What’s your take on colored belt syllabus?

[Reno Leuc]

What’s a good solution?

A packed syllabus, so a black belt maybe isn’t as good as she/he could be BUT has a vast knowledge of the art in theory or

A focused syllabus with fewer techniques but once a black belt you actually can perform those in a crisp, clean manner?

I had this very interesting discussion with many of my fellow students plus other instructors and funnily enough it appears as on this topic everyone has a totally different opinion.

Before going in deeper, I suppose, the answer varies depending on the goal setting of the Kwan/Dojang (eg. Focus on style, fancy kicks, art-based self defense, combat-based self defence…) you get the idea.
So depending on the goal of the Kwan, the content of the color-belt syllabus, of course, differs.

Anyway, my major question is: What’s your opinion on color-belt syllabus?
There are schools where they put so much techniques into them that once their students reach black belt, there’s not much to learn anymore (technically speaking, one is never done with learning).

Well there you have black belts, with a wide range of knowledge but need patching up on techniques, because it maybe was too much.

On the other hand, there are schools were they have less techniques but once they reach black belt – they are bloody awesome at the Kwan-Syllabus because it was small enough to, almost, perfect their techniques (In their Kwan, notice that Kwan’s vary in their focus).

The journey should not end at black belt. But I’m not a big fan of patching- or fixing up techniques, once black belt is achieved, either. In my opinion, a holder of a black belt sets the benchmark for color-belts and therefore should be very good in the color-belt syllabus – my opinion.
Once more, to avoid confusion – I am aware that the journey of a martial artist never stops, one can always learn and a technique is never perfect

What’s a good solution?

A packed syllabus, so a black belt maybe isn’t as good as she/he could be BUT has a vast knowledge of the art in theory or

A focused syllabus with fewer techniques but once a black belt you actually can perform those in a crisp, clean manner?

I know I leave this topic to experienced and well respected minds and can’t wait for replies. I just hope that I did not offend anyone with what I’ve written so far, as this definitely was not my goal.

Cheers

[Thomas]

Our curriculum is pretty well defined and detailed on video by color belt.

That said, when we first began, the art was not set up like that and instead it was set up as an add-on bunch of material, so the technqiues were lumped into "blocks" of techniques and students would learn the curriculum in chunks by categories, e.g. we might teach the 8 cross hand defenses and do that until everyone knows them, then move on to lapel grabs, and so on. This works very well as far as keeping people on the same page and having everyone doing roughly the same thing in class. Since the technqiues and concepts overlap all of the categories, it wasn't a big deal what you have people studying. In essence, it's almost like running a mini-clinic every night in class... fun! This worked well as an add-on or for supplemental training for our Taekwondo people.

The color belt set-up divides the techniques over 10 belts and lumps the material by similar technqiues in different categories, e.g. now those 8 cross hand defenses are spread out over yellow, orange, green, and purple belts. Conceptually it keeps students focused on a smaller number of techniques and spirals in the new material while reinforcing the new. The main downside is whether you want to have everyone doing different things in class based on rank or whether you run everyone through blocks of material.

As a side note, we also follow the notion of "no secrets" in what we teach. The basic techniques and material we actually cover from white to 4th dan isn't that big if you lump the variations and different entries to the same technique all together. The material we do at yellow belt, brown belt, and 4th dan really isn't that different - we just expect more finesse, better control, more variations, and so on in the higher ranks.

In class, I use both concepts to teach but we grade by belt level. I like the belt system especially for students who might not always show up regularly (or not on my nights)... it gives me a basic idea of where they are in the curriculum (a bookmark, so to speak).

[Bruce W Sims]

At the risk of identifying the obvious, I suggest that a colored belt syllabus ought establish a firm foundation in the basic movements, techniques, principles and goals that one would then employ after deciding that said art was the one they had chosen to commit to. For this reason, I think it is a mistake for a syllabus to be an exhaustive presentation of an art's material. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[jinmukwan]

Agreed Bruce, Choi Doju Nim only taught around 100 or so techniques up to 1st dan. I think there is a good reason he set his teaching up that way.

[Reno Leuc]

Yep, totally agree.
Keeping it simple but expect higher grades to perform better with more finesse is the way to go in my opinion.

