How would YOU build a belt system?

Sorry i really should have specified - I was talking about BJJ

I would actually be much happier if the belt system was separate to the instructors qualification as the belts indicate skill and its assumed that those with good skill can teach well which is not always true.

 

Really...OK.

 

I would suggest it at least 3 different levels:

- solo techniques,
- counter techniques,
- counters to counters (combo),
- ...

For example,

- How to do a side kick?
- How to counter a side kick?
- What will you do when your opponent counters your side kick?
- ...

 

Do you disagree?

Belt colours have little to no relevance within individual classes. The instructors should know their students and the students will learn about their training partners quickly enough.

 

Absolutely! And as most belts also have no real relevance outside the gym then there is often no need for them, although there are some cases where they may be useful.

I doubt belts would improve boxing or muay thai. However, I do see belts as having some (very limited) usefulness. In an art averse to objectively assessing progression (ie. through combat), a formal ranking system does allow you to have your teacher validate your progression.

Within arts that do compete, there is value in having belts in arts that both utilise a tournament format for competition and have significantly difficult progression through the belts. These are almost exclusively grappling arts, as striking is less suited to the tournament format. Striking arts tend to have individual matchups in competition, ideally matched appropriately by looking at previous results). As individual matchmaking is hard at a tournament it is useful to have belts to allow competitors to be banded into appropriate categories, so they can practise competing at an appropriate level. Of course, if there are 10 belt levels and the average time to blackbelt is 2 years, then the bands are going to be meaningless.

 

And tournaments are very rarely able to run as many divisions as there are belt colours so they get grouped together. It's not uncommon to see only 2 or 3 grade bandings at Judo tournaments (I actually can't remember ever seeing more than 3), so why does Judo need 7 belt colours?

 

Personally I think they would be better off with fewer belt colours and more rigorous grading requirements. Even though I'm not too enamoured with formal grading systems, I think BJJ has really shown how a ranking system can be a meaningful and effective tool.

 

and I think the reason BJJ's system works so well is because it is deliberately not rushed. You get promoted to blue when your instructor thinks you are ready, not when you have spent 3 months drilling the half a dozen specific techniques/kata you need for the next grade.

 

In a larger school where you may have several groups of students and several instructors, a belt system can serve as a pretty easy "book mark in the curriculum" as far as separating students into groups and working relevant material for each.

In a 'traditional' style like Taekwondo or Hapkido where you may have a slew of requirements at each level, it can make it easier to figure out at a glance who should be doing what and who should be able to do what.

The problem isn't so much a 'belt system' per se, but when it gets abused.

 

I am already biased, having trained in Korean Martial Arts systems with belts for years. That said, if I had to create a new 'belt' system, I would probably break it up like so...

(Most likely, I would aim this at adult learners...)

Beginner level (White) - students would spend time on basic flexibility and strength training, practicing breakfalls, and learning/practicing the basic strikes/kicks/techniques of the art. Sparring would be fairly restricted as far as targets and power (although with a mix of light contact with no pads and heavier contact with pads). Once they can show a basic level of these things (and can be thrown without getting hurt), we could move them to the next stage.

Intermediate level (Green) - Students would enter the application phase and start applying the techniques to more scenarios. Focus would be paid more to level of force, awareness, and avoidance ideas and scenario based self defense and sparring would be phased in more and more. Sparring would be more open as far as targets and contact level. When students hit the point of being able to apply the core techniques pretty well in various situations, we could move them to the next stage.

Refinement level (brown) - Students would continue to apply techniques as well as add in related material (such as weapons/tools). This level would focus on getting the ranges and material to 'gel' as much as possible and when a student can transition between ranges, levels of force, and scenarios very smoothly, we could start to consider them for black belt. In this level, we would encourage and provide opportunities to help instruct (learn though teaching idea) as well.

Black Belt level (s) - Essentially this level would consider that the student has a good grasp of the system and should be able to adequately apply the core concepts. Further training would be in more refinement across the areas, being able to get smoother and smoother in application, bring in new applications (more weapons and tools or concepts), and in learning to instruct. I would probably keep the dan system (with grades)

In essence the whole curriculum should be spiralled, i.e., what the overall learning goals are should begin right on day one and increase in application throughout, with each piece building on the next. I would probably establish some sort of 'time in grade' minimum based around 'expected/average' time to develop, but would allow for flexibility in promoting early.
Anyway, that's where I would start...

 

It may serve as a "book mark in the curriculum", but that would depend who can "read better". Some people can grasp material faster or better than others. Shall you skip those to the next level or level they should be in?


But like some have posted, I rather not advance someone for the sake of time (belt) rather than if a certain skill was acquired. Some of the schools I had attended used to freak when I rejected advanced rank. And though this may seem like a position that the instructor "should know best", my conscious did not want me going to the next level. For example, why should I (or anyone) advance if they could not perform a properly executed side kick? Why go up a level with those who have?

 

I think there needs to be a certain bit of flexibility in any curriculum, i.e., where you can align the curriculum with the abilities/goals of your students. As an instructor, the belt they wear just gives me an approximation of what they 'should' know - it is my discretion to review previous material, work on 'current' material, or jump ahead into other material (more advanced or just 'different').

