15 posts / 0 new
Last post
yinshangyi
yinshangyi's picture
Meaning of high ranks

Hi fellow practitioners,

I had a discussion with a friend of mine the other day about ranks (dan) and what they mean. There's this saying which goes like "it takes a life time to master Karate". Don't you think it's a bit of an overstatement? I mean Karate is powerful because it's simple. Unlike a lot of Kung Fu forms, Karate is pretty straightfoward. I'm not saying Karate is easy obviously, but I'm doubting the whole "it takes a lifetime to master" thing. My real question is: What do you think about 8th, 9th dan karate masters? Is there really such a difference between a 3rd dan dan karateka and a 8th dan? If so, what's the main difference? Is that really technique/bunkai knowledge? Physical ability?

What's the learning curve like after 3rd dan? Is there really that much to learn? I really hope my question doesn't come as disrespectful or anything. It is an actual question I have been wondering. People really have deep respect of older 8th dan masters, and I do too! But I was wondering what the level difference is like. I've been wonderding if after 20 years of karate practice, there is that much thing to learn. I've been asking myself if Karate is just not enough after a point and cross training become necessary.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Train hard and stay safe, Osu!

PASmith
PASmith's picture

The whole dan grade structure gets further complicated when we have 3rd/4th dans writing excellent books, DVD's and material on good bunkai, while the older 7th/8th dans are often stuck in their ways and continue to spout the 3k unrealistic nonsense and bad bunkai (and are often hostile to anything changing).

And then in turn even yellow belts can read that good material, incorporate it and, effectively, gain a better insight into the martial arts than those 8th dans. Turns the whole idea of who has access to "knowledge" on its head really.

I respect longevity of training and that level of commitment and persistence. But there is some outright dangerous nonsense spouted by very high grades (just check out some of the old (50's, 60's, 70's, 80's) bunkai for that) while I have been given some absolute pearls of wisdom from people with no training whatsoever. Knew a guy from Newcastle who'd never set foot in a dojo but from living his "colourful" life told me some fighting wisdom..."hit first and don't fall over". That was hard won knowledge I have taken with me since. :)

I am just some average muppet who's never graded further than 1st dan (people who got their BB the exact same day as me are now 3rd/4th dans) and yet, in getting into Iain's stuff and the work of Stuart Anslow, Matt Sylvester, Ciaran McDonald, etc I have managed to create some drills that make sense to me that impart more technical and conceptual knowledge in one lesson that I got in many years of mainstream TKD and instruction from the highest grades in my association. We now live in a more egalitarian world of information and it's no longer drip fed down through the ranks as the higher ups see fit.

PASmith
PASmith's picture

I also think that the concept of dan grades and ranks comes from Japanese or Asian cultures where being a higher grade wasn't a mark of being "better" but of age, seniority, hierarchy, knowledge, experience, etc.

Perhaps in the same way Cus D'amato, Brendan Ingle, Emanuel Steward, Freddie Roach, etc weren't "better" than the fighters they trained but certainly made the fighters they trained better!

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Yinshangyi,

yinshangyi wrote:
There's this saying which goes like "it takes a life time to master Karate".

Don't you think it's a bit of an overstatement?

If I ever master karate, I will let you know :-) After the best part of four decades of training, I don’t think I can say I have “mastered” anything. While I feel I have made good progress, and I’m proud of the abilities I’ve developed, I am far from satisfied with any of it. There are still improvements that can be made. Good thing too because I enjoy that feeling of making progress. If my karate “topped out” then it would cease to lose the challenge and the joy of making progress.

yinshangyi wrote:
I mean Karate is powerful because it's simple. Unlike a lot of Kung Fu forms, Karate is pretty straightfoward.

To quote Leonardo Da Vinci, “simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” We can learn a punch relatively quickly, but mastering a punch? That’s a whole different level of skill.

yinshangyi wrote:
Is there really such a difference between a 3rd dan dan karateka and a 8th dan?

If so, what's the main difference? Is that really technique/bunkai knowledge? Physical ability?

Assuming the grade is legitimate, the difference is huge! I’ve trained under numerous high-ranking karateka and their knowledge and, more importantly, their ability to improve my own skills is leagues ahead of that of lower graded instructors.

That’s not to say there are not good lower graded instructors, or that all higher graded karateka are fantastic teachers. However, there is a big difference there generally speaking.

Speaking for myself, I was ranked 3rd dan the best part of 30 years ago. I am much more knowledgable and a much better instructor than I was then (now ranked 7th dan) then. The last 30 years have seen lots of progress. One would hope that in a few decades, I will look back and think the same of me now.

yinshangyi wrote:
I've been wonderding if after 20 years of karate practice, there is that much thing to learn.

