From: the_dojang-owner@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com To: the_dojang-digest@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Subject: The_Dojang-Digest V6 #613 Reply-To: the_dojang@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Errors-To: the_dojang-owner@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Precedence: The_Dojang-Digest Wed, 22 Dec 1999 Vol 06 : Num 613 In this issue: the_dojang: Black belt blurb... the_dojang: Re: The_Dojang-Digest V6 #612 the_dojang: Re: Gen. Choi Article: further thoughts. the_dojang: Re: The_Dojang-Digest V6 #612 the_dojang: . ========================================================================= The_Dojang, serving the Internet since June 1994. ~725 members strong! Copyright 1994-99: Ray Terry, California Taekwondo, Martial Arts Resource Replying to this message will NOT unsubscribe you. To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe the_dojang-digest" (no quotes) in the body (top line, left justified) of a plain text e-mail addressed to majordomo@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com. To send e-mail to this list use the_dojang@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com See the Korean Martial Arts (KMA) FAQ and online search the last four years worth of digest issues at http://www.MartialArtsResource.com Pil Seung! Ray Terry, PO Box 110841, Campbell, CA 95011 KMA@MartialArtsResource.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: J Thomas Howard Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 16:48:24 -0600 (CST) Subject: the_dojang: Black belt blurb... I've got an extra $.02, so I thought I'd throw them in. The disucssion so far has been very interesting to me, because I agree with several people who have very different attitudes about and rank requirements. For the record, to pass one of my tests, you have to manage a certain minimum set of standards with respect to techniques. (This standard changes as the rank increases.) Within those standards is leeway with a subjective "points" system----missing a point here on this jump-spin kick can be made up by a point later because of an exemplary reverse punch, etc... But, a certain minimum is required. However, subjectively, the student is also measured with respect to personal development within the art. I'll note that without the minimum standards for the belt, you don't get the rank. However, even after meeting those standards, you still might not pass depends on personal development. That sounds really awful, stated that way. It is reasonable, really, I just don't have time to write out an explanation that sounds better. :) Minimum standards" wise, someone once said something to me that made a lot of sense. "Would you award certification as a welder to someone who couldn't handle an arc properly?" Or more appropriately for me, would I pass someone from a physics lab who could do the math? Nope. Similarly, I won't pass someone a rank unless they can fulfill certain minimum requirements with regards to technique. Anyway, the REAL reason I wanted to babble here: What folows is an article I wrote one day when a different set of people were havinga disucssion about what the term "black belt" means. Just some thoughts, let me know what you all think. - ------------------------------------------------------------ How do you define a black belt? How do you classify someone as a "black belt ranking" in a martial art? A friend and I got into this, with myself playing the devil's advocate (a position for which many people apparently think I was born) and after awhile, I realized that I was having troubles with my own definition of what "black belt" means, after shredding my friend's arguments. (I'm kind of nasty that way.) We then traded positions, to be fair----and I stumbled around a lot. How do you define a black belt? Way back when, I used to say that anyone could be a black belt in hapkido. As long as they kept trying, kept working, and didn't give up, anyone who took the classes for enough time would, after 3-5 years, earn a black belt in hapkido. My thinking at the time went along the lines of "In my opinion, everyone can learn to defend themselves adequately against 95% of the people out there, and hapkido teaches self-defense, so anyone can earn a black belt in hapkido." (1st dan begin my at-the-time perceived level of basic solid self-defense learning.) I've changed my mind. :/ Several obvious reasons, and a couple of obscure ones. Obviously ones are pretty simple----hapkido may indeed teach self-defense, but that isn't all we teach. The above logic train (if you can dignify it that much) just doesn't hold up under an entire martial art. So what became my basis for believing everyone could become a black belt in hapkido (as long as they kept trying)? Not much. I had to seriously re-think it----and attempt to figure out my definition of what "black belt" means, in terms of what is required. (You'll note I'm skipping my other reason, both obvious and obscure---primarily because they show I'm an idiot for not thinking more in the first place.) Definition of a black belt---for some people, it is easy: If you can do the techniques during your testing, and you've spent