Black Belts Like Candy?

[singularity6]

In math, mastery is the ability to perform a particular skill or apply a particular concept on your own with no use of outside resources (i.e., not following an example in your notes, text, online or asking for help.) That being said, mastery isn't permanent. A student who earned an A in a rigorous calculus class may have mastered the material then, but if they do not apply that knowledge on a semi-regular basis, they lose it. So, attaining mastery is one thing. Maintaining it is another.

[MatsuShinshii]

The grade signifies that you have not only learned but also have a very high proficiency. Just my two cents.

To me this is bang on.

A black belt should mean mastering of the basics....."mastering" being the key word here. Many time I see the interpretation of mastering to be "barely fumbling through" with a lack of a solid basic foundation and consistent performance. I don't expect a new shodan black belt to be super human, but I would expect that they would have a solid knowledge of basic techniques, decent form, have their required kata down pat, and know basic applications. If they are regularly making mistakes in the kata, their basic form is sloppy and their lacking some fundamental skills then this person has not demonstrated that they have master the basics.

I don't think we do karate (regardless of style) and flavors by advancing students who are not ready yet.

Define mastery, because that word has very broad meanings. My former sensei claimed he’s never truly mastered anything, and nor will he ever. Mastery to some means perfection, and/or there’s no room for improvement.

I think a shodan has shown proficiency in the basics/foundation of the art. A shodan must be able to use/apply those basics in many different situations. Kyu ranks should be able to look at a shodan and get a relative textbook view of the techniques. Obviously people’s physical abilities differ, and one has to take physical impairments/disabilities, and age into consideration, but a shodan must be able to apply what’s required for the rank.

I’ve looked at kyu ranks as building a robot. The techniques are basic, and there’s little variation. I look at the lower yudansha ranks as making the art their own and starting to pass it on (1st-3rd dan or so). I view the middle yudansha ranks as teachers who are still making the art their own, but are more preserving and passing it down to the next generation (4th-6th or so). I view a master (6th and up) as someone who’s truly made the art their own, is fully versed in it, and is overseeing the teachers. The teachers’ teachers if you will.

The highest I’ve attained is about 3 months before my nidan test, so what do I really know?

I guess what I’m really trying to say is when you watch a shodan spar, you should clearly see him/her using the techniques the art has taught him/her this far, using them effectively, and not “getting lucky” nor the techniques working by chance. There’s other things too, but this is the easiest and most reliable assessment IMO. Without that ability, the rest of it, while important too in the grand scheme of things, is just window dressing.

I'm not sure but I think when you cut and pasted this you must have pasted my quote under Lupin1's and vice versa.

First off my definition of mastery is as I have stated in previous posts. I do not believe a person can master this art. Pure and simple.

Master denotes that you have "mastered" the art itself, meaning there is nothing further to learn. I've been studying the arts for 40 years and can tell you that I have not learned everything. My Shinshii studied the art for 72 years and has never told me that there was nothing further to learn.

I personally can not stand the title "Master" because IMHO it's nothing more than a way to boost an ego. That and again, using the very definition of the word, it's a down right lie.

Having said that a Shodan should be able to show a great deal of proficiency. Know and have the attained skill of the Mudansha grades and the curriculum contained within. And most importantly be able to handle themselves in a fight.

My issue with most black belts these days is that they were given the grade for reasons other than what they should be given for. For one thing - if they can not fight or at minimum defend themselves.

The whole concept of it's just another belt perpetrates this way of thinking that the belt means nothing. Well my typical question to this is "at what point does the student actually resemble a BB? Sandan? Yondan? Godan? When can they actually fight and handle themselves? Doesn't this matter anymore? Isn't this the point?

Another belt? Not in my mind. It is a beginning point but it's not the beginning. That is what the white belt is reserved for. I can see a white belt not being able to defend themselves but not a BB.

Just my 2 cents.

[MatsuShinshii]

In math, mastery is the ability to perform a particular skill or apply a particular concept on your own with no use of outside resources (i.e., not following an example in your notes, text, online or asking for help.) That being said, mastery isn't permanent. A student who earned an A in a rigorous calculus class may have mastered the material then, but if they do not apply that knowledge on a semi-regular basis, they lose it. So, attaining mastery is one thing. Maintaining it is another.