In my experience, there is loads left to learn after that point. There is always loads left to learn. However, as one my teachers (now ranked 10th dan), said, “When some people say that have done 30 years of karate, what they have really done is one year, thirty times”. If people are training and teaching on a 3k surface level, then the depth of the art is rarely appreciated. They therefore keep skimming over the surface indefinitely.

yinshangyi wrote:
I've been asking myself if Karate is just not enough after a point and cross training become necessary.

My own approach – also that of most of my teachers – has been to keep pursuing karate, and to use cross training as a vehicle to help do that. This is partially important if the currently level of karate instruction is not that deep. Another of my teachers took up judo to learn more about grappling, and through that process realised just how much of it was present in the kata. He then “returned” to his karate with greater insights and taught it as such.

PASmith wrote:
Perhaps in the same way Cus D'amato, Brendan Ingle, Emanuel Steward, Freddie Roach, etc weren't "better" than the fighters they trained but certainly made the fighters they trained better!

Great analogy!

All the best,

Iain

yinshangyi
yinshangyi's picture

I totally agree to this. I personally lived in Taiwan and China for about 5 years and yes this is true and makes sense

yinshangyi
yinshangyi's picture

Thank you for inputs! That's very insightful. I just signup to your website few days ago and it was my first post, it's unbelivable how fast I got answers to my questions. Thanks again.

Michael B
Michael B's picture

PASmith wrote:
The whole dan grade structure gets further complicated when we have 3rd/4th dans writing excellent books, DVD's and material on good bunkai, while the older 7th/8th dans are often stuck in their ways and continue to spout the 3k unrealistic nonsense and bad bunkai (and are often hostile to anything changing).

Generational change is slow, but inevitable. The current high ranks who haven't learned anything new in decades will die, soon. Younger, better informed, more flexable people will rise. Karate will be strengthened.

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

With regard to the dan ranking system, specifically, on Okinawa they generally consider 5th Dan to be the rank at which one has "mastered" the curriculum. Every rank beyond that is essentially an "honorary" rank earned through continued training, teaching, and contributions to the organization. Of course, requirements vary. In my old organization, for example, my Sensei's requirements for Shodan were equal to the organization's requirements for Godan, with the exception of the age/time-in-grade. I tend to see both sides of this topic. There are absolutely a lot of high ranking karateka who have, as Iain mentioned, essentially done 1 year of karate 30-50 times. They have pretty detailed knowledge of basics, and some interesting stories, but there's no depth there. On the other hand, there are some high ranking karateka whose knowledge is just immense.

yinshangyi
yinshangyi's picture

Wastelander wrote:
With regard to the dan ranking system, specifically, on Okinawa they generally consider 5th Dan to be the rank at which one has "mastered" the curriculum. Every rank beyond that is essentially an "honorary" rank earned through continued training, teaching, and contributions to the organization. Of course, requirements vary. In my old organization, for example, my Sensei's requirements for Shodan were equal to the organization's requirements for Godan, with the exception of the age/time-in-grade. I tend to see both sides of this topic. There are absolutely a lot of high ranking karateka who have, as Iain mentioned, essentially done 1 year of karate 30-50 times. They have pretty detailed knowledge of basics, and some interesting stories, but there's no depth there. On the other hand, there are some high ranking karateka whose knowledge is just immense.

Yes it makes a lot of sense. I'm under the impression that exams/test for high ranks don't ask that much for deep stuffs but rather basic stuffs maybe performed at high level. I like that quote from Iain "1 year of karate 30-50 times" :)

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

I think they are completely subjective and driven mainly by institutional/organizational goals.

Generally speaking though, I think that once you get above 2nd Dan or so, there is a kind of unspoken notion that a person has some capability of teaching, or furthering the art in a way where they can pass some stuff on to others. Karate is so un-standardized that what actually gets passed on is another question entirely.

Other than this, I have seen no consistency at all in requirements.

I will say that my Shodan and Nidan tests were clearly skills-based, whereas I felt like my Sandan test was both skills-based and looked a little into my deeper understanding and teaching ability. I can't even imagine promoting past this, and I may not. This is roughly how I remember my early days in Shorin Ryu as well, at least how it looked when observing the higher ranks.

Anyway, at 3rd dan for a few years I am really just finding myself going "back to basics" in a big way. It dawned on me at some point that all the stuff I used to think was very boring is actually foundational, and going deeply into that stuff (fundamentals, how to move better, how to punch better, how to be sneakier, faster, whatever) are really the main deal. Everything else is just learning information, which is not bad but is just a means to a end.

Andrew Sheldon-...
Andrew Sheldon-Thomson's picture

It really depends how you spend your time in the 20+ years of karate practice.   If you just do the exact same things in the exact same way for this time and maybe learn a new kata your progress is going to be fairly slow with only a refinement of your existing skill set.   If you push your self, are open to new ideas, take in new information,  train with different people then your 20 years + of training may well result in massive progress.

