- Joined
- Oct 17, 2005
- Messages
- 6,473
- Reaction score
- 0
Training with someone in person usually makes it pretty easy to tell if they are a giant doucher or a pretty cool guy who doesn't afraid of anything.
Exactly. I don't believe rank is a rigid set of requirements.
- It isn't solely based on the number of techniques you know. You can know 1000 different techniques and not be able to pull them off against resisting opponents. But there is a minimum requirement. You need a broad range of knowledge.
Everyone wants a list of technical requirements. There are plenty of DVDs and "mail-order" affiliations that use this method. This is arguable the easiest part of rank, but it isn't more important than ability or character. You can easily test knowledge. But it's hardly the most important part.
- It isn't solely based on performance either. You can tap out every blue belt and still be a white belt. But there is a minimum requirement of performance (weighted by age or other circumstances). You got to back up what your know with competence.
One of the biggest things IMO are how well you can use your own body. The better you get, the better you can move your hips out while keeping pressure. The better you can take a fall without hurting your head. The better you can relax while rolling. The better you can train - either being too stiff nor too floppy. This is one of the hardest things to learn.
And it isn't totally about competition victory. Competition is a great tool & way to evaluate performance. Competing regularly tests your character, knowledge, and skill. But it isn't the only tool, nor is it a perfect test.
- It isn't solely based on attendance. You got to show commitment. You represent the instructor when you are promoted. He has to get to know you.
You can't just train for a month, get a blue belt, then leave. Instructors HATE it when people quit after getting promoted. Rank is supposed to motivate you to learn more, to challenge yourself at the next level in tournaments. It isn't supposed to be the end of your training.
- It isn't solely based on character. You don't have to be a saint. But you aren't going to get promoted if you're an obvious jerk. There are plenty of black belts that get in fights. Even in jiu-jitsu, there are many people who aren't good guys. That's a shame, and I truly believe it should change.
You got to be able to train without ego. You're supposed to leave your ego off the mat. You got to be comfortable tapping to lower belts. I've seen places promote so their higher belts feel better. That's ego. This is part of the character requirement.
And are you becoming more confident? More imaginative or more serious about training? More open minded to different games? Not limiting yourself? Character isn't just about not being a douche bag.
You can have a list of guidelines, but not everyone fits. Beyond reasonable minimum requirements. you also teach your instructor how to promote you. Are you reaching your goals? If you want to win the worlds, you won't get promoted unless you get close and are allowed a shot at it. If you want to defend yourself on the street, you'll be weighed more heavily that way.
The Gracies Academy can judge the 1st part to an extent from internet videos of people performing their technical forms. Pedro Sauer may be able to judge some technique and some performance after watching someone roll after a few moments, but that paints an incomplete picture. I also wonder what he misses - some people have great guards but horrible takedowns. I am totally against such unbalanced games.
Neither can know the person from one private lesson or a youtube video. Neither can know if they are reaching their own goals in the art, or whether promotion is all they're after. They can't know if promotion will help their training or hurt it.
That's a few reasons why I'm against internet testing or testing just based on performance from a few rolls.