Rank for life

[sensei8]

I think once you earn a black belt that you're always a black belt. No one can take that away from you.

But what if you hadn't trained in 15 odd years?

Let's put it this way: you begin your MA training under an instructor, who let's say is a 5th degree black belt. He has to move, retire, and falls out of training, due to whatever life throws at us. Would you not respect him as your instructor throughout the rest of your life? Would you tell him that you now out rank him, and no longer respect the knowledge and experiences he passed on to you as his student? Or, do would you still look at him as that 5th degree black belt that took you under his tutelage all those years ago?

Only the individual practitioner can answer these question!! It's not written on some stone as the MA gospel truth. In your questions, you'll receive an unlimited number of answers.

[CredoTe]

But, then again, that goes to the heart of DWx's question: are they really "black belts"?

NO!! Black belts of that type will struggle deeply against a kyu ranked student of the lowest level.

Hehehehe...of course, you already know we both agree on that...

[DWx]

I think once you earn a black belt that you're always a black belt. No one can take that away from you.

But what if you hadn't trained in 15 odd years?

Let's put it this way: you begin your MA training under an instructor, who let's say is a 5th degree black belt. He has to move, retire, and falls out of training, due to whatever life throws at us. Would you not respect him as your instructor throughout the rest of your life? Would you tell him that you now out rank him, and no longer respect the knowledge and experiences he passed on to you as his student? Or, do would you still look at him as that 5th degree black belt that took you under his tutelage all those years ago?

Does the belt/rank automatically beget respect? Whether he was a 5th kyu or a 5th dan if he has knowledge and experience that I would deem valuable then that garners some level of respect. But is he a blackbelt if he hasn't trained in any way shape or form for 15 years? I'd say no he isn't. He was but now isn't an active one. An inactive or dormant blackbelt. Just as physical skill requires constant practice and exercise, so does knowledge. I'd wager he'd forget a good chunk of that knowledge after 15 years of inactivity.

[sensei8]

I think once you earn a black belt that you're always a black belt. No one can take that away from you.

But what if you hadn't trained in 15 odd years?

Let's put it this way: you begin your MA training under an instructor, who let's say is a 5th degree black belt. He has to move, retire, and falls out of training, due to whatever life throws at us. Would you not respect him as your instructor throughout the rest of your life? Would you tell him that you now out rank him, and no longer respect the knowledge and experiences he passed on to you as his student? Or, do would you still look at him as that 5th degree black belt that took you under his tutelage all those years ago?

Does the belt/rank automatically beget respect? Whether he was a 5th kyu or a 5th dan if he has knowledge and experience that I would deem valuable then that garners some level of respect. But is he a blackbelt if he hasn't trained in any way shape or form for 15 years? I'd say no he isn't. He was but now isn't an active one. An inactive or dormant blackbelt. Just as physical skill requires constant practice and exercise, so does knowledge. I'd wager he'd forget a good chunk of that knowledge after 15 years of inactivity.

To the bold type above...NO!!

[ps1]

It certainly depends on how you look at it. I see two options:

1. Black belt = a person who can perform at a certain skill level

Option 1 example: Sumo. In the art of sumo, you fight for rank and lose rank based on your fights. If you lose a fight, you go down in rank. If you win fights, you go up in rank.

2. Black belt = a person who completed a prescribed set of standards

 

Option 2 example: A person can go through medical school and never work as a physician with patients. Yet, 20 years later, that person still has the title doctor. I wouldn't want that person operating on me, but they retain the title none the less.

If the standards have been lessened by the individual by their premeditated actions, then that individual must be held accountable. Otherwise, the standards mean nothing!!

This has no bearing on my comment. Option 2 suggests a set of predetermined standards were met. This is in past tense; meaning it already happened. So they were already met. Premeditation has nothing to do with the scenario. The standards do not change based on intent. It's not as though an instructor sees a black belt quit and then says, "Well, you only have to be able to do 5 kata instead of 6 now."

IF a particular person believes option 2 to be true, then the black belt title can not be removed.

This has potential exceptions: An attorney can be disbarred and a medical license can be removed. The same goes for rank if some sort of rule/law is broken.

[sensei8]

It certainly depends on how you look at it. I see two options:

1. Black belt = a person who can perform at a certain skill level

Option 1 example: Sumo. In the art of sumo, you fight for rank and lose rank based on your fights. If you lose a fight, you go down in rank. If you win fights, you go up in rank.

2. Black belt = a person who completed a prescribed set of standards

 

Option 2 example: A person can go through medical school and never work as a physician with patients. Yet, 20 years later, that person still has the title doctor. I wouldn't want that person operating on me, but they retain the title none the less.

If the standards have been lessened by the individual by their premeditated actions, then that individual must be held accountable. Otherwise, the standards mean nothing!!

This has no bearing on my comment. Option 2 suggests a set of predetermined standards were met. This is in past tense; meaning it already happened. So they were already met. Premeditation has nothing to do with the scenario. The standards do not change based on intent. It's not as though an instructor sees a black belt quit and then says, "Well, you only have to be able to do 5 kata instead of 6 now."

IF a particular person believes option 2 to be true, then the black belt title can not be removed.

