How Frequently Would You Have To Get Promoted Before Considering A Place A McDojo?

FightGuyOpenMind

Purple Belt
@purple
Joined
Aug 29, 2018
Messages
2,409
Reaction score
0
I understand people advance at different rates than others. However, I have seen guys be white belts with no fight experience become "advanced belts" (brown, black) in a couple of years.

I can understand it if you have previous fight experience, coming from a different but similar style, or are just a stud of an athlete.

However, do you believe a guy or gal starting from scratch should be allowed to advance that quickly (about 2 years) to brown or black belt level? How does this reflect on the school itself, the instructor, and the validity of their rank?

This is not meant to bash anyone's achievements, however, what are your thoughts on belt advancement. What is acceptable versus what is a sign of a black belt factory?

Thoughts?
 
How fast somebody gets promoted is completely irrelevant. What's matter is how he well he does against other people with the same rank. If somebody gets a black belt in BJJ in 1 year instead of 10 but goes on and wins the mundials at black belt, I would have no problem with that.
 
How fast somebody gets promoted is completely irrelevant. What's matter is how he well he does against other people with the same rank. If somebody gets a black belt in BJJ in 1 year instead of 10 but goes on and wins the mundials at black belt, I would have no problem with that.

That makes sense. I meant more so in a striking art such as karate, TKD, etc. Any thoughts on that scenario?
 
Its usually a case of inflation.

An old training partner of mine said his coach used to say, if you're a blue belt here, you should be a blue belt everywhere.

Brown or black, probably not unless they're really top tier. I'm not a fan of a belting system personally, it creates alot of crap with and muddles the waters. Competitive blue is going to be better than a hobbyist purple. But in the eye of the beholder, its still their colored rank. It gets even more complicated when you have someone who's had decades of competing in wrestling, on the varsity team, then start out in BJJ. Now he/she is obv gonna be a white belt, but really they're blue plus due to years of grappling exp. Them being promoted to blue faster than the traditional 2-3 year mark rubs those the wrong way who have started BJJ for a couple of years and finally got their blue.

I know its always good to give people a visual aid of their progress, because when you work hard, and have nothing to show for it does get you down sometimes, but thats where competing comes in. To me is the true identifier. I have my own ideas of what constitutes as a belt rank, some have said I'm off, but what I think personally. I feel having 10 sanctioned fights makes you a real "black belt". Some have said 3 is probably there. I don't agree with that.

Now if a gym has an internal rank eg. colored shorts, patches, etc. that they specifically keep within their own gym, thats cool. But if you're getting "belted" in the same global system as everyone else, then its a problem with rapid promotion.
 
the majority of martial arts that use a belt ranking system outside of BJJ are generally speaking McDojos. McDojo martial arts is its own industry, primarily based off kids, and them rapidly progessing and becoming black belts is all standard business model.

Im not knocking karate or tkd or any other traditional martial arts, but much like how MT in the US is watered down, so are the various forms of karate etc here in the US. For exmaple how common place is a high level competitive kyokushin gym in the US compared to McDojos. Your local kids TKD McDojo is going to be much different than some high level TKD gym in korea. just saying.
 
the majority of martial arts that use a belt ranking system outside of BJJ are generally speaking McDojos. McDojo martial arts is its own industry, primarily based off kids, and them rapidly progessing and becoming black belts is all standard business model.

Im not knocking karate or tkd or any other traditional martial arts, but much like how MT in the US is watered down, so are the various forms of karate etc here in the US. For exmaple how common place is a high level competitive kyokushin gym in the US compared to McDojos. Your local kids TKD McDojo is going to be much different than some high level TKD gym in korea. just saying.
i also believe there is a place for mcdojos, as long as they don't go letting their students get too delusional.
 
A black belt in TKD has not the same meaning as a black belt in bjj. A black belt in bjj means you are in the top level. In TKD it's just when you have the basics. Also in TKD (ITF and WTF), there is an official world organization, and the belt promotion are done twice a year.

1 year white to yellow
1 year yellow to green
1 year green to blue
1 year blue to red
1 year red to black

So officially, you need 5 years to be a black belt in TKD. But a black belt in TKD is nothing. You need to be 3ird degree black belt to be a assistant trainer, and you need to be 4th degree to be an instructor.

2 years black 1 to black 2
3 years black 2 to black 3
4 years black 3 to black 4

So you need to have at least 10 years of TKD to be able to assist with the training, and 14 years to open your Dojo.
Again, don't compare black belts from one art to another. They don't have the same weight. In TKD, nobody gives a fuck if you have a black belt... Every one has it. It's more like an early purple belt in bjj.
 
Belts are for holding stuff up or hanging tools off.......... Or even for people that do really well and win fights.......
 
A black belt in TKD has not the same meaning as a black belt in bjj. A black belt in bjj means you are in the top level. In TKD it's just when you have the basics. Also in TKD (ITF and WTF), there is an official world organization, and the belt promotion are done twice a year.

1 year white to yellow
1 year yellow to green
1 year green to blue
1 year blue to red
1 year red to black

So officially, you need 5 years to be a black belt in TKD. But a black belt in TKD is nothing. You need to be 3ird degree black belt to be a assistant trainer, and you need to be 4th degree to be an instructor.

2 years black 1 to black 2
3 years black 2 to black 3
4 years black 3 to black 4

So you need to have at least 10 years of TKD to be able to assist with the training, and 14 years to open your Dojo.
Again, don't compare black belts from one art to another. They don't have the same weight. In TKD, nobody gives a fuck if you have a black belt... Every one has it. It's more like an early purple belt in bjj.

You need 14 years to open a Dojo in TKD..........<Lmaoo>
 
Belts mean little.