So does the term apply to anyone that has "mastered" a single technique? How about a few techniques?

To me, if I were to ever use the term "Master" to define someone, it would be in reference to mastering the art not just a portion of the art.

[singularity6]

In math, mastery is the ability to perform a particular skill or apply a particular concept on your own with no use of outside resources (i.e., not following an example in your notes, text, online or asking for help.) That being said, mastery isn't permanent. A student who earned an A in a rigorous calculus class may have mastered the material then, but if they do not apply that knowledge on a semi-regular basis, they lose it. So, attaining mastery is one thing. Maintaining it is another.

So does the term apply to anyone that has "mastered" a single technique? How about a few techniques?

To me, if I were to ever use the term "Master" to define someone, it would be in reference to mastering the art not just a portion of the art.

If you see the bold above

Continued practice of ALL "mastered" skills is essential to maintain mastery.

I remember the first time I taught calculus... I had a significant amount of prep time going into the lessons. While I managed to do well with the subject, it had been some time since I've used some of the topics (related rates, for example.) "Relearning" these things went pretty quickly, all things considered, but I did have to practice a bit before delivering every lesson.

[Lupin1]

In math, mastery is the ability to perform a particular skill or apply a particular concept on your own with no use of outside resources (i.e., not following an example in your notes, text, online or asking for help.) That being said, mastery isn't permanent. A student who earned an A in a rigorous calculus class may have mastered the material then, but if they do not apply that knowledge on a semi-regular basis, they lose it. So, attaining mastery is one thing. Maintaining it is another.

So does the term apply to anyone that has "mastered" a single technique? How about a few techniques?

To me, if I were to ever use the term "Master" to define someone, it would be in reference to mastering the art not just a portion of the art.

I think he's using the term "mastery" in the educational sense. It's a teaching jargon term which basically means a student is able to complete a skill accurately every time without having to put too much effort or thought into it and that they understand the basic concepts behind the skill. It doesn't mean they're masters of all knowledge. For example, a teacher would say a first grader has achieved mastery of basic addition if the child could add consistently every time without having to stop and think about each addition fact or count on his fingers or anything like that and he understands what addition means on a conceptual level. It doesn't mean that that first grader is a master of all mathematics, just that they've mastered that one math skill.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Lupin1

[JR 137]

The grade signifies that you have not only learned but also have a very high proficiency. Just my two cents.

To me this is bang on.

A black belt should mean mastering of the basics....."mastering" being the key word here. Many time I see the interpretation of mastering to be "barely fumbling through" with a lack of a solid basic foundation and consistent performance. I don't expect a new shodan black belt to be super human, but I would expect that they would have a solid knowledge of basic techniques, decent form, have their required kata down pat, and know basic applications. If they are regularly making mistakes in the kata, their basic form is sloppy and their lacking some fundamental skills then this person has not demonstrated that they have master the basics.

I don't think we do karate (regardless of style) and flavors by advancing students who are not ready yet.

Define mastery, because that word has very broad meanings. My former sensei claimed he’s never truly mastered anything, and nor will he ever. Mastery to some means perfection, and/or there’s no room for improvement.

I think a shodan has shown proficiency in the basics/foundation of the art. A shodan must be able to use/apply those basics in many different situations. Kyu ranks should be able to look at a shodan and get a relative textbook view of the techniques. Obviously people’s physical abilities differ, and one has to take physical impairments/disabilities, and age into consideration, but a shodan must be able to apply what’s required for the rank.

I’ve looked at kyu ranks as building a robot. The techniques are basic, and there’s little variation. I look at the lower yudansha ranks as making the art their own and starting to pass it on (1st-3rd dan or so). I view the middle yudansha ranks as teachers who are still making the art their own, but are more preserving and passing it down to the next generation (4th-6th or so). I view a master (6th and up) as someone who’s truly made the art their own, is fully versed in it, and is overseeing the teachers. The teachers’ teachers if you will.

