thoughts on belt ranking.

I recently read an article thread on belt ranking systems on MartialTalk and was inspired to comment. The original author briefly elucidates the factors in a common complaint against martial arts- that the pursuit of rank often detracts from the pursuit of the art itself. While I couldn’t agree more, I also feel that some sort of rank system is necessary in public schools.


a personal story

In elementary school I went to the local YMCA afterschool everyday. They offered a program in Seido Karate a few days a week and I eventually tried it out. I hated it and quit. In middle school when I wanted to sign up at my Kung-Fu school my mom was understandably hesitant. Afterall, I come from a working class family and she had shelled out good money for a karate gi that barely got any use before being given away. “Trust me Mom, this is different.” And it was, despite a multi-year hiatus in the middle for school and work I am still training there.

One of the things that really turned me off by that initial martial arts experience was the belt system. The afterschool kids who took those Karate classes simply couldn’t shut up about who had what belt. The highest ranked kid was more interested in asserting the fact that he had some sort of misconceived superiority to others then actually what he was doing. Never mind the fact that he was a chubby, poorly coordinated putz. I had a negative attitude toward Karate for years, largely because of this belt worship and was very happy that I was studying at a school that didn’t subscribe to it.

Years later in graduate school a Shaolin disciple opened a school in town. I had been looking to get back into martial arts for years but the options were slim to none where I was living. So I signed up- Wushu, Yang style Tai Chi and Sanshou. At this point I didn’t fully realize the difference between modern Wushu and traditional Kung-Fu or what would become my myriad complaints against Shaolin (some which are elaborated on here). I also didn’t realize there was a colored sash system in place. When I did I figured, eh, I’m mature enough, I know that doesn’t matter. Wrong. To my credit, rank was not my primary concern and I did train very hard. But as we had these silly sash tests every month or so I realized I was getting jealous or even indignant about ranking. “But I know the required form so much better than him….but he hasn’t been here as long as me….” I took a leave of absence for finals and it was like detox. Once I got it out of my system I realized- definitively- that I was uninterested in going back to that environment.

the origins of rank

The above mentioned school didn’t cook up belt or sash ranking and I don’t think they intended it to be a central focus. Traditionally, there was no rank in martial arts. They were taught within families. As smaller schools opened it was simply a question of the head of the school asking certain students to help teach when they were ready. The other students naturally referred to them as big brother or senior. Different systems evolved over time and Jigoro Kano, the founder of Judo introduced a dan system of ranking to differentiate senior students in 1883. But even this referred essentially to instructors as he first applied to his most senior students and dan grades were to be used to differentiate black belt ranks. It wasn’t until 1935 that the colored belt (kyu) system most people associate with martial arts was introduced.

problems with belt systems

I believe this finite differentiation of rank is problematic for martial arts training. Most people will agree that it is a productive motivator to have clear goals to reach for, but if the ladder rungs are too close together you loose sight of the climb. If you see only the next thing you want to grab onto, you are prone to forgetting why you’re climbing in the first place. This is the most commonly articulate issue with belt systems- that they detract from training.

The other principle complaint is that they are abused by so-called “McDojos” as money making devices. Either through direct payment for “testing fees” or simply as a consumer incentive to keep the student interested. This is especially dangerous for two reasons; the first is obviously- that it dilutes the art. As lesser qualified people claim higher rank simply because the school owner wants their money, it hurts the overall reputation not simply of that school but the art in general that that underqualified person represents. The other is the false confidence it breeds. Martial arts have many aspects but at the end of the day they are self-defense systems. If you tell someone they’re great at a self-defense system when in fact they are not, well….

This bleeds into the supposed benefit of using them for children’s programs. We’ve all heard complaints of the absurdity of 12 year old black belts. Some argue however that colored belts are good for kids to reward them and keep them motivated. I would argue however that this panders to the basest expectations of children and undermines what martial arts can provide them. Instead of instilling discipline, focus and comprehension of larger lessons that they may not be receiving elsewhere, you maintain the societal focus on short term reward. You know what the biggest class is at my school? Yep, the children’s class, and none of the students have rank.