Once mastered a limited amount of techniques, you can pick up, new pieces, with an ease.

[mateo]

At the risk of identifying the obvious, I suggest that a colored belt syllabus ought establish a firm foundation in the basic movements, techniques, principles and goals that one would then employ after deciding that said art was the one they had chosen to commit to. For this reason, I think it is a mistake for a syllabus to be an exhaustive presentation of an art's material. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

I'm thinking perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by 'syllabus' here Bruce. My concern is that if one doesn't include many techniques in the formal curriculum at one level or another and keep them to be taught 'here and there' or 'to the students who are worthy', isn't there a good possibility that this is the part of the art that will be lost as it moves down from one generation to another?

I'd think it is fine to reserve techniques for upper level practice but I'd like to see as much as possible codified and preserved in one's "system" to ensure that less will be lost over time. (And I'm thinking that perhaps you are on the same page as me here Bruce but are just saying things differently?)

We can see systems which developed 'patterns' to help preserve techniques, tactics and favourable nervous system training. Most of these systems also had training practises which existed outside of the patterns. I think many of these practises are lost or change in almost unrecognizable ways in some cases over time. We can see arts which have common roots practising their arts far differently from each other and I think this is due to a lack of thoroughness in their 'systematization'.

One thing I admired about the Yoseikan Budo practised by Mochizuki senior was the many two man throwing and aikijujutsu kata that he developed in order to teach the system which was taught in his school. Also if you performed many of the kata along side traditional judo kata (which include the methods of at least two classical jujutsu systems) they seemed of the same 'flavour' and would not appear out of place at all. More so, I think, than say the last judo kata developed by the kodokan with the help of Tomiki, "Goshin jutsu" kata, which at times has a different character to its movement.

My point is that if one were able to preserve only the kata of Mochizuki's yoseikan budo in their practise they would have a fair representation of how practise looked on the floor of that dojo and the common tactics employed. (Which is a good thing because that flavour of Yoseikan budo will probably disappear in the near future in favour of his son's quite different interpretation of the art. He believes that the aikido portion of the curriculum should move more in the direction of the aikikai from what I understand.)

Lacking 'forms' in hapkido, if we don't preserve our techniques thoroughly as part of a formal curriculum how will they be preserved?

[Bruce W Sims]

No, Matt, you and I are much more in agreement than not.

What I was advocating for, in my post, was a more "western approach" to training and to instruction. You may be familiar with the more "asian" approach to training wherein key information is provided a bit at a time across years of instruction. As we both know there is a great risk of losing key material of the art with, say, the sudden death of the teacher. My own sword teacher was a huge supporter of such an approach for this very reason. What I was upholding is the presentation of ALL of the foundational material from the start. The finer and more nuanced interpretations of the material can always be kept until later, yes?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[mateo]

What I was upholding is the presentation of ALL of the foundational material from the start. The finer and more nuanced interpretations of the material can always be kept until later, yes?
Bruce

For sure. In fact if one is introduced to more sophisticated executions too early I find students often focus on the wrong part of the technique, say, a superficial flourish or posture rather than proper upsetting of balance or what not.

We often have different ways of introducing early material to make sure the focus is upon the more fundamental aspect of the technique.

[hapkikid]

There could also be another thought to consider...

Is there a concept/idea/philosophy difference to the idea of "get to Black Belt fast, then spend time becoming a master" or "it takes time to become a Black Belt, then mastering concepts should come easier" ?

I have seen both concepts at work, and depending on the individual, I have seen results from both.

Not sure if my thought came out clearly....

[Bruce W Sims]

There could also be another thought to consider...

Is there a concept/idea/philosophy difference to the idea of "get to Black Belt fast, then spend time becoming a master" or "it takes time to become a Black Belt, then mastering concepts should come easier" ?

I have seen both concepts at work, and depending on the individual, I have seen results from both.

Not sure if my thought came out clearly....

Yeah...thats a hard one, Scott.

I think the idea of making it to BB fast and then spending time to become a "master" works better in cultures that don't regard BB as a kind of accomplishment all by itself. Here in the States it seems like people can't wait to make BB so they can open their own school while in Korea making BB isn't any big thing but making 6th and 7th Dan is.