the time-in-grade, you are a black belt. So it is based on what you can do? Let's take taekwondo as an example. TKD has a number of jumping/spinning kicks. I know a 7th dan TKD practitioner who no longer can do those jump-spinning heel kicks. His body simply won't do them anymore. By one definition, he wouldn't be able to pass a 1st dan test. Should he not be a black belt anymore? Higher rankings have different requirements, you might say. Oh, so the higher ranked you are, the less you have to be able to do? But they aren't physically capable anymore, one might argue. Ok, so now you don't have to be physically capable, you just have to know how to do the techniques? So, in other words, you can get a black belt from reading books and watching videos. After all, I can read a good reference and be able to tell people how to do techniques that way. You don't think so? Okay, so what is the criterion? For some people, it is the ability to compete and win, that gives them the "points" necessary to advance to the next rank. (Pardon me for errors in this thinking, I've never actually practiced an art where this was true, though I hear a number of Taekwondoin and Judoka practice this way.) So, if you can do the techniques, show the kata, teach the art----but can't win, you don't count? What if you consistently win, using two techniques. (Bill Wallace comes to mind here.) You can't do anything else (okay, now we aren't talking about Mr. Wallace anymore) but those two carry you enough to win a number of tournaments. Are you a black belt? I don't think so. So, how do you define a black belt? Is it an attitude? Is it physical technique? Is it a levelheadedness with regards to physical confrontations, with emotional control? Is it an ability to teach? Is it something that you reach once, and after that, don't have to ever demonstrate again? There are a number of people out there in wheelchairs who are aikido practitioners, some of whom are black belt ranks. The question is, how so? They obviously can't do the footwork, the distance training, entering techniques (based on their physical movement) etc----a large section of their art, they can't do. And yet, they are ranked. Was someone feeling sorry for them? I don't think so. I think they worked hard, and earned their rank. Does that mean that rank requirements change depending on the person's abilities? So a blind quadrapalegic can get a black belt somehow? That doesn't seem right. So where is the line drawn? (And no, I don't mean to pick on aikido----I just read an article about handicapped martial artists and self-defense, so this example came to mind.) There was a blind man (well, actually about 17 years old) who had a black belt in TKD (or karate, I'm not certain). I read about him, and once saw him demonstrate a kata and some breaking techniques. He was Impressive. (And yes, I meant that to be capitalized.) He broke two boards at head height with a jumping back kick, did several kata with power and control, and overall, was very technically oriented. On the other hand, his sparring was pathetic. He had no distance game (for obvious reasons) and as such, he'd never win a tournament in sparring. Similarly, he'd never be able to teach. A teacher could use him for demonstration, but he could never evaluate students in any meaningful way. And yet, he is ranked as a black belt. Again, is it based on techniques? Is it not? Based on teaching ability? How about on self-defense ability? How do you define a black belt ? We all say "black belt" and it means different things to all of us---and yet, there are certain things we expect of a person we call "black belt." But what is it? Our requirements, while obviously different for each art and each style, seem to also change based on who we are dealing with. And yet, we seem to expect many of the same things from our black belts, even though we can't seem to define what those things should be. And of course, people get in arguments as to what a "proper" black belt can do and be. I think of my instructor, who doesn't kick above the waist anymore, because his back and an injured knee. I think of that blind kid, who had the best jump spinning crescent that I'd ever seen at the time. I remember a guy from Omaha who visited down here one day who was technically proficient, (quite good actually) but wasn't a black belt, and who had the willpower of an unrepentant heroin addict, and the emotional maturity and control of a 14-year-old on cocaine. I'm not even sure how he stuck with it enough to gain that much physical control---but he certainly had it. A woman I tested with once would just take you apart with her self-defense techniques. Her locks were sharp and solidly in control, her pressure points were precise and effective, and if you grabbed her and tried to restrain her you'd end up a close, personal acquaintance of the floor, wondering if your body was ever going to work correctly again, IF she ever let you up. And yet, none of her breaks worked during that particular test. Not one. She didn't break her bricks, her hand techniques didn't break the boards, and she bruised her heel badly on her spinning heel break. By some testing criteria, if you don't break (if you