Martial Art System with Belt Rankings vs. a Martial Arts System with no Belt Rankings

[Empty Fist]

I’m curious to hear what other people have to say about this topic. Which system (belt vs. non-belt) produces better martial artists? What do you think the general public’s opinions or even other martial artists’ opinions are about systems that have no belt rankings (are non-belt ranking martial art systems considered valid system to learn from)? Should all martial art systems have belt rankings? More specifically, should all Kung Fu forms have a belt/sash ranking system to preserve the integrity of the art?


I also wanted to wish all my fellow martial artists health and peace this holiday season.

[Kumkuat]

if done correctly, the belt/rank system. For instance, BJJ, where you have to earn your belt through sparring and winning a lot instead of other arts where if you pay for the testing, you're 99% sure of getting the belt. There shouldn't be any testing, and if there is, it should be a hard test where the passing grade is knowing and able to perform 90% of stuff that's required to do instead of 70% or whatever. If there isn't testing, the instructor will just give the rank/belt when he sees a student consistantly doing what's required to go higher. For example, the instructor can use the 10 levels of chen taijiquan as a guideline to figure out what level that student would be. (currently, according to people and high level masters, no westerner are at level 3, and few chinese are at that level or higher).

Besides, the rank/belt system gives people some goal to look for which is a good motivator to train hard.

[count]

I think a belt ranking system would do more to water down the integrity of CMA's than to preserve it. Just look at systems that use belt ranking systems now. You have 10,000 schools teaching Tae Kwon Do in every city. Now try to find a decent one. Tae Kwon Do is an excellent martial art but look at it's reputation now that is systemized and standardized for the masses. Who would set the standards for CMA? Some people say there over 150 different styles of CMA. I think it may be closer to 300. Now, how many White Crane schools are in your city? How many good ones? Just curious why you choose the internal forum for this question instead of the main forum where you find more styles?:cool:

[count]

Well there you have two posts with two opposite opinions.

Happy Holidays to you too!;)

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings and happy holidays..

Belts produce egos and a caste system.. i have been in both, and prefer no belts except for the instructors.. certificates of acheivement are sufficient.. In some systems each rank must be subservient to the higher ranking belts, this breeds animosity and cruelty (a personal observation). Belts can be bought, know me by my deeds, not my clothes..

Aside from that terse pronouncement, Be well and enjoy the holidays with friends and family..

[Prairie]

I agree that belts are of little value for people who want to excel at an art for the art's sake and their own sake. One's skill is displayed when one performs the art. This skill is evident regardless of what one's supposed skill level.

Belts may be important for some personalities - those who need short term goals and those who needs perks to their ego. Although these are personality traits in many people, the quality needed to excel is passion. If one has passion for an art it matters not if they have a symbol of accomplishment.

[HispanicPalm]

Belts may be important for some personalities - those who need short term goals and those who needs perks to their ego. Although these are personality traits in many people, the quality needed to excel is passion. If one has passion for an art it matters not if they have a symbol of accomplishment.
Prairie
Good Post!

But in my opinion Belt/Sash ranking may be a good idea for those individuals who don't see the true power of IMA and expose them to the training in a way that they can absorb, given you have the right masters create a ranking system that could be followed by all IMA Instructors and for these instuctors to incorporate this ranking system in their schols curriculum the Instuctors themselves should be tested as well.

Kumkuat

currently, according to people and high level masters, no westerner are at level 3, and few chinese are at that level or higher).

I beleive the reason for this is that no westener has the time to train at the level the chinese practitioners train it takes a great deal of commitment and responsibities get in the way.

PEACE

[Walter Joyce]

Originally posted by HispanicPalm

But in my opinion Belt/Sash ranking may be a good idea for those individuals who don't see the true power of IMA and expose them to the training in a way that they can absorb, given you have the right masters create a ranking system that could be followed by all IMA
Kumkuat


I go back and forth on this issue.

Sure the ranking system can be a great motivator.

Sure its important to keep the art alive, so attracting students is necessary.

But do you really think the type of person who needs this type of motivation is the type of person who will have the commitment and dedication required to achieve internal skill?

Do you see the dilemma in my point?

BTW, I should disclose that I have tested numerous times for rank in more than one system, my highest rank being yon dan, or 4th degree black. I say this to show that I am familiar with such methods and have seen the majority of people get their black belt, assuming they even get that far, and then quit, or fade away.

They see the goal as the point, and not the training. To have any chance of success in the internals, you have to see the training as the point, a daily part of your life.

In other words, the path itself is the destination.

[HispanicPalm]

Walter,

I see your point clearly but most people need this type of motivation to explore for example: I know many people who want to learn IMA but are either afraid to explore the unknown or just can't pick-up all the information at the same pace I might be able to also they might think the training is too hard for them and that does'nt mean they don't really want to learn but it's a sign of fear wheather it be Fear of failure or dissapointment.