The highest I’ve attained is about 3 months before my nidan test, so what do I really know?

I guess what I’m really trying to say is when you watch a shodan spar, you should clearly see him/her using the techniques the art has taught him/her this far, using them effectively, and not “getting lucky” nor the techniques working by chance. There’s other things too, but this is the easiest and most reliable assessment IMO. Without that ability, the rest of it, while important too in the grand scheme of things, is just window dressing.

I'm not sure but I think when you cut and pasted this you must have pasted my quote under Lupin1's and vice versa.

First off my definition of mastery is as I have stated in previous posts. I do not believe a person can master this art. Pure and simple.

Master denotes that you have "mastered" the art itself, meaning there is nothing further to learn. I've been studying the arts for 40 years and can tell you that I have not learned everything. My Shinshii studied the art for 72 years and has never told me that there was nothing further to learn.

I personally can not stand the title "Master" because IMHO it's nothing more than a way to boost an ego. That and again, using the very definition of the word, it's a down right lie.

Having said that a Shodan should be able to show a great deal of proficiency. Know and have the attained skill of the Mudansha grades and the curriculum contained within. And most importantly be able to handle themselves in a fight.

My issue with most black belts these days is that they were given the grade for reasons other than what they should be given for. For one thing - if they can not fight or at minimum defend themselves.

The whole concept of it's just another belt perpetrates this way of thinking that the belt means nothing. Well my typical question to this is "at what point does the student actually resemble a BB? Sandan? Yondan? Godan? When can they actually fight and handle themselves? Doesn't this matter anymore? Isn't this the point?

Another belt? Not in my mind. It is a beginning point but it's not the beginning. That is what the white belt is reserved for. I can see a white belt not being able to defend themselves but not a BB.

Just my 2 cents.

I hit the quote button, and that’s what it spit out. It wasn’t directed at anyone particularly, but that conversation contained within it in general.

I really liked your previous post and agree in principle. But I would put something in there that I’m not sure how you feel and would appreciate your feedback...

The people I’d truly consider masters wouldn’t consider themselves masters forthe reasons you’ve stated/in the way you’ve stated. None of them I’ve met would say they’ve learned everything there is to learn. Tadashi Nakamura (my organization’s founder) has stated he will never accept a 10th dan as long as he’s alive, because he feels he’ll be learning until the day he dies. Side note - he did not promote himself to his current kudan. He was promoted to nanadan by Mas Oyama, and his hachi and kudan were awarded by a Japanese budo organization. I’m not sure of the specifics, and it’s not something he advertises.

I don’t view the term nor title of master, actually I prefer shihan, as someone who’s got nothing left to learn. I view the title as someone who’s mastered karate RELATIVE to the overwhelming majority of practitioners. Compared to just about everyone else out there, they’ve mastered the art. And there’s “masters’ masters” in a sense; the ones who are on another level; the ones who stand above the rest of the masters (not phony masters, but legitimate ones). People like Fumio Demura, Morio Higaonna, etc. I consider them the masters’ master, if that makes sense. And I’m quite sure that people at their level still learn.

My teacher is a nanadan. He’s been an active karateka for 43 years, give or take. He’s taught for about 35 years, and ran his own dojo for about 30. His title is shuseki shihan and he is one of only 5 or 6 people in our organization with that rank and title. He doesn’t refer to himself as that title, but we call her m that. In my opinion he’s earned it. Has he mastered karate in the sense that there’s nothing left to learn nor improve? No. But he’s mastered it relative to practically everyone I know. And he’s mastered Seido Karate relative to just about everyone in the organization. There are only 5 people in the entire organization (about 30,000 members total) that hold a higher rank than him. I’d say that’s mastery, relatively speaking.

[Alan Armstrong]

A contemporary martial art master isn't comparable to one in the past, due to which century are you comparing with?

Comparison with the past, students needed to be accepted by the teacher/master the process could take weeks, months or years, as today it only takes money.

Martial artists of the past where educated very harshly, which would be considered as abuse compared to today's standards, therefore the founding fathers of a style were most certainly educated very differently than you and I today.