even miss one) you don't pass. Should she be a black belt? By what criterion? My friend and I finally came up with a tortured, mangled, alterable-but-working definition of a black belt, according to us. Black belt: Someone who has a thorough, proficient grounding in the basic techniques of an art, such that they can effectively demonstrate and/or teach those techniques. Additionally, someone who has the mental and emotional control to both use those techniques effectively and appropriately in society. That seems to cover just about everyone I know that I consider to be a black belt, and disqualifies everyone that has some knowledge but whom I do not consider black belt material. (Hey, I can be subjective---this is my definition, after all. :) That blind man----he may not be able to teach, but he certainly can demonstrate. That wheel-chaired black belt----she may not be able to demonstrate footwork, but of all people she understands the concept of effective distance, and can teach it. That woman who couldn't break that day----I've seen her break before, and I'm sure she'll be able to do it again. She is a wonderful teacher, and an excellent practitioner. It just wasn't a good break day. They are all black belts, and should be. And that one from Omaha who visited? Nope. "Appropriateness" is a word outside his vocabulary. (Actually, "Duh" was about his limit, but let us not be unkind. Well, not TOO unkind. Ahem.) The definition of a black belt differs greatly from art to art----and yet, when we say "dan rank," "black sash," or whatever term reflects that particular rank, we expect the practitioner to know certain things, to act certain ways, and to be an example for lower ranks. We don't always get it----I've seen black belts that I would not let get anywhere NEAR my students, and others that I think need remedial emotional control practice. However, that doesn't change what I expect: A person with emotional, mental, and physical control, teaching or technical ability, and above all, the capacity to be an example of a good martial artist to lower ranks. A black belt. - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Thomas - ------------------------------------ thomcat@binary.net http://www.binary.net/thomcat/ "If you aren't modeling what you are teaching then you are teaching something else." ------------------------------ From: LJSFLEM@aol.com Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 20:39:53 EST Subject: the_dojang: Re: The_Dojang-Digest V6 #612 In a message dated 12/21/99 5:22:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, the_dojang-owner@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com writes: << >This evening I had to inform one of my students that she did not pass her >> Please reach out and call your student. She is probably embarrassed. She has disappointed herself and her family. I know and instructor who calls when students are out of class. No matter what caused us to be out, it felt really good to be a part of the school. Lorraine ------------------------------ From: "John Groff" Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:33:29 -0800 Subject: the_dojang: Re: Gen. Choi Article: further thoughts. d.d.parker@juno.com wrote: >>While I sincerely mean no disrespect to the General, he gives the impression in the interview (to me at least) that he alone >>is responsible for the development of Taekwondo and that none of the other Kwan's played as important a role in it's >>development as he did. This is a point which of course can be argued back and forth regarding who did what and when, >>and the significance of everything, but he did seem to take an awful lot of credit for himself and made very little mention of >>the contributions of others. It would be interesting to hear what he had to say about Lee Won-kuk and what he thought this man's role should be in modern TKD, as Choi was once his student. I used to be completely disgusted by Choi's claims and his apparant arrogance re his continued insistance that he had "founded TKD". Until I began considering his background, intent, and how he may have come to see himself in this light. In the interview, it becomes clear that Choi's motive in installing the name Taekwondo was to give the Koreans a sense of patriotism, and to officially sever ties with Japanese aspects of the art. Choi also is clear in that he recognizes no connection with China in his art, saying ". . .Taekwon-Do is a new martial art created by me in 1955". It was Choi who organized most of the inter-kwan meetings with other kwan jang. While the name was sometimes accepted, sometimes not, it was Choi who, as far as we know, forwarded the name originally. While some other instructors stuck to Kong Soo Do (karate-do, empty hand way) and Tae Soo Do (foot-hand way) Choi adamantly stuck to and continued to promote the name Taekwondo--and eventually, it caught on as the generic term for the Japanese-descended kicking and punching arts. He introduced the Tuls with nationalistic names in an effort to halt the practice of Japanese kata. Granted, in the beginning this was simply a rearranging of techniques from Japanese Karate kata, a "Koreanization" if you will. With Lee Won-kuk exiled in Japan, and