My main issue with belt ranking however is that it is petty. The idea of The Black Belt is so mainstream that whenever someone finds out that I study Martial Arts the second question (after what kind) is ALWAYS “so what belt are you?” You can argue this is a reflection of America’s own status oriented mentality, but martial arts, at least in America definitely feed into it. I don’t measure my progress or satisfaction in training with a rank. I measure it by pleasure derived from the process, level of self-efficacy, ability to perform difficult physical and mental tasks and sense of personal physical security. If these things do not develop with your training what good is a wall of colored cloth?

benefits

Ranking is not without its merits. It’s used in other areas such as the military and certain competitive sports and games (Kano borrowed his dan system from Go). It can distinguish gradations in skill, effort, accomplishment and contribution to the school and/or larger martial arts community.

Ranking can be especially useful in a competitive environment where you seek to match players from different schools and it facilitates orderly operation in a larger school. These were likely among Kano’s chief motivations for introducing the system.

Ranking is also important in setting goals and mile markers for students. A friend of mine studies traditional Kung-fu at a small school (maybe ten students total). His teacher (and his teacher before him) uses no ranking system at all. After twelve years of study you have his blessing to open your own school and call yourself Sifu (teacher/master). I have qualms with this. If your study is sectionalized there are check-in points where you ensure that a certain level of development has been reached- can this person perform at a certain level of expectation? Do they know the associated history/theory/etc at a deep enough level? Can they provide the expected quality level of instruction?

final thoughts

The school I study at does not have a belt system. We do however use a traditional “button ranking.” There are six degrees, the sixth conferring the title of Master; the first, assistant instructor. In some ways I interpret this as being similar to Japanese arts’ dan system of black belts (although this typical goes to 8 or 10). The fundamental difference being that there are no color kyus at the beginning. Degrees differentiate level of instructor as well as concurrent authority within the school (at 100+ members some hierarchy becomes useful). Meaning essentially you are a beginner until you know the basic material well enough to pass it on effectively (about 3-5 years depending on the individual).

I like this system. The degrees are spread out enough that they do not obscure the larger picture of training. The tests are held privately only once a year and last multiple hours. Attaining Master rank takes anywhere from 20 to 35 years of continuous study. So there’s no rush. On the other hand there still definitely are students at my school that covet rank, but maybe that’s the afore mentioned American mindset?

By contrast a typical Japanese school might award a black belt within five years with similar expectations as our first degree. I recently have been looking into competing and everywhere I look seems to divide competitors by kyu and with black belt or “advanced” all grouped together. I have my second degree, I have been studying for eight or so years and do NOT consider myself advanced (or anyone else with my experience level). Why so many gradations at such a low level? Really compare the difference between a typical karate blue belt and yellow belt to the difference between a first and fourth degree black belt. My answer is money. Entering competitions costs money, testing at many schools costs money. The newer you are the more likely you are to be preoccupied with these things and the more divisions means the more trophies to give out means the more incentive to plunk down your $75 registration fee.

Another friend studies Brazilian Jujitsu; he’s a purple belt. The way he explained it to me, white is a new student, blue you have the basics down, purple you begin to move like a Jujitsu man, brown you’ve developed your own style and movement, black you have accomplished yourself sufficiently to be respected as a teacher. Black belt status takes 8-10 years of continuous study on average. Again, there is better spacing and the belts reflect a specific marker. As well Brazilian Jujitsu teachers tend to award belts rather informally. When a student is ready, they are promoted; hence the focus on rank does not dominate the atmosphere of the school.

I like this approach because it is practical and sense based. At the end of the day Brazilian Jujitsu is a competitive sport and performance at competition often figures heavily in promotion. In other words, the rank is a reflection of the student’s development within that discipline and ability to perform the necessary skills. At the end of the day I don’t think that a ranking system is inherently bad. But it must be based on a sensible set of criteria and be spaced out sufficiently and deprioritized in such manner as to not divide one’s attention from the larger goals of study. Otherwise you risk turning your school into a pyramid scheme.