In a fight no. In a structured organization, yes. At the very basic level it gives the right to teach. Those without experience to the contrary will also believe it shows proficiency (which it should).

Here is my take (take it for what it's worth):

Belts should mean a substantial amount, but I think it has to be based in something with more substance than a lot of places are asking for.

However, if you show up and are committed you advance. Which I agree with. Being committed means a lot!! You can be a Rockstar at fighting but if you're reason for not being promoted is attendance issues then it's a personal reason for you not advancing while the other practitioners who may not be studs surpass you.

You'll see guys who weren't standouts get promoted, and I'm always in admiration how they know all of their history, stances, kata/forms, great attendance but can't really fight. Then you've got the real fighters who show up sporadically, aren't as respectful, and kind of just go with the flow.

If those guys get promoted just on fighting alone then you're devaluing the art. No one should be "above" the art.
 
Thank you to everyone for your contributions. In order to keep the thread on track, and in the appropriate forum let's please consider only "stand up" striking arts.

BJJ is fantastic but it is largely a ground fighting art. Let's consider the argument for "stand up" striking arts such as karate, TKD, etc. Thanks.
 
In a fight no. In a structured organization, yes. At the very basic level it gives the right to teach. Those without experience to the contrary will also believe it shows proficiency (which it should).

Here is my take (take it for what it's worth):

Belts should mean a substantial amount, but I think it has to be based in something with more substance than a lot of places are asking for.

However, if you show up and are committed you advance. Which I agree with. Being committed means a lot!! You can be a Rockstar at fighting but if you're reason for not being promoted is attendance issues then it's a personal reason for you not advancing while the other practitioners who may not be studs surpass you.

You'll see guys who weren't standouts get promoted, and I'm always in admiration how they know all of their history, stances, kata/forms, great attendance but can't really fight. Then you've got the real fighters who show up sporadically, aren't as respectful, and kind of just go with the flow.

If those guys get promoted just on fighting alone then you're devaluing the art. No one should be "above" the art.
I get what you're saying. Let me elaborate a little. Generally, you get belts for memorizing and putting on a shallow demonstration of the techniques in the curriculum. I think that someone should only receive a belt it they can demonstrate a deep understanding of the techs in question. In other words, they know WHY they're doing the things they're doing. I think if you are fat or old and you can't do things properly, that should hold you back from getting a belt. I don't think thats a popular opinion though.
 
I get what you're saying. Let me elaborate a little. Generally, you get belts for memorizing and putting on a shallow demonstration of the techniques in the curriculum. I think that someone should only receive a belt it they can demonstrate a deep understanding of the techs in question. In other words, they know WHY they're doing the things they're doing. I think if you are fat or old and you can't do things properly, that should hold you back from getting a belt. I don't think thats a popular opinion though.

I'm on the same wavelength as you. I'm tracking lol. In Shotokan I've heard them call it the "bunkai" (application). My instructor (sensei) broke it down for me last night. He asked me this: "What do you like better, kata or kumite?" I told him kumite, because I can practice my fighting. He assured me that kata is helping fighting or self defense as well. He then proceeded to demonstrate a ton of application for kata. He even showed standing wrist locks, and joint locks that were in the kata. His explanation was that most people only see the striking, punches and kicks, elbows and knees "this is not just a block, this is a grab" etc.

He then went into a fighting stance he said "this is not self defense, this is fighting". Then he walked up to us shoulder, to shoulder, and chest to chest in our personal space grabbing wrists, and collars. He said "this is self defense". Something clicked with me, and I saw value in both kata and kumite. If I became proficient in solely sparring, then I would be a good fighter based on fight experience, physical attributes and yes could be promoted.

However, what can I teach a person not physically in shape, not youthful about self defense? Hey, go punch that guy as hard as you can. They may not be strong enough to do so. My sensei is shorter than me, older than me, and I personally believe I'd beat him in a fight. HOWEVER, his understanding of application, can cripple me if the situation presented itself. Most true self defense situations are not about "squaring up".

This was a just a revelation I had, thought I'd share.

IN ANY CASE, (this post was long---apologies)

Yes I agree that if you can not fight and can not explain the application of the techniques you shouldn't get promoted. Perhaps they could rectify this by having more styles incorporate striped belts to show seniority but give solid belts only when able to acceptably pass a test.
 
i also believe there is a place for mcdojos, as long as they don't go letting their students get too delusional.

I agree. People are quick to forget that Jimmy Rivera, Lyman Good, and Urijah Hall all came from a chain McDojo.
 
I think if you are fat or old and you can't do things properly, that should hold you back from getting a belt. I don't think thats a popular opinion though.
So if you get fat you get demoted?

reported for fat shaming
 
each 20 lbs and you lose a rank? but on a serious note i wouldn't mind if the school/instructor gave out belts faster than average, as long as the recipient demonstrated skills/knowledge
 
each 20 lbs and you lose a rank? but on a serious note i wouldn't mind if the school/instructor gave out belts faster than average, as long as the recipient demonstrated skills/knowledge
Shin said McDojo-ism is a whole different area which is true. While I don't like a belting system, parents do. And thats the targeted audience: people who don't know about the industry but enroll their kids for extracurricular activity. Obv they want to see milestones in their "investment".
 
I did TKD growing up and generally if you stuck with it and came to each "advancement test" you'd be a black belt within 3 years. We had quite a few kids who started at age 5 and were blackbelts by the time they were 8-9 years old. It was a god damned joke and absurd to see these kids who had no coordination at all walking around with a blackbelt. 100% McDojo all the way and a waste of money in every aspect.
 
I agree. People are quick to forget that Jimmy Rivera, Lyman Good, and Urijah Hall all came from a chain McDojo.

What are the norms for the dojos they came from? Some guys' success is intrinsic, and they were going to be good or great no matter where they went.
 
Back
Top