In a smaller school (and/or with regular students), it is a lot easier to tailor the class to fit the needs of those present. If I show up somewhere as a guest instructor or if I am working with students from another instructor, the belt rank just gives me a quick idea of what to expect from them.

For promotion, I do expect to see all of the requirements done in a satisfactory way. Sometimes students need coaching after a test to improve skills that are required... they may have to re-test, or maybe we'll just work on it in class. Not everyone will do it as well as the next guy, but we have a certain standard to attain for promotion. In some cases, we allow for differences based on the individual (if the spinning heel kick is required for testing, does the guy with one leg "have" to do it? I say "no")

I can understand the idea, but I have to ask... if you were asked to test and you took part and were offered the rank, why refuse it? If there were areas to work on (as there always is), why not work on those and bring yourself to the level of the belt?

I ask because I've seen some students who refuse to test and wish to remain either rank-less or at a lower rank. I have no problem with that, so long as they attend regularly and their 'regular' instructor knows that. It bothers me when they work with another instructor and then complain about being treated as a 'newbie' or as a lower rank... for the instructor who doesn't know a student will default to the rank being worn until they can form their own assessment.

 

Sorry I haven't responded, I have dug an eight foot deep trench in my mothers yard because she has a sewer line problem, the line is about a hundred years old BTW so I've found lots of interesting stuff. OK the belt thing is really no big deal in the long run alright, however its a big deal to students and it should be a very helpful tool to instructors, if you call your self an instructor in an like karate or jujitsu and you don't appreciate the rank system that raises this kids eyebrow. As far as color versus plain white belts is concerned, the nice thing about color belts is you know a students technical level just by eye sight, this is a very useful tool if your a guest instructor or if you have a couple hundred students. There's a tkd dojo in the city with seven hundred students and he's trained over three thousand students to bb level in the sixty years his doors have been opened and I'm told he used to teach kendo, can you imagine the chaos of trying to even remember the names of seven hundred people...no thanks I say.

Your curriculum has to be spot on, your lesson plan has to cover everything that will be on a students test, and your testing must insure that it will indeed verify as students actual skill or lack there of, if you see a guy in a blue belt at your school or outlet school you should as an instructor know exactly where he should be at from a technical point of view...that's what it should do.

Kick boxing and muai Thai are likely to be some of the exceptions to the above, there just isn't as much curriculum or technique in kick boxing as there is in jujitsu or Kata laden versions of karate.

One other thing to consider when forming your lesson plan is how many classes will you divide up into, will you have a beginner, intermediate and advanced class or will you just run one class for everyone, again its a real challenge to set up a productive school, try to have fun with it..its a lot of work.

My last note here on this subject for what its worth is to keep it real, martial arts are not always about fighting at all, even when your sparring. Sometimes its just about fitness and learning some technique. Hope you come up with a solid system that proves a success...your friend body shot.

 

Well in reguard to the first statement that your students couldn't care less I'd have to say that it sounds like a personal preference to me, so what can I say in reguard to that other than OK and I hope they pass their pass next test.

As far as the statement about teaching the jab for months on end again it sounds like a personal thing to me, i mean in my mind a kb test isnt really going to have the same amount of technique a jj test would. I mean how many escapes, locks chokes and sweeps does jj have i dont even know. The kodokan of judo is sitting on my coffee table and honestly its pretty complex, glad i dont have it to worry qbout lols.

And finally you asked why I'm not as good as the current world champion and by that I assume you mean kick boxing if I dig correctly. Hmmm, idk, there's my answer, if I did know I would go fix my problem and challenge him for his belt, I'm sure most of us would. I'm not even as good as I could be right now but that's another storey.

 

Well simon I'm not really sure how to go about this but I'm going to try for you OK. No matter how many versions of the jab you teach a person I'm pretty sure that their all easier than learning an entire system worth of Kata or say fifteen different joint locks I'm sorry for not being able to validate you main reason is that I'm not a valid person myself...sorry.

You seem like a good boxer and you seem like a good teacher, it sounds like what your doing works for you. Keep at it.

 

there aren't different joint locks.
a joint only locks in certain ways, the lock in the opposite direction or extreme of their natural movement. it's all about entry.

an elbow only locks one way, a shoulder locks in 2 ways.
a choke is a choke regardless what you name it.

belts shouldnt deem the number of techniques you know after the first belt, they should assess the skill with those techniques.

in BJJ a blue belt and a black belt know the same techniques but a black belt is more skilled in application.

 

So what's the point of the conversation at this point, because I'm lost as to what exactly we are talking about. This conversation is about how I would build a rank system not about how many jabs I know or use or about my knowledge of the joint lock which is really really really limited. So again I'd build my ranksystem around a corrcurriculum I k we and understood inside and out if I were op, and my lesson plan would insure that everybody got to where they needed to be for their next testing, ok-ok. I think breaking the jab down sounds fine, I'm sure I would love a four month breakdown of the jab, although honestly if simon were MY coach for four months I would likely rather pick his brain about foot work lessons than any thing else
Oh and it looks lime there is a belt system in kick boxing, so there's a model already out there for op if he's interested...thanks.

 

I think your totally right about everything you said in the above and personally without coming out and saying it in a post like this I don't known how else to say it, but yea pretty much the above sums it up.

On an off note I detest the bjj blue belt test lols, I think its kinda long, just a personal onion.