Mastery of an art or a highly skilled craftsman was once respected as masters of their chosen trade, today it is a popularity contest that are valued above everything else with shallow, consumerism mindsets that follow trends and superfluous narcissistic glamour.

For my understanding, for an example, there is no living bad master electricians, as those that were, have accidentally electrocuted themselves, point being, a person is or a person is not, as there is no such thing as, a sort of master of anything.

It seems this being a master issue is very much abused, connected with TV chefs now days.

A master was considered as a highly capable human being, that had real skills, knowledge and experience, that was apprentice starting as a youngster, learning from a master... to become a master eventually.

Vincent Van Gogh the Dutch painter, never considered himself a master, neither did his contemporaries, but today we consider him to be one of the great master's of all time.

What can we learn from all this?

I for one understand that the word "Master" will have different meanings for everyone, for one it is a compliment, for another it is a disgusting title.

The word "Master" has remained in our society for many hundreds of years, for good and for bad and is likely to remain this way for many reasons way in to the future.

The word master, has been associated with education and figures of authority in the past.

For today and for now "The Masters" with hitting little white balls with clubs instead of swinging samurai swords.

I believe as martial artists, we should be more occupied with mastering ourselves, without losing the essence of its meaning, as in striving for constant improvement through out our entire lives.

[MatsuShinshii]

The grade signifies that you have not only learned but also have a very high proficiency. Just my two cents.

To me this is bang on.

A black belt should mean mastering of the basics....."mastering" being the key word here. Many time I see the interpretation of mastering to be "barely fumbling through" with a lack of a solid basic foundation and consistent performance. I don't expect a new shodan black belt to be super human, but I would expect that they would have a solid knowledge of basic techniques, decent form, have their required kata down pat, and know basic applications. If they are regularly making mistakes in the kata, their basic form is sloppy and their lacking some fundamental skills then this person has not demonstrated that they have master the basics.

I don't think we do karate (regardless of style) and flavors by advancing students who are not ready yet.

Define mastery, because that word has very broad meanings. My former sensei claimed he’s never truly mastered anything, and nor will he ever. Mastery to some means perfection, and/or there’s no room for improvement.

I think a shodan has shown proficiency in the basics/foundation of the art. A shodan must be able to use/apply those basics in many different situations. Kyu ranks should be able to look at a shodan and get a relative textbook view of the techniques. Obviously people’s physical abilities differ, and one has to take physical impairments/disabilities, and age into consideration, but a shodan must be able to apply what’s required for the rank.

I’ve looked at kyu ranks as building a robot. The techniques are basic, and there’s little variation. I look at the lower yudansha ranks as making the art their own and starting to pass it on (1st-3rd dan or so). I view the middle yudansha ranks as teachers who are still making the art their own, but are more preserving and passing it down to the next generation (4th-6th or so). I view a master (6th and up) as someone who’s truly made the art their own, is fully versed in it, and is overseeing the teachers. The teachers’ teachers if you will.

The highest I’ve attained is about 3 months before my nidan test, so what do I really know?

I guess what I’m really trying to say is when you watch a shodan spar, you should clearly see him/her using the techniques the art has taught him/her this far, using them effectively, and not “getting lucky” nor the techniques working by chance. There’s other things too, but this is the easiest and most reliable assessment IMO. Without that ability, the rest of it, while important too in the grand scheme of things, is just window dressing.

I'm not sure but I think when you cut and pasted this you must have pasted my quote under Lupin1's and vice versa.

First off my definition of mastery is as I have stated in previous posts. I do not believe a person can master this art. Pure and simple.

Master denotes that you have "mastered" the art itself, meaning there is nothing further to learn. I've been studying the arts for 40 years and can tell you that I have not learned everything. My Shinshii studied the art for 72 years and has never told me that there was nothing further to learn.

I personally can not stand the title "Master" because IMHO it's nothing more than a way to boost an ego. That and again, using the very definition of the word, it's a down right lie.

Having said that a Shodan should be able to show a great deal of proficiency. Know and have the attained skill of the Mudansha grades and the curriculum contained within. And most importantly be able to handle themselves in a fight.