This has potential exceptions: An attorney can be disbarred and a medical license can be removed. The same goes for rank if some sort of rule/law is broken.

As you've already stated..."It certainly depends on how you look at it." We seem to be looking at it differently.

Within Shindokan, a Dan can be, and has been, removed by our Hombu; I've stated one example of that in previous posts. Standards are everything, and I believe that our Soke was speaking about standards whenever he did remove rank.

That's on paper. In the heart of those Shindokanists that have experienced that type of Soke judgement, their knowledge and the like aren't affected; they remain!!

[ps1]

It certainly depends on how you look at it. I see two options:

1. Black belt = a person who can perform at a certain skill level

Option 1 example: Sumo. In the art of sumo, you fight for rank and lose rank based on your fights. If you lose a fight, you go down in rank. If you win fights, you go up in rank.

2. Black belt = a person who completed a prescribed set of standards

 

Option 2 example: A person can go through medical school and never work as a physician with patients. Yet, 20 years later, that person still has the title doctor. I wouldn't want that person operating on me, but they retain the title none the less.

If the standards have been lessened by the individual by their premeditated actions, then that individual must be held accountable. Otherwise, the standards mean nothing!!

This has no bearing on my comment. Option 2 suggests a set of predetermined standards were met. This is in past tense; meaning it already happened. So they were already met. Premeditation has nothing to do with the scenario. The standards do not change based on intent. It's not as though an instructor sees a black belt quit and then says, "Well, you only have to be able to do 5 kata instead of 6 now."

IF a particular person believes option 2 to be true, then the black belt title can not be removed.

This has potential exceptions: An attorney can be disbarred and a medical license can be removed. The same goes for rank if some sort of rule/law is broken.

As you've already stated..."It certainly depends on how you look at it." We seem to be looking at it differently.

Within Shindokan, a Dan can be, and has been, removed by our Hombu; I've stated one example of that in previous posts. Standards are everything, and I believe that our Soke was speaking about standards whenever he did remove rank.

That's on paper. In the heart of those Shindokanists that have experienced that type of Soke judgement, their knowledge and the like aren't affected; they remain!!

I certainly understand what your point is. However, according to your bylaws (as I understand you speaking of them), a person who is not training is breaking your rules. Therefore, you don't fall under Option 2. More like a 3rd option: Yudansha are continuously graded against the bylaws/rules of the association.

Out of curiosity, once their rank is stripped, what does their rank become if they return to train again? If your bylaws specify that your training is a continuum, the only logical place to start again would be the beginning (pseudo-philosophic arguments aside).

[sensei8]

It certainly depends on how you look at it. I see two options:

1. Black belt = a person who can perform at a certain skill level

Option 1 example: Sumo. In the art of sumo, you fight for rank and lose rank based on your fights. If you lose a fight, you go down in rank. If you win fights, you go up in rank.

2. Black belt = a person who completed a prescribed set of standards

 

Option 2 example: A person can go through medical school and never work as a physician with patients. Yet, 20 years later, that person still has the title doctor. I wouldn't want that person operating on me, but they retain the title none the less.

If the standards have been lessened by the individual by their premeditated actions, then that individual must be held accountable. Otherwise, the standards mean nothing!!

This has no bearing on my comment. Option 2 suggests a set of predetermined standards were met. This is in past tense; meaning it already happened. So they were already met. Premeditation has nothing to do with the scenario. The standards do not change based on intent. It's not as though an instructor sees a black belt quit and then says, "Well, you only have to be able to do 5 kata instead of 6 now."

IF a particular person believes option 2 to be true, then the black belt title can not be removed.

This has potential exceptions: An attorney can be disbarred and a medical license can be removed. The same goes for rank if some sort of rule/law is broken.

As you've already stated..."It certainly depends on how you look at it." We seem to be looking at it differently.

Within Shindokan, a Dan can be, and has been, removed by our Hombu; I've stated one example of that in previous posts. Standards are everything, and I believe that our Soke was speaking about standards whenever he did remove rank.

That's on paper. In the heart of those Shindokanists that have experienced that type of Soke judgement, their knowledge and the like aren't affected; they remain!!

I certainly understand what your point is. However, according to your bylaws (as I understand you speaking of them), a person who is not training is breaking your rules. Therefore, you don't fall under Option 2. More like a 3rd option: Yudansha are continuously graded against the bylaws/rules of the association.

Out of curiosity, once their rank is stripped, what does their rank become if they return to train again? If your bylaws specify that your training is a continuum, the only logical place to start again would be the beginning (pseudo-philosophic arguments aside).

To the bold type above...

NO!! Our By-Laws aren't trivial, and by that I mean, students continual training isn't a concern, and if a student wants to stop training for whatever reason(s), that's none of the Hombu's business. Why? It's their journey and it's their business!!

It is not a violation of our By-Laws and the like to not train. That's a personal choice and has no merit whatsoever.