I also think that how the curriculum is put together makes a huge difference as well. Here in the States it seems as though putting a curriculum together is little more than gathering many techniques into a basket and slapping a label on it. As a teacher I know that how the curriculum is organized makes a huge difference. Some years back the little city-state of Singapore shook the world by producing one of the finest Math curriculums that had yet been seen. Math teachers and departments from all over the world were beating a path to Singapore's door to find out how they had produced such a great approach. By comparison, KIMM He-young reports that many curriculum in Hapkido can trace their programs back to a melding of two separate Hapkido approaches in a motel room over a few days. Hard to know just how considered the scholarship was in that effort.

I know that in the case of the YON MU KWAN curriculum there are not a few errors with varied materials working at cross-purposes with each other. I'm guessing that sine my late teacher's degree was in Business and not Education he was probably laboring under a bit of a handicap. There is also the matter of the collision between the older Confucian Model of teaching and the huge strides forward that Education has made in the last 5 decades. And, of course, there is the ever- contentious relationship between such goals as S-D versus Sport, Combat versus Physical Culture and Tradition versus Innovation.

The beat goes on.....

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Stuart Rosenberg]

There could also be another thought to consider...

Is there a concept/idea/philosophy difference to the idea of "get to Black Belt fast, then spend time becoming a master" or "it takes time to become a Black Belt, then mastering concepts should come easier" ?

I have seen both concepts at work, and depending on the individual, I have seen results from both.

Not sure if my thought came out clearly....

I think you were clear.

I've often seen some masters in Korean systems not care to much about the quality of BB 1st-2nd dan but step it up a bit by 3rd or 4th dan. (some not)

I've seen others like Master Son require each person to be more than ready for the rank they receive.

No point I guess but somewhere along the road people have to step up to the plate.

[Daniel Sullivan]

Our keup grade syllabus contains all 71 of our system's hoshinsul techniques, and all of our system's strikes and blocks. Weapon techniques, defense against weapons, and facing multiple attackers all come after first dan. The core system is taught in its entirety in the keup grades.

Daniel

[mateo]

Our keup grade syllabus contains all 71 of our system's hoshinsul techniques, and all of our system's strikes and blocks. Weapon techniques, defense against weapons, and facing multiple attackers all come after first dan. The core system is taught in its entirety in the keup grades.

Daniel

71: That's an interesting number. (Not being sarcastic.)

I say this because most hapkido systems point to a huge number for overall techniques in the system and my teacher has never (and never would) commit to a specific number of techniques that make up even a coloured belt grade, excepting the first couple of grades.

I don't completely disagree with him on this but I am personally in favour of a more vigorously systematized curriculum than the one I came up in.

Case in point: For us punch defense is a green belt level skill (readying one for blue belt). The earlier material is more specifically outlined and specifically coached in its execution but at this point my teacher would introduce the approach to stepping and block/deflection, and a few core techniques from different positions. From that we are expected to try to create situations for the use of techniques we have learned earlier in the system and apply them to this fighting situation. We will work towards applying something and if we are working hard and sincerely, my teacher may shake his head and laugh to indicate we are 'going down the wrong road' or he may offer some suggestion as to how to improve our approach.

During a test he will get us to demonstrate a technique and then say "another". We will exhaust all the techniques that he formally taught us and then he will encourage to us show our understanding of the demands of the fighting position by creating other relevant techniques that 'work'. In this way there are potentially dozens of techniques just for punch defense (divided into striking, throwing and joint twisting responses) but what the finite number is for this position we will never know.

I understand my teacher's position on this. He is an artist and believes that the limitations of one's imagination is what places the limit on one's responses and that we shouldn't tie ourselves down to a specific number of responses as this number would always be shown to be wrong. (Someone will always be able to say "This one is also possible from punch defense.")

However I would like to see a more robust curriculum formally outlined to establish a minimum number of techniques per position which is more extensive than many I have seen. I often will look at the responses listed in Myung's or Kimm's book for a particular position and think "My favourite response is not there!"