Training methods and what your objectives are make a massive difference.   Take the average Mauy Thai gym there are often people with a year of experience who would beat an average karate person with many years experience in sparring.  But this is because of their training methods and focus on sparring. 

Some of the best self defence instructors have enabled people to effectively defend themselves after a few days course well there are other instructors who have taught people for years and their students are still unable to defend themselves.  So it is very much how you spend your time as well as how much time you have.   

There is a difference between mastery and effectiveness,  When you say "life time to master" I think yes it probably does take a life time to be a master but I think you can be effective in a much shorter space of time.

There are some people who become top level in just a few years.   Think Dontay Wilder starting boxing at age 20 and competing in the olympics with in 3 years.  I think it is an interesting question about how some people improve so fast and what it is different about how they train compared to other people that let them do that.

Frazatto
Frazatto's picture

Maaaannnnn this is a decent forum, all those posts over a not at all controversial topic and nobody is chopping heads.

You people give me hope! Lets see if I can contribute without writing a thesis....

I have the feeling when discussing this kind of subject that most people generally forgets to question the beginnings, the obvious and absurd beginnings. Who gave the first ever grade level to someone else? Who received the first dan ever by whom? The first karate black belt?

If we understand historically those are all foreign concepts and never existed in Okinawa, until it did, so the answer, quite uncomfortably, is "they gave themselves". Most likely by practical reasons, cultural necessities of the times they were in and most of them probably didn't think much of it because it changed nothing of the karate they knew and practiced.

So lets keep the perspective ALL we have argued so far is a subjective result of cultural values, a thing that changes all the time and from place to place. It will mean different things to different people in different places/times and I think that is good! (most of the time)

For instance, I learned from my first sensei (shotokan) that a black belt is a sign you learned all that is considered basic (that builds the base, not that it's simple) to a degree that shows dominion over the practice and values, you are considered ready to teach others now. My current instructor (Goju-ryu) says the black belt is a recognition of your hard work and commitment to the practice and culture beyond technical mastery.

They both made a lot of sense to me.

At the same time, they both fall to a western misconception, that black is the color of death and was chosen as "the last level" to show for anyone to see the now potential capabilities of the practitioner. But everything I know about Japanese culture tells me black is the color of winter and represents maturity and wisdom, the things that come with old age.... and, don't quote me on that, I also guess it's because black was the most expensive color to produce through most of Japanese history.

Sooo....the moral of the history is, maybe, what Uncle Bruce always said, learn everything and use what it serves you well. It's our job (us! who are living!) to question tradition and make it our own.

PS: be thankful for "the old masters" that kept karate alive and brought it to us as well as they did, even in their sometimes misguided efforts, we wouldn't be having this conversation if not for them.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Frazatto,

Frazatto wrote:
Maaaannnnn this is a decent forum, all those posts over a not at all controversial topic and nobody is chopping heads.

Glad you like it! I think people get a feel for what we are all about before they sign up. We’ve had to show one or two the door over the years, but most join because these are the kind of discussions they want to be part of. Plenty of disagreement, despite us all being generally facing in the same direction, but all without questioning the virtue of each other’s mothers :-)

Frazatto wrote:
Who gave the first ever grade level to someone else?

The kyu / dan thing is said to have originated as a handicapping system for players of the boardgame Go.

Frazatto wrote:
Who received the first dan ever by whom?

Kano (founder of judo) is credited with attaching it to the martial arts. The first judoka to get a 1st dan were Shiro Saigo and Tomita Tsunejiro (in1883) . They, along with Yoshitsugu Yamashita and Sakujiro Yokoyama, are sometimes referred to as the “Four Kings of the Kodokan” for their success in matches against other Jujutsu schools.

Frazatto wrote:
The first karate black belt?

Gichin Funakoshi is generally acknowledged as first to award them in karate in 1924. The recipients where Otsuka (founder of Wado-Ryu), Gima (who, along with Funakoshi gave a demo of karate in the Kodokan), Kasuya, Akiba, Shimizu, Hirose (all 1st dan) and Tokuda (2nd dan).

All the best,

Iain

Frazatto
Frazatto's picture

Iain Abernethy, I'm afraid my ability to  express myself in english is letting me down or I'm missing the point altogether about everybody else's answers. Whatever it is, I'll get the hang of it eventually....

I'm sure those were not random decisions, mine weren't objective questions, that was not my intention....hum....

I guess what I was trying to say is, don't take this things so seriously, find your own meaning and share. Culture is always changing and we are participants on it.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Frazatto,

Frazatto wrote:
I'm afraid my ability to  express myself in english is letting me down … mine weren't objective questions

I think it probably more to do with the fact the written word is never as clear as the spoken word. Thanks for clarifying that they were rhetorical questions. Nonetheless, I hope people find the answers interesting :-)

All the best,

Iain