In your opinion, what could a BJJ black belt be relatively bad at yet still be "legit"?
For example:
- Self defence
- Leg locks
- No-gi groundwork
- Judo-style throws
- Wrestling-style takedowns
- Modern competition BJJ
- BJJ for MMA
Would your own instructor promote this person? What if they were at a very good standard in all other areas?
For those who have been practicing for a long time: would your opinion have been different 10-15 years ago?
Modern BJJ techniques, at least doing them. I learn the newer stuff to counter them, but I don't do them.
Promotions aren't only about skill though, there's a lot that goes into it.
I'm pretty bad at Scrabble.
I guess I'm not so much interested in the standard that people are holding/judging others against, but rather, the standard they are holding themselves against.
Certain schools may require proficiency in Scrabble, most don't. I'm not bad at Scrabble but not good enough to compensate for my deficiencies in many other areas :)
FWIW, I would say there are currently PLENTY of BBs out there (of all skill levels) who lack MOST of those. They really JUST have proficiency in "newaza"; grappling on the ground with a gi. No more, no less. I would even guess they are perhaps the majority now.
I guess I really don't have a strong opinion anymore on such topics. BJJ is going the direction it's going, there's no stopping the train.
PERSONALLY, I think one (or at least "I") should have SOME proficiency in all of those areas.
shen -
FWIW, I would say there are currently PLENTY of BBs out there (of all skill levels) who lack MOST of those. They really JUST have proficiency in "newaza"; grappling on the ground with a gi. No more, no less. I would even guess they are perhaps the majority now.
I guess I really don't have a strong opinion anymore on such topics. BJJ is going the direction it's going, there's no stopping the train.
PERSONALLY, I think one (or at least "I") should have SOME proficiency in all of those areas.
I agree with your first comment and less so with your second one on the "direction" of BJJ.
I think that the modern proliferation of information, competition and cross-training have raised the bar for the breadth of what one SHOULD know, and amplified awareness of what one doesn't know to a level that does not necessarily reflect the gap in standards between now and 20 years ago.
xpat -shen -
FWIW, I would say there are currently PLENTY of BBs out there (of all skill levels) who lack MOST of those. They really JUST have proficiency in "newaza"; grappling on the ground with a gi. No more, no less. I would even guess they are perhaps the majority now.
I guess I really don't have a strong opinion anymore on such topics. BJJ is going the direction it's going, there's no stopping the train.
PERSONALLY, I think one (or at least "I") should have SOME proficiency in all of those areas.
I agree with your first comment and less so with your second one on the "direction" of BJJ.
I think that the modern proliferation of information, competition and cross-training have raised the bar for the breadth of what one SHOULD know, and amplified awareness of what one doesn't know to a level that does not necessarily reflect the gap in standards between now and 20 years ago.
I'm pretty sure that most of the newer black belts have little to no knowledge of the self defense techniques same with BJJ for fighting (mma is a little different cause of the rules). The current state of BJJ does not reward those that know that stuff, especially the self defense aspect. People want to learn what they see. What's happening now is nothing new though. It happened to judo and to TKD as well. The more dangerous stuff is filtered out and made safer and then what you have starts to get further and further from what it was originally intended for.
I've become pretty dissillusioned lately with the belts. I feel like the trend now at days is as long as you just show up to class you are going to get promoted to the next rank eventually. Even if your effort is minimal. Clearly this doesn't apply. everywhere but I feel it's more and more the case. So I sort of have no expectations anymore for what a blackbelt entails, the spectrum really has gotten huge. Though yeah I do have certain expectations of myself. I like to think everyone is theoretically capable of earning a blackbelt, but not everyone realistically should earn it. However I feel like with cases such as with the 101 submissions guy shows thats not true these days 
xpat - In your opinion, what could a BJJ black belt be relatively bad at yet still be "legit"?
For example:
- Self defence
- Leg locks
- No-gi groundwork
- Judo-style throws
- Wrestling-style takedowns
- Modern competition BJJ
- BJJ for MMA
Would your own instructor promote this person? What if they were at a very good standard in all other areas?
For those who have been practicing for a long time: would your opinion have been different 10-15 years ago?
They can be bad at:
1) Self-Defense
2) Judo
3) Wrestling
4) MMA Ground work
5) No-Gi
BJJ is Gi groundwork with a sporting focus. That's it, so that's the minimum standard I would expect.
They do need to keep their skills up to date though.
I'm bad at everything on that list and I'm a black belt from a legit lineage, so there's your answer.
James
passing the guard. (only pass to one side etc).
Self defense. Stand up skills (striking),etc.
JasonGV -xpat - In your opinion, what could a BJJ black belt be relatively bad at yet still be "legit"?
For example:
- Self defence
- Leg locks
- No-gi groundwork
- Judo-style throws
- Wrestling-style takedowns
- Modern competition BJJ
- BJJ for MMA
Would your own instructor promote this person? What if they were at a very good standard in all other areas?
For those who have been practicing for a long time: would your opinion have been different 10-15 years ago?
They can be bad at:
1) Self-Defense
2) Judo
3) Wrestling
4) MMA Ground work
5) No-Gi
BJJ is Gi groundwork with a sporting focus. That's it, so that's the minimum standard I would expect.
They do need to keep their skills up to date though.
Let me start by saying I respect your opinion. You've often expressed it and have not wavered that I can remeber but I could