[jinmukwan]

Choi Doju Nim only taught about 100 or so techniques up to 1st dan. I believe that teaching less techniques and requireing better execution is more realistic for real hapkido according to Choi Doju Nims original model!

[jinmukwan]

Keeping in mind that all higher level techniques come from correct execution of basic movements!

[Bruce W Sims]

Yes.... I think there may be a bit of a conflict between the traditional Confucian pedagogy and the more modern Academic approach in this regard. For example, in YON MU KWAN Hapkido the traditional way od teaching would be to form a foundation based on the ten KEBONSU techniques, appreciating that all other techniques would proceed from these in one way or another. For myself, I did not think this necessarily followed but excused it as being more hyperbole than fact in much the same way as traditional Hapkido systems cite "3,000" techniques or "3600" techniques.

My sense is that the concept of an "exhaustive curriculum" has a lot more to do with Western sports organization and not a little vying among various Korean personalities to have the single most "complete" art. As Todd (Miller) mentioned, CHOI Yong Sul's "original" curriculum was actually incredibly small when one compares it to the systems that have developed since Choi first opened his doors. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Daniel Sullivan]

Our keup grade syllabus contains all 71 of our system's hoshinsul techniques, and all of our system's strikes and blocks. Weapon techniques, defense against weapons, and facing multiple attackers all come after first dan. The core system is taught in its entirety in the keup grades.

Daniel

71: That's an interesting number. (Not being sarcastic.)

No significance; just what it added up to.

I guess 71 techniques not as accurate to say as 71 partnered drills. In JMA, it would be 71 waza. Korean I believe is gisul, though I am not 100% certain.

These are not the only drills that we do, but they are the ones that are considered canon in the curriculum.

Daniel

[hapkikid]

Another thought to consider...

Spending the last 8 years, investigating, expanding, translating, and coorelating DJN Ji, Han Jae's Sin Moo Hapkido curriculum, I have had some time to mull over this curriculum growth process. Also, given the fact it was 7 pieces of paper with a Korean written outline of the curriculum, made it challenging to explain the purpose and premise for his system. Now, 8 years later, we have a progressive, well laid out curriculum for all our Federation members and well anyone who chooses to use it. This allows the "core" of our system to be learned and understood by anyone, while being able to be adapted to anyone, and also ensuring the foundations of all aspects and principals of the art are in tact.

Having said that, I have also come to terms with the idea of the difference between a "principal based technique" and a "variation" of the technique. With approximately 130 core principal based techniques, including kicks and strikes, I now understand where some claim to have thousands of "techniques". You could take 130 techniques, with 5 senarios, and 5 variations each and come up with "3,250" moves/techniques. However, when it comes to curriculum, the "core" basics must be learned, tested, used, adapted, challenged, expanded, and understood in order to progress to "mastery", which also makes the variations equally as important.

This is where the schools of thought may divide. Less techniques to BB, less challenge, less time. More techniques to BB, more challenges, more time. In the long run, if both students and teacher worked correctly, would the result not be the same? On the other hand, is the challenge allowing the student to progress in such a fashion that we actually get them there? Is it only the strong survive, or create strong students so they do survive as one?

What about the survival of the art? The balance of preservation and progress is a challenge for any master. I guess time will tell if we are travelling the right path....

[mateo]

A On the other hand, is the challenge allowing the student to progress in such a fashion that we actually get them there? Is it only the strong survive, or create strong students so they do survive as one?

Well put, as usual, Scott.

[Bruce W Sims]

Excellent post, Scott. It also serves to reveal a "core" problem with "core" material. That problem remains that when all is said and done a person who purports to "master" a system must, in fact, master all of the "core" material. I state this seemingly obvious fact because Human behavior tends to support the idea that people would rather learn some subset of the core material and then represent that they have learned all rather than learn all in fact.

My hat is off to the folks who have organized and systematized the SIN MU material. Now comes the other shoe which must inevitably drop-- that of getting people to engage with and remain with the art long enough to legitimately state that they have, in fact, "mastered" the material. All too often there will be participants who will break-away from the main art and represent that they have identified a faster path to the top. My sense is that you next challenge will be some approach for validating that people have mastered material relative to a certain level of standing AND maintained that expertise as time goes on. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce