What makes an 'expert in martial arts'?

[OneKickWonder]

I've heard it said a few times, that when you get your black belt, it shows that regardless of what you achieve outside of martial arts, you are at least an expert in martial arts.

Really?

This got me to thinking.

Someone who spends a lifetime learning the teachings of one master is likely to be deemed an expert in martial arts. But perhaps they are only an expert in one person's methods.

Conversely, someone who does 6 months here, 6 months there, and goes to lots of seminars, but never achieves a senior grade in anything, is unlikely to be considered an 'expert'. Certainly if judged according to any one grading criteria at least.

So what do we think makes an 'expert'?

I don't believe it's grade. I've met some pretty poor quality black belts over the years (more excellent ones, but still some rubbish ones). It can't be the range of styles. I've met many who think they know everything just because they had a few classes here and there and watched a few YouTube videos.

This comes from by the way, I was once shown the syllabus way to perform a self defence technique. I know for absolute fact with no doubt whatsoever that the technique shown would be extremely unlikely to work in the street. Not through my martial arts knowledge, but just by having grown up in the wrong part of town.

[sensei8]

Knowledge and experience through acceptable tenure. But of whoms acceptability?? Like rank, that which is acceptable 'here', isn't acceptable 'there. Everything is suspect even if it comes from a recognizable source.

Imho!!

[tallgeese]

I've heard it said a few times, that when you get your black belt, it shows that regardless of what you achieve outside of martial arts, you are at least an expert in martial arts.

Really?

This got me to thinking.

Someone who spends a lifetime learning the teachings of one master is likely to be deemed an expert in martial arts. But perhaps they are only an expert in one person's methods.

Conversely, someone who does 6 months here, 6 months there, and goes to lots of seminars, but never achieves a senior grade in anything, is unlikely to be considered an 'expert'. Certainly if judged according to any one grading criteria at least.

So what do we think makes an 'expert'?

I don't believe it's grade. I've met some pretty poor quality black belts over the years (more excellent ones, but still some rubbish ones). It can't be the range of styles. I've met many who think they know everything just because they had a few classes here and there and watched a few YouTube videos.

This comes from by the way, I was once shown the syllabus way to perform a self defence technique. I know for absolute fact with no doubt whatsoever that the technique shown would be extremely unlikely to work in the street. Not through my martial arts knowledge, but just by having grown up in the wrong part of town.

I think it's a complete grasp of the system. Martial arts is too broad a term. Your system. The one (ones) you train in. Can you completely state, perform, and discuss the whys of the curriculum? Can you compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of tactic and technique selection? Lastly, can you teach it? If you can do all those at a depth of understanding beyond the ability of most practitioners then you're in the category.

Ranking is subjective, a grasp of all of the above is not. For example. If I compare my total understanding of a system at black belt I have a far more comprehensive understanding of BJJ at BB than in the kempo system I studied. If feel that at purple belt in BJJ I has the same systemic level of understanding in jiu jitsu as I did at BB in kempo. This is not a cut. Just a difference in how things are constructed. By 2nd Dan I feel as I did at BB in jiu jitsu.

So, it's subjective. Look at the depth of understanding. That's the key.

[MatsuShinshii]

Depends on your definition of expert.

Too often students feel their teacher is an expert solely based on his grade. This is not IMHO a good indicator.

IMHO an expert is defined by not only knowledge and skill but depth of understanding.

[Nidan Melbourne]

Knowledge and experience are key.

A few people call me an “expert” in Karate. I am far from it, let alone in Goju-Kai! And i’m a 2nd Dan who has trained for 17 Years. I know some things, but not enough to be an expert.

I call some people an authority on their respective style or martial art. Like I call Sensei8 an authority on the Shindokan, and Tallgeese an authority in BJJ. Why? Because i know nothing of the Shindokan, and very little about BJJ.

My sensei says reaching your Black Belt is like finally packing your bag and leaving for the journey. Whereas the colour belts are packing the bags.

For me; Kyu Grades are like Primary/High School, Dan Grades are University/College.

[Spartacus Maximus]

Simply put, what makes an expert in something is a the number of years of practise and experience in a skill set combined with a great depth of knowledge in the field to which said qualities are important. That and the approval as well as the recognition by others in said field.

Scholars for instance, are called experts in their field of study because their peers and colleagues recognize the depth of their knowledge, experience and efforts to make advancements in it. They also enjoy a certain degree of influence and authority in their field. There is also a certain reputation factor.

For martial arts, it can be more difficult to establish than for scholars and grades mean the very least.

[OneKickWonder]

Simply put, what makes an expert in something is a the number of years of practise and experience in a skill set combined with a great depth of knowledge in the field to which said qualities are important. That and the approval as well as the recognition by others in said field.

Scholars for instance, are called experts in their field of study because their peers and colleagues recognize the depth of their knowledge, experience and efforts to make advancements in it. They also enjoy a certain degree of influence and authority in their field. There is also a certain reputation factor.

For martial arts, it can be more difficult to establish than for scholars and grades mean the very least.

