the deepest most painful breath I've ever taken in my life. At that moment I didn't care about my rank or winning anymore. I was shaking all over and I was so happy to be exactly where I was, in front of my sensei and everyone else, ready to show what an absolute nothing like me can be taught through karate. I wanted to show them, no, I wanted to find out what I could do with nothing left but spirit.

So I did.

The rest is history.

[dragonwarrior_keltyr]

I haven't tested for a dan ranking yet, but I did fail my first blue belt exam. I got into the mindset of "everyone else my rank is grading, so I have to as well" and naturally failed. It taught me a lesson, and I slowed down and graded only when I felt I was ready.

[Ueshirokarate]

I still think that you shouldn't be allowed to "test", unless you have earned the next rank on the deck. Those students who come several times a week and sweat it out to the best of their ability, should progress up the ranks. I believe that if there are "slackers" on the deck, then the instructor isn't doing their job. That said, I don't really put to much weight in "rank". There are so many styles, schools and with them standards. The only way anyone will ever impress me is by sharing their knowledge or showing it on the deck. I have seen students with serious physical challenges give it their all week in and week out. They will never be Bruce Lee: However, they certainly earned their rank IMHO.

[bushido_man96]

2.Relevance of tournament activity when awarding ranks - here I would put it this way:it doesn't have to be a necessary condition, but may be a sufficient one (almost). I mean look at it this way: since there is no objective, universal standard by which to measure your abilities, the only way to do it is by measuring yourself against others.

Ok, so, what's the tournament standard to go by, then? Do you have to win to attain a certain rank? What does 2nd place get you?

In games like chess and the japanese game of Go (which btw uses kyu and dan ranks) the ranks are given based on the results in tournaments. Makes perfect sense to me.

Let's play with this example a little bit. We use tournaments to ascertain rank. Obviously, wins is going to be the important issue here, so we won't concern ourselves something silly like losing. So, we establish that winning is what's important in determining if our rank is true. What levels do we have to fight at? Are we talking point tournaments, or knockdown or even MMA rules? After all, MMA rules will be the most all-inclusive rule set we could find. Now, if we must have wins in MMA to substantiate our ranks, then what kind of record would be sufficient enough to deem one a legitimate 1st dan? And then 3rd dan? Are the only "masters" going to be the ones considered champions, winning title fights?

If we don't want to go with MMA rule sets, then we can perhaps stick to what is more commonly thought of as Karate tournaments; point sparring, where there is a break called after a point, and then competitors are reset, and start again. Proving yourself over and over again against regional competition will only take you so far, so you would have to consider national and interantional level competition to rank yourself higher than 1st dan. And I'm sure there are no politics at those levels, either.

What happens when you retire from tournaments, then? Notice how guys like George Foreman are always referred to as "former heavyweight champion?" If you stop competing, then you effectively stop your path to higher rank, and deem yourself a "former black belt."

We haven't even considered crossing over into grappling based tournaments, unless you consider MMA a close substitute to that.

So you see, I don't think that tournament competition is necessarily a good way to try to ascertain whether someone deserves their rank or not. Yes, my arguement here is a bit extreme, but once you open that can of worms, where do you stop it? Then you get into the whole "competition and self-defense are two different things" arguement, and start back at square one. I hope this clarifies the point I've been trying to make.

[moriniuk]

Competition is used to achieve dan grades in Judo.

[bushido_man96]

Competition is used to achieve dan grades in Judo.

What are the standards?

[Ueshirokarate]

What are the standards?

http://www.usjf.com/public/rank_requirement.pdf

I am sure they are pretty similar around the world. I view the world of judo as a completely different animal than that of karate. In the style of karate I practice, we don't really have tournaments/competitions, etc. The founder Shoshin Nagmine was vehemently opposed to them.

[bushido_man96]

What are the standards?

http://www.usjf.com/public/rank_requirement.pdf

I am sure they are pretty similar around the world. I view the world of judo as a completely different animal than that of karate. In the style of karate I practice, we don't really have tournaments/competitions, etc. The founder Shoshin Nagmine was vehemently opposed to them.

Thanks for posting this. Very helpful. With all this in mind, using tournament performances as a guage of rank, it can put a hamper on the rank one is capable of attaining. Should an inability to be competitive be a standard regarded in rank promotions?

[DWx]

We use tournaments to ascertain rank. Obviously, wins is going to be the important issue here...

I disagree with winning being the important thing. Perhaps instead of seeing tournaments as a win/lose thing, when thinking about rank it might be better to consider whether the student has improved and whether they are demonstrating skills appropriate for the rank the wish to obtain.

I do agree with you Brian that you can't just say that the person has to have a certain win/loss record or win a certain number of times to be awarded a rank. But maybe if the examiner or whoever was deciding the rank was looking at how much the student had progressed since their last tournament or how they're holding up against competitors of a similar skill level it my be a more valid way of ranking up.

Unless you're faced with someone from your own school or if you compete a lot and know the circuit, chances are you'll have to fight or perform kata against someone unknown. If you can demonstrate a skill level equivalent to your next rank, especially with the adrenaline surging, with all the distractions, with all that added pressure competition brings, and can keep your composure and perform with the same technical skill as a blue belt or purple belt or 5th dan, whilst facing an unknown opponent, then maybe you deserve that grade. You don't have to beat them but you have to at least demonstrate the skills of the belt you're grading to. To borrow a phrase from sensei8 (), if the "proof is on the floor" and you can stand next to a 2nd dan and match their proficiency then maybe you deserve the rank. Doesn't matter whether you won or lost. If you weren't wearing a gi and belt but someone could walk over and say: "He/She looks like a brown belt", maybe that's the rank you deserve.

I guess this all depends very much on the ruleset and if you're wanting to evaluate things that won't be demonstrated in a competition setting (like theory) then maybe competition isn't the way you should rank students in your school but that doesn't mean it can't be a factor.