The example I provided in earlier posts involved my most senior Dan student, who had lied on his testing cycles petition. When questioned by our Dai-Soke, my student withheld the truth; lied about said criminal conviction. The conviction in itself doesn't warrant a Soke judgement, it's the mitigating circumstances that warranted such from our Soke. Had said student told the truth about said conviction(s) on the testing cycle petition, the demotion of Dan rank wouldn't have ever occurred. In that, it came to our Soke's attention by our Legal Team, that said student had been lying about said criminal conviction for quite a long time on many, many testing cycle petitions.

How it came to our Legal Teams attention and/or what was the type of conviction and the other surrounding mitigating circumstances the caused our Soke to demote said student isn't a concern for our discussion, and in that, it's details are private across the board.

Said Dan student has completed his PIP, years ago, and in that, said student was finally allowed to submit several testing cycle petitions for Hombu approval, and has achieved the Dan rank that was removed, and then some.

[ps1]

It certainly depends on how you look at it. I see two options:

1. Black belt = a person who can perform at a certain skill level

Option 1 example: Sumo. In the art of sumo, you fight for rank and lose rank based on your fights. If you lose a fight, you go down in rank. If you win fights, you go up in rank.

2. Black belt = a person who completed a prescribed set of standards

 

Option 2 example: A person can go through medical school and never work as a physician with patients. Yet, 20 years later, that person still has the title doctor. I wouldn't want that person operating on me, but they retain the title none the less.

If the standards have been lessened by the individual by their premeditated actions, then that individual must be held accountable. Otherwise, the standards mean nothing!!

This has no bearing on my comment. Option 2 suggests a set of predetermined standards were met. This is in past tense; meaning it already happened. So they were already met. Premeditation has nothing to do with the scenario. The standards do not change based on intent. It's not as though an instructor sees a black belt quit and then says, "Well, you only have to be able to do 5 kata instead of 6 now."

IF a particular person believes option 2 to be true, then the black belt title can not be removed.

This has potential exceptions: An attorney can be disbarred and a medical license can be removed. The same goes for rank if some sort of rule/law is broken.

As you've already stated..."It certainly depends on how you look at it." We seem to be looking at it differently.

Within Shindokan, a Dan can be, and has been, removed by our Hombu; I've stated one example of that in previous posts. Standards are everything, and I believe that our Soke was speaking about standards whenever he did remove rank.

That's on paper. In the heart of those Shindokanists that have experienced that type of Soke judgement, their knowledge and the like aren't affected; they remain!!

I certainly understand what your point is. However, according to your bylaws (as I understand you speaking of them), a person who is not training is breaking your rules. Therefore, you don't fall under Option 2. More like a 3rd option: Yudansha are continuously graded against the bylaws/rules of the association.

Out of curiosity, once their rank is stripped, what does their rank become if they return to train again? If your bylaws specify that your training is a continuum, the only logical place to start again would be the beginning (pseudo-philosophic arguments aside).

To the bold type above...

NO!! Our By-Laws aren't trivial, and by that I mean, students continual training isn't a concern, and if a student wants to stop training for whatever reason(s), that's none of the Hombu's business. Why? It's their journey and it's their business!!

It is not a violation of our By-Laws and the like to not train. That's a personal choice and has no merit whatsoever.

The example I provided in earlier posts involved my most senior Dan student, who had lied on his testing cycles petition. When questioned by our Dai-Soke, my student withheld the truth; lied about said criminal conviction. The conviction in itself doesn't warrant a Soke judgement, it's the mitigating circumstances that warranted such from our Soke. Had said student told the truth about said conviction(s) on the testing cycle petition, the demotion of Dan rank wouldn't have ever occurred. In that, it came to our Soke's attention by our Legal Team, that said student had been lying about said criminal conviction for quite a long time on many, many testing cycle petitions.

How it came to our Legal Teams attention and/or what was the type of conviction and the other surrounding mitigating circumstances the caused our Soke to demote said student isn't a concern for our discussion, and in that, it's details are private across the board.

Said Dan student has completed his PIP, years ago, and in that, said student was finally allowed to submit several testing cycle petitions for Hombu approval, and has achieved the Dan rank that was removed, and then some.

I don't mean to insinuate your bylaws are trivial. My apologies if it came across that way.

However, based on what you wrote, your system seems to fall into Option 2. You award a dan grade based on meeting a prescribed set of standards. As long as a student doesn't break a rule/violate your bylaws, they would continue holding that rank; even after taking a long break in training and then returning. This mirrors my physician example. The only time the title would be removed would be if the physician committed an infraction that warranted such an action.

[sensei8]

Per your formula, I believe that we follow under both of your options. Why? Training means two things, imho. Can they perform at a certain level and can they perform at the prescribed standards

Training at home VS training at the Hombu or a Shindokan dojo. I can still quit formal training, and then, train on my own and still, after evaluations, maintain current Dan rank. But first, they must be submitted to an evaluation, which involves a myrid of departments either at said Shindokan dojo and/or at the Hombu. Had the Shindokanist in question possessed a Godan or higher at the time they quit formal training, they must be evaluated at the Hombu. A Shindokanist CAN'T just walk into any Shindokan dojo or the Hombu after being gone for some time and expect them to not be evaluated before allowing them back onto the floor.

We've strict guidelines that speak about this situation, and while they may not apply to other styles of the MA, they certainly apply to us.