Let's say you have someone who is fairly low in grade, but understands how there's no such thing as technique, just principles from which techniques can be built on the fly. That person can see a hundred different uses for a basic low block for example, and they can put all those principles together naturally as they move. But they can't seem to learn the lingo, and they struggle to remember the sequences of forms.

Conversely, you have someone who can perform any form to competition standard. They can speak all the lingo. They know all the history. They can perform a jump 360 roundhouse to head height. But ask them to improvise or gods forbid, actually fight, and they have nothing.

Would either of these two hypothetical extremes qualify as a martial arts expert?

[JR 137]

Simply put, what makes an expert in something is a the number of years of practise and experience in a skill set combined with a great depth of knowledge in the field to which said qualities are important. That and the approval as well as the recognition by others in said field.

Scholars for instance, are called experts in their field of study because their peers and colleagues recognize the depth of their knowledge, experience and efforts to make advancements in it. They also enjoy a certain degree of influence and authority in their field. There is also a certain reputation factor.

For martial arts, it can be more difficult to establish than for scholars and grades mean the very least.

Let's say you have someone who is fairly low in grade, but understands how there's no such thing as technique, just principles from which techniques can be built on the fly. That person can see a hundred different uses for a basic low block for example, and they can put all those principles together naturally as they move. But they can't seem to learn the lingo, and they struggle to remember the sequences of forms.

Conversely, you have someone who can perform any form to competition standard. They can speak all the lingo. They know all the history. They can perform a jump 360 roundhouse to head height. But ask them to improvise or gods forbid, actually fight, and they have nothing.

Would either of these two hypothetical extremes qualify as a martial arts expert?

The first example is far closer to expert than the second one.

An expert can look at something in his field that he hasn’t seen, and understands how it works, why it works, how to fix it, and how to adapt it. Real world example: my father has been a mechanic for about 50 years. He hasn’t seen every part of every car. Yet he can look at a car he hasn’t ever worked on and easily figure out how to fix just about anything that’s wrong with it. And he can look at a lot of other mechanical stuff and come up with a solution far quicker than someone without as much experience.

The second guy is not much more than a memorizer, so to speak. He’s memorized everything he’s been taught and performs it exactly as taught. He lacks any real why or when to do something when it’s not scripted for him. Real world-ish scenario - he’s a person reading lines of a play in a monotone voice and no expression, rather than actually acting the part and making it his own.

Anyone can memorize a pattern. Barring physical limitations, anyone can make movements look nice if they truly dedicate enough time and energy to it. There’s a night and day difference between making something look great and actually being able to do it when it’s needed.

[sensei8]

Simply put, what makes an expert in something is a the number of years of practise and experience in a skill set combined with a great depth of knowledge in the field to which said qualities are important. That and the approval as well as the recognition by others in said field.

Scholars for instance, are called experts in their field of study because their peers and colleagues recognize the depth of their knowledge, experience and efforts to make advancements in it. They also enjoy a certain degree of influence and authority in their field. There is also a certain reputation factor.

For martial arts, it can be more difficult to establish than for scholars and grades mean the very least.

Let's say you have someone who is fairly low in grade, but understands how there's no such thing as technique, just principles from which techniques can be built on the fly. That person can see a hundred different uses for a basic low block for example, and they can put all those principles together naturally as they move. But they can't seem to learn the lingo, and they struggle to remember the sequences of forms.

Conversely, you have someone who can perform any form to competition standard. They can speak all the lingo. They know all the history. They can perform a jump 360 roundhouse to head height. But ask them to improvise or gods forbid, actually fight, and they have nothing.

Would either of these two hypothetical extremes qualify as a martial arts expert?

That answer will be dependent on the individual your asking, and in that, the term "expert" is as vague as the term "black belt".

Someone can be an "expert" as a Shodan depending on the individual terming said practitioner. A Shodan is more of an expert than a Kyu ranked practitioner. However, that Shodan isn't much an expert as a Godan; depending on the dojo/style/etc.

A "So called expert" tag surely is an insult across the board; doubt of credibility!!

Is an "expert" a "master" in said style of the MA?? Once again, that answer will vary considerably.

As far as your hypothetical goes, neither of them are "expert" for one reason or another. Ability for a jump 360 roundhouse to head height, and the like, is far from being an "expert". Knowledge is far from knowing history and lingo because a well written book can provide that and then some.

No, for me, proof is on the floor!! Nothing else, for me, tells me what I need to know other than the floor; there's no ambiguity whatsoever on the floor!! I'm very well versed in the lingo and Kata in both empty and weapons and in the history and in Kumite/Grappling/Tuite/Etc and applications and so on and so forth both in and out of Shindokan; 53 years on the floor...Kudan and Hachidan...Does this make me an "expert"?? Depends on who's asking and who's interpreting of the factors. Once again, proof is on the floor!!

Imho!!

[OneKickWonder]

Sensei8, I like your saying, 'proof is on the floor'. But is it not flawed?

What if you had the hypothetical best martial artist to have ever lived, but he's grown old and weary and now struggles to even walk never mind anything else. If he doddered into your dojo, stooped over a zimmer frame, would he be an expert?