My issue with most black belts these days is that they were given the grade for reasons other than what they should be given for. For one thing - if they can not fight or at minimum defend themselves.

The whole concept of it's just another belt perpetrates this way of thinking that the belt means nothing. Well my typical question to this is "at what point does the student actually resemble a BB? Sandan? Yondan? Godan? When can they actually fight and handle themselves? Doesn't this matter anymore? Isn't this the point?

Another belt? Not in my mind. It is a beginning point but it's not the beginning. That is what the white belt is reserved for. I can see a white belt not being able to defend themselves but not a BB.

Just my 2 cents.

I hit the quote button, and that’s what it spit out. It wasn’t directed at anyone particularly, but that conversation contained within it in general.

I really liked your previous post and agree in principle. But I would put something in there that I’m not sure how you feel and would appreciate your feedback...

The people I’d truly consider masters wouldn’t consider themselves masters forthe reasons you’ve stated/in the way you’ve stated. None of them I’ve met would say they’ve learned everything there is to learn. Tadashi Nakamura (my organization’s founder) has stated he will never accept a 10th dan as long as he’s alive, because he feels he’ll be learning until the day he dies. Side note - he did not promote himself to his current kudan. He was promoted to nanadan by Mas Oyama, and his hachi and kudan were awarded by a Japanese budo organization. I’m not sure of the specifics, and it’s not something he advertises.

I don’t view the term nor title of master, actually I prefer shihan, as someone who’s got nothing left to learn. I view the title as someone who’s mastered karate RELATIVE to the overwhelming majority of practitioners. Compared to just about everyone else out there, they’ve mastered the art. And there’s “masters’ masters” in a sense; the ones who are on another level; the ones who stand above the rest of the masters (not phony masters, but legitimate ones). People like Fumio Demura, Morio Higaonna, etc. I consider them the masters’ master, if that makes sense. And I’m quite sure that people at their level still learn.

My teacher is a nanadan. He’s been an active karateka for 43 years, give or take. He’s taught for about 35 years, and ran his own dojo for about 30. His title is shuseki shihan and he is one of only 5 or 6 people in our organization with that rank and title. He doesn’t refer to himself as that title, but we call her m that. In my opinion he’s earned it. Has he mastered karate in the sense that there’s nothing left to learn nor improve? No. But he’s mastered it relative to practically everyone I know. And he’s mastered Seido Karate relative to just about everyone in the organization. There are only 5 people in the entire organization (about 30,000 members total) that hold a higher rank than him. I’d say that’s mastery, relatively speaking.

I appreciate where you’re coming from. And I understand your definition of “master” or “mastered”.

In my way of thinking years, grade and titles do not meet the meaning/ definition of the word/ title. Having said that you sited examples of what I would consider someone that is very proficient, highly skilled and very much respected.

I have 40 years of study but am a student of the art and believe I’ll always be. I could not imagine a day when I would ever be able to call myself that term/ title. And as I said after 72 years my Shinshii has never referred to himself as a master.

Call it a personal opinion.

[singularity6]

I appreciate where you’re coming from. And I understand your definition of “master” or “mastered”.

In my way of thinking years, grade and titles do not meet the meaning/ definition of the word/ title. Having said that you sited examples of what I would consider someone that is very proficient, highly skilled and very much respected.

I have 40 years of study but am a student of the art and believe I’ll always be. I could not imagine a day when I would ever be able to call myself that term/ title. And as I said after 72 years my Shinshii has never referred to himself as a master.

Call it a personal opinion.

Learning is a life-long journey, my friend.

[MatsuShinshii]

I appreciate where you’re coming from. And I understand your definition of “master” or “mastered”.

In my way of thinking years, grade and titles do not meet the meaning/ definition of the word/ title. Having said that you sited examples of what I would consider someone that is very proficient, highly skilled and very much respected.

I have 40 years of study but am a student of the art and believe I’ll always be. I could not imagine a day when I would ever be able to call myself that term/ title. And as I said after 72 years my Shinshii has never referred to himself as a master.

Call it a personal opinion.

Learning is a life-long journey, my friend.

That is very true.