The old ranking system

[Spartacus Maximus]

Has anyone ever thought about the old pre-war system of teaching martial arts in Japan and Okinawa? How long did a student in those days train before being considered skilled enough to take on students of their own?

[Wado Heretic]

Karate cannot be quickly learned. Like a slow moving bull, it eventually travels a thousand leagues. If one trains diligently for one or two hours every day, then in three or four years one will see a change in physique. Those who train in this fashion will discover the deeper principles of karate. - Anko Itosu

The phrase "three years, one Kata" is also often stated in turn of the century materials, and Mabuni Kenwa, despite his encyclopedic knowledge of kata, suggested 2-3 kata would be sufficient to become an exponent of karate. A few such as Uechi Kenba and Higaonna Kanryō spent a decade or so of study in China, and were often considered experts upon return.

Working from such sources I would say an "apprenticeship" of direct study could be expected to last 3-4 years, but one might not be considered worthy of teaching unless one had much more significant experience, and could walk the walk.

Looking at the masters of note from the past; all knew more than two or three kata, and thus perhaps a large catalogue of kata was another prerequisite, because without one you would not be able to pick and choose the kata to teach a student.

My guess is that you are probably looking at about the same time it takes to get to Sandan in the modern system, but that it would be far more reliant on your reputation, ability to walk the walk, and value of your knowledge base to actually gather students. In some ways that remains true today, the the formal grading system, does allow a bit of a free pass to expectations.

[sensei8]

Karate cannot be quickly learned. Like a slow moving bull, it eventually travels a thousand leagues. If one trains diligently for one or two hours every day, then in three or four years one will see a change in physique. Those who train in this fashion will discover the deeper principles of karate. - Anko Itosu

The phrase "three years, one Kata" is also often stated in turn of the century materials, and Mabuni Kenwa, despite his encyclopedic knowledge of kata, suggested 2-3 kata would be sufficient to become an exponent of karate. A few such as Uechi Kenba and Higaonna Kanryō spent a decade or so of study in China, and were often considered experts upon return.

Working from such sources I would say an "apprenticeship" of direct study could be expected to last 3-4 years, but one might not be considered worthy of teaching unless one had much more significant experience, and could walk the walk.

Looking at the masters of note from the past; all knew more than two or three kata, and thus perhaps a large catalogue of kata was another prerequisite, because without one you would not be able to pick and choose the kata to teach a student.

My guess is that you are probably looking at about the same time it takes to get to Sandan in the modern system, but that it would be far more reliant on your reputation, ability to walk the walk, and value of your knowledge base to actually gather students. In some ways that remains true today, the the formal grading system, does allow a bit of a free pass to expectations.

Solid post!!

As one evolves over time, so does the MA at hand. What was, is now gone forever for some great reasons, however, with the great, comes the bad, this is to be expected; evolution touches everything.

The bad nowadays, imho, is the fast-food speed in climbing the rank ladder; not one rung at a time slowly, but in a road-runner fashion to appease some morbid desire to be a 10th Dan faster than the speed of a bullet...or faster.

Those good days of old, are still there, but the bad is quickly changing the landscape into a dry desert of rank mongers. Traditions are being eroded away with a new fresh paint of this and that. This only aids the bad to become much more stronger and available for the quick fix MA schools that cater to their P&L's bottom line over quality.

I yearn for the days of old, but if only to strongly stall the desire of rank. Rank has its place but that doesn't mean that it's in the right place; the right place is in ones heart, and not around ones waist. Rank has a purpose, but it's not, or it shouldn't be, the main purpose.

Those who serve tradition as a cold dish, seem to have forgotten that without tradition, there can not be evolution because there has to be a start...a beginning...a point 'A'...before evolution, and evolution is used with such wide broad strokes of the brush these days, is to amend tradition, it must respect those things of tradition.

[Spartacus Maximus]

One of the only reliable sources of infirmation on this subject is the writings some of the 19th and early 20th century martial arts experts. Unfortunately very little is available because of the secrecy of training and because the culture.

It was extremely rare for anyone to write anything about history, especially martial arts and even when something was written, there was always a good mix of half-truths and outright myths out of respect or admiration of famed experts.

In contrast to the Okinawans and Chinese, the Japanese martial arts had an organized set of teachings. When a student had learned all of the techniques included in the school, the result was the "menkyo kaiden". It literally means "license". This meant that the student was now licensed in that school and recognized as an inheritor who could take on students.

Depending on the type of martial art this probably varied and many teachers did not always teach each student everything. Only a few would be worthy to recieve the entire system and become "licensed"

According to online resources on pre-war and classical martial arts, the menkyo kaiden is supposedly equal to 30(!) years of training.

[bushido_man96]

It always seems like the romanticism of the "old school" pops up from time to time, and its always assumed it was better then than it is now.

The problem with this is that we always talk about "the good ole days" like there were never any bad days, and this just isn't the case. The great things get remembered, and maybe at times embellished to some degree, and the bad things get tossed by the wayside. Its revisionist history, and it can get in the way of progress.

I don't mind the pre-war ranking system, but I don't mind the ranking systems that have come about over the past generation, either. What I am interested in is the approach, the teaching methodologies, and the qualities of the instructor.

[Spartacus Maximus]

It is true that people have a tendency to think that things were better in the past. Everyone does this, and it must have something to do with human nature. Looking at the exponents of the past generations and their training methods can help modern practicionners understand how they trained to achieve and develop their skills. Comparing also gives a good idea of how one might get similar results with what is available in this time.