Gotta go work, get back later

PEACE

[Water Dragon]

I like belts. Used correctly they can maintain the integrety of the system. For example, I may be starting a training group soon. I have a green belt in Shuai Chiao. This lends legitamacy to the training group. Everyone who comes in knows what they are getting, someone who can take them to green belt level.

Also, since I don't hold a black, I can't promote and must teach under the name of a black belt. This is also good because people don't see where I'm at and assume that is high level skill. When the black belt comes in and tosses us around, THAT is high level skill.

I also have a gross idea of what level of skill a given belt should have. The majority of our testing involves jacket wrestling and sparring. If I run into a black belt and whoop his @ss, he wasn't really a black belt.

[scholar]

This points up the fatal flaw in a belt ranking system.
If you can defeat a tested black belt when you yourself aren't one, then who is to say who is "really" a black belt? The junior?
These ranking systems imply some sort of guarantee to the public and to beginners, but it is all symbolic.
Traditional CMAs have a family model ranking system based on seniority, not ability. "Heng-Tai," older brother-younger brother. Someone who joins later must show respect to the member who joined earlier, that is the rule, period. It is the teacher's responsibility to see that this isn't abused politically by the senior students. If it works well, (nothing's perfect) everyone learns another layer of self-discipline than just physical.

[Laconic_Dave]

Originally posted by HispanicPalm

... given you have the right masters create a ranking system that could be followed by all IMA Instructors and for these instuctors to incorporate this ranking system in their schols curriculum the Instuctors themselves should be tested as well.

Note that this assumes some kind of national (or international) organization, run by the right kind of people with the right kind of ideas, which can control testing and rankings.
Unfortunately, this is just wishful thinking.

Belts are an issue in Japanese martial arts, and arguments over the significance of belts break out on www.e-budo.com every couple of months. The majority view in those arts with belt rankings seems to be that the belt says little about the objective and knowable skills of the holder, but merely indicates his position in a particular school (i.e., you can't be sure that someone with a blue belt knows techniques X, Y, and Z--all you know is that he knows more than a yellow belt from his school and less than a brown belt from his school, but you don't know how he would stack up against, say, a yellow belt from another school).

I don't think belts are a good idea. On the one hand, there is no way to ensure they are given for objective performance, and on the other, they lead to the situations mentioned by Prairie and TaiChiBob.

[Water Dragon]

Originally posted by scholar
This points up the fatal flaw in a belt ranking system.
If you can defeat a tested black belt when you yourself aren't one, then who is to say who is "really" a black belt? The junior?


Quite frankly, you don't see this happen in the fighting schools.

[fragbot]

Since I periodically relocate, I've trained in 3 different systems. 1 with a rigid ranking system and curriculum, 1 with a more informal ranking system and curriculum, and 1 with no ranking system and an informal curriculum.

My take: the ranking system itself didn't really matter for me motivationally. Even if I never advanced, I would've continued to train as long as I continued to learn. However, since the ranking system was strictly paired with the curriculum you learned (IOW, you learned certain djurus, langkahs, and pukuls at certain ranks and *only* at those ranks), it made for coherent and consistent instruction. Specifically, it helped ensure the quality of the art over the long-term and makes the art more accessible and understandable for a new student. Compared to the other systems I've trained, the volume of information presented was much greater. Fundamentally, having such codification makes training instructors dramatically easier and, as a result, it's great organizational self-defense.

That being said, working in a more informal environment has its advantages as well. Since we spent much more time on a *few core* things, I'm more proficient at those few things, but there's less certainty the organization will survive over time. Furthermore, I think the informal approach works better with people who already have training experience. It would require an extraordinary person to successfully enter my current training group without any prior experience. I suspect our didactic method would fail people with a clean slate.

To make a long story end, I'd say ranking systems don't matter *unless* they're used as a way to organize the curriculum.

[Empty Fist]

Some interesting views and posts. It seems overall that there is a split between the pros and cons of a belt ranking system

Pros for Belt Ranking System
*Brings organization to the curriculum
*Provides a goal to reach.
*Helps in attracting students
*Shows that an individual has learned certain skills.
*It helps ensure the quality of the art over the long-term
*Makes the art more accessible and understandable for a new student

Cons against Belt Ranking System
*Belts can be bought.
*Systemization and classification waters down the integrity of the art.
*Belts produce egos and a caste system
*In some systems each belt rank must be subservient to the higher ranking belts, which can breed animosity and cruelty.
*If you can defeat a tested black belt when you yourself aren't one, then who is to say who is "really" a black belt? The junior?
*A belt says little about the objective and knowable skills of the holder.
*Informal approach works better with people who already have training experience.

[MonkeySlap Too]

Well golly, I've gone round and round on this one for years. The key problem is that the attributes that make make skills usable are often not stated on the 'rank' requirements. It is one thing to memorize choreography, it is another to demonstrate those skills in a 'live fire' exercise and prove you've learned something.

Which is why, at each level of training, there are forms of free practice all the way up to free sparring required to earn your rank. You must demonstrate the required attributes and apply the skills you learned - or you do not pass.

