delta1 Posted September 1, 2003 Posted September 1, 2003 It isn't the rank system that makes good or poor practitioners. It is, in order of importance, the practioner, the instructor, and the school (just my opinion). Whether the school uses a lot of belts, a few belts, or a phase system (begginer, intermediate, advanced) really depends on the teaching style and the ammount of material to be learned more than anything else. Standardized rank systems and carriculums in large organizations help insure that everyone is taught the same things to the same level of proficiency at the same point in their training. It also provides an easily identifiable reference for skill level at seminars, tournaments, or for students visiting another school. Ditto for visitors or new students at your school. As for belts and the McDojos, if they didn't have belts I'm betting they would find some kind of status symbol to hand out to make their students feel good enough to make their next payment. Awards, certificates, patches, stripes on the ghi, colored ghi's- these are already used by the clowns running these schools. But when you step on the mat, that is when you and your school earn their reputation, and the trimmings don't mean squat any more. So if you have 'IT', wear your belt and school patch proudly. If not, look to your own attitude and find another school. Freedom isn't free!
karate_woman Posted September 1, 2003 Posted September 1, 2003 Hmm. I can find both good and bad things to say about the belt ranking system. On the one hand, belts and ranks are a good idea because they allow the student to show progression (which keeps goal based students interested), and they also enable instructors to tailor their classes to the level of the student (assuming the instructor doesn't normally teach that class and isn't familiar with the student). Unfortunately, the lack of consistency in the martial arts community, and the McDojo phenomenon has made the belt ranking system meaningless when you try to compare one dojo or system to another. On the other hand, belts in and of themselves have always been meaningless; it is the training itself, and not the belt you're wearing that has real value. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. -Lao-Tse
Goju1 Posted September 1, 2003 Posted September 1, 2003 inferiors? I'm not picking on you angel but you prove part of my point here. There are no inferiors or superiors in a karate class.There are people with more and less knowledge, but they all have the same goal (ideally anyway) and that is to increase that knowledge. I teach and I don't think that instructors are superior to their students. I happen to have more knowledge about what it is we're learning and I'm in charge of the class but I don't think of myself as superior. This alludes to our status seeking society. If I misunderstood what you were trying to say then by all means please explain. Thanks for the replies everyone. I'm guessing its a language thing. I am split - being a traditionalist, I yearn for the old ways (2 belts), but I can see the many advantages of a ranking system, i.e. knowing who to ask for advice in a large dojo, allowing a visiting instructor to split up lower/higher skilled persons for advanced training, etc... If I had to 'vote' at this point I'd choose the belt system (ouch) because I feel in todays society (western at least) it has far more advantages than disadvantages. Caveat being that we're talking about a well run Dojo here Good Topic!
kataman Posted September 1, 2003 Posted September 1, 2003 2 waya i look at ,first in the begenig japanies were so cauth up in who was the best and who the sensei would choose to be the next in charge,juste like Jesus and is desciples who was the great one,so they needed a stucture just like the army and in a way it was the best think to do.but Ihave to admit that some school have sell there black belt regardless of the hability of the personne and it show on the matt in a tournement.But for my self I think of the belt stucture of more like short time goal cause sometime if you look at the overall time that you have to spend to get a black belt you sometime get discourage,but when you lookat next belt and you don't forget about the work to do you will eventuly reach you ultimate goal. I don't train for belt color I train to survive on the street
rb Posted September 1, 2003 Posted September 1, 2003 I've been reading posts where the belts you wear allow the instructor to better cater to your skill. If you have spent any time with your instructor, he/she will know where you stand.
Sasori_Te Posted September 1, 2003 Author Posted September 1, 2003 I agree rb. As for having a visiting instructor working with the students, he still doesn't have any idea of the true skill level of the student. I think the permanent instructor should be taken under advisement about his students before any training on the part of a visiting instructor. I know this isn't the norm but IMHO it should be. Belt meanings change from school to school even in the same style. And before anyone says anything, this goes for the classical styles as well. I'm not arguing whether it should or shouldn't (it shouldn't), but it does. A block is a strike is a lock is a throw.
Kirves Posted September 19, 2003 Posted September 19, 2003 Luckily, there's practically no McDojoism in Finland, so I haven't really seen the effects of it (except in 'net and in BB-magazine. I'm laughing my butt off for them). Yeah. Sadly, some foreigners try to import the McDojo-ism over here too. I know one turkish Tangsoodo/Taekwondo instructor who is the epitome of McDojo-culture, right here in Finland. Well, at least we are still talking about a single case anyway. PS. Nice to see more finns here. There was one semi-finn here before, but you seem to be the genuine article, as far as your name is concerned. I've seen your name on sfnet newsgroups too. How did you find this place?
Goju1 Posted September 20, 2003 Posted September 20, 2003 PS. Nice to see more finns here. There was one semi-finn here before, but you seem to be the genuine article, as far as your name is concerned. I've seen your name on sfnet newsgroups too. How did you find this place? Hey, I'm half Finnish and proud of it, my mother was from a town called Kotka (sp) and her maiden name was Sauvinen (sp) I visited there when I was younger - lovely country, lotsa lakes, saunas, pretty girls! Can I be a "semi-finn"?
Kirves Posted September 20, 2003 Posted September 20, 2003 Hey, I'm half Finnish and proud of it, my mother was from a town called Kotka (sp) and her maiden name was Sauvinen (sp) I visited there when I was younger - lovely country, lotsa lakes, saunas, pretty girls! Can I be a "semi-finn"? You spelled Kotka correctly (Kotka means Eagle by the way). Sauvinen is ok for a last name, but it can also be misspelled. Hmmm... Okay, if you insist, you can be a "semi-finn", LOL!
Kate Posted September 21, 2003 Posted September 21, 2003 (edited) *edit* Edited October 17, 2003 by Kate Respect, honesty, dignity - they're free how about we give them to each other?
Recommended Posts