Choi making all of these efforts, it is not surprising that he came to see himself as the founder of the art to which he had contributed a name and so many innovations. Choi was not unusual in this regard, after all, Lee was the founder of Chung Do Kwan and the head of his school, not just another Shotokan stylist. As a General, Choi also was relatively safe politically, and as an nationally recognized figure in favour with his government, he was able to bring his art to an international audience. Due to Choi's promotion of the name Taekwondo among the different kwan, this too came to be used as a generic term for the Kong Soo/Tae Soo art even among instructors who had only met Choi casually, or not at all. As many of these instructors began to travel internationally as well, the term "Taekwondo", not necessarily linked to Choi anymore, became popular the world over. When Park Chung-hee came into power, Choi's favored treatment and privilleged position ended. It seems this surprised him--but it shouldn't have. Politics in Korea has always been a bloody game, and most of the Kwan founders have had run ins with the government at one time or another. Choi again underestimated his government's power, and Park Chung-hee's relentlessness, when he made the well-intentioned descision to visit N. Korea, and was considered especially arrogant for deciding on his own to found the ITF and locate its HQ in Canada, demonstrating mistrust of and snubbing his own gov't. His intentions were noble--to bring TKD to the world, prevent gov't meddling, and forever halt pro-Asian (racially motivated) prejudice with regards to promotions, etc. But the S. Korean government certainly wasn't going to let its chance for Olympic and world recognition slip quietly away into the night! Of course they regrouped with other kwan heads and bureaucrats, and formed the WTF to challenge the ITF, likewise exporting instructors oversees to compete w/ those representing the ITF. Now, what Chance did Choi have in competing with the S. Korean gov't? All things considered, he fought the good fight, but it was a losing battle. "President" Park would have seen him deposed regardless, at least in Canada he would be able to continue to travel, teach, and introduce further training innovations. Yes, Choi Huang-hi's problems were political in nature. No, he was neither apolitical nor completely innocent of using these tactics against others himself. Yes, he originally introduced the _term_ taekwondo, and introduced further training measures to distance the art from other nations, giving the Koreans something they could now say was "Made In Korea" even if it did have roots in Occupational Japan. And yes, he honestly sees himself as the Founder of Tae Kwon Do--for Choi views the term Taekwon Do as being indivisibly linked to the physical forms he has modified, and the goals of the organization he heads. Considering his age and experiences, this will be unlikely to change. And if you're wondering, I see him as another Kwan head--most of them introduced some innovation or other. No, I'm neither WTF or ITF. - --C.J. ------------------------------ From: "Silke Schulz" Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 21:38:41 -0800 Subject: the_dojang: Re: The_Dojang-Digest V6 #612 Mr. Spiller wrote: >>I found it very interesting that in one of the pictures in the article the >>ITC President (can't remember his name off hand) was shown attending a >>recent seminar by the General. Any of you ITC'ers know about this? Unfortunately, I've looked through the entire issue and cannot find a picture of Grandmaster Chang Jin Kang anywhere. Perhaps you can reference a page number for me? If Grandmaster Kang did attend such a seminar, however, it would not be surprising, since we do practice the Chang Han Ryu (ITF) forms in the ITC. Then, beginning with 1st Dan, we also practice Kukkiwon forms (Taeguk? - forgive me, I am unsure as to the family name of that set of forms...) Grandmaster Kang is always seeking to perfect his knowledge of the ITF forms, as well as his associations with many of the Grandmasters in the Korean arts. I hope this helps. Silke Schulz ------------------------------ From: Ray Terry Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:17:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: the_dojang: . ------------------------------ End of The_Dojang-Digest V6 #613 ******************************** It's a great day for Taekwondo! Support the USTU by joining today. US Taekwondo Union, 1 Olympic Plaza, Ste 405, Colorado Spgs, CO 80909 719-578-4632 FAX 719-578-4642 ustutkd1@aol.com http://www.ustu.com ===================================================================== To unsubscribe from this digest, the_dojang-digest, send the command: unsubscribe the_dojang-digest -or- unsubscribe the_dojang-digest your.old@address in the BODY of an email (top line, left justified) addressed to majordomo@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com. Old digest issues are available via ftp://ftp.martialartsresource.com in pub/the_dojang/digests. All digest files have the suffix '.txt' Copyright 1994-99: Ray Terry, Martial Arts Resource, California Taekwondo Standard disclaimers apply.