This does two things. 1.) None of my students go around doubting thier ability. They know where they are, and they know what to work on. 2.) None of them think they are Wong Fei Hung and walk around with thier belts tied around thier heads. They know the kind of work that goes into the skills.

It was only with great reluctance and a revolt by my students that I finally relented an instituted a ranking system into my teaching. I'm glad I did now that I can see the results.

[MonkeySlap Too]

Pros for Belt Ranking System
*Brings organization to the curriculum
REPLY: Useful as long as you don't become a fossil.
*Provides a goal to reach.
REPLY: Moreso than goals, it supplies a roadmap. As long you realize the map is not the territory, you are okay.
*Helps in attracting students
REPLY: It often does little for me. The kind of people who do what I do often are put off by belts at first.
*Shows that an individual has learned certain skills.
REPLY: Yes. If the gradings are tough and consistent.
*It helps ensure the quality of the art over the long-term
REPLY: See answer above.
*Makes the art more accessible and understandable for a new student
REPLY: Very, very true. I've forgotten this point when I abandoned ranking systems.

Cons against Belt Ranking System
*Belts can be bought.
REPLY: Sure, at any MA supply store, but especialy www.martialartsmart.com - but not from me, because you have to prove ability in my club, and you NEVER pay for the belt. Just the test. You fail, that's your problem.
*Systemization and classification waters down the integrity of the art.
REPLY: Because people confuse the map with the territory. Include attributes with skills on the rank tests, and you won't have this problem.
*Belts produce egos and a caste system
REPLY: True. Be vigilent and you can guide people through this phase. But many people seek a power in the Kwoon that they lack in thier real life. They need to be better educated.
*In some systems each belt rank must be subservient to the higher ranking belts, which can breed animosity and cruelty.
REPLY: Tell them thier wife / girlfriend was a lousy lay. Then find yourself a better school.
*If you can defeat a tested black belt when you yourself aren't one, then who is to say who is "really" a black belt? The junior?
REPLY: Nah. While you should always be able to dust raw recruits, as you age you become more of a coach. Boxing coaches are tough, but you don't see them climbing into the ring with the young bucks in thier prime. SEt realistic expectations. Your black should not suck, should be able to perform well, should know thier art, but no one is invincible.
*A belt says little about the objective and knowable skills of the holder.
REPLY: Unless they had to prove thier skills to get it.
*Informal approach works better with people who already have training experience.
REPLY: Old Chinese saying: If you want to learn from someone, become thier friend rather than thier student.


You left out the 'fear of failing' most black belts have. An unwillingness to enter an arena they are unfamilar with. You should never lose your ability to be a beginner.

Just my 35 cents.

[Walter Joyce]

MS2,
Good post. Thanks for laying out a thorough look at the issue.

[Kumkuat]

What about a hybrid system? Say we have 10 levels with 1 being the lowest (white belt I guess) and 10 being highest (black or something).

Each level would have certain guidelines that the person must complete before moving up a level. If there is a test, it would be extrememly strict, hard, and demanding; and if there is not a test, the teacher would raise the students' level depending on if the students deserve it based on everyday performance.

However, the students won't wear or display anything about the rank. The teacher would just give the student something like an offical piece of paper or just tell them that they've increased a level or something. So now, the students know where they are in terms of their skills according to the school or their art.

This would probably reduce the caste system a bit. Well, the caste system would probably be no worse than respecting someone who's been with the teacher longer than you have. And the teacher can take care of the student who is boasting about their level and abusing their 'rank.'

[Water Dragon]

Good idea Kumquat, but it wouldn't work. If we didn't have belts, what would we crack?

Big ;) to all the Shuai Chiao guys.

[Walter Joyce]

BTW, what do you guys know about Gene Chicoine?

[count]

Originally posted by Walter Joyce
BTW, what do you guys know about Gene Chicoine?
Heh heh...No belt big enough for that guy. :p


Say Walter, haven't you got a comment for the question by WhilrlwindPalms here about Gao style video's? (http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=18356)

[Walter Joyce]

I do now count. BTW, my uestion was innocent. I remembered reading about Chicoine years ago. PM me for more details of your thoughts on him, please.

[Ray Pina]

I've been involved with both.

I don't think I deserved my black belt looking back. I was much too young. Yes, I knew all the forms, could break boards and even beat many of the men in sparring, but take the rules out of it and let it continue and I'm sure they would have killed me -- though my side-blade kick was good if I got it in on them.

Now, I don't care about belts, titles, or any other put-in-place form of codifying rank or skill. I respect my seniors because they are better and more knowledable then me, they have put more time in at something I love so they have my respect automatically.

For myself, I look for martial artists similiarly sized and weighted, or bigger, and simply see if I can beat them. If I can, great. If not, what went wrong? What did I do technically wrong that caused me to lose? What did I do right?

That's all I care about. I'm a little better then the last guy I beat, but not good enough yet for that 6'8 300lbs maniac. That's how I like to think, it pushes me.

With belts, you can think you reached something -- which you did -- but it might tempt you to stop off.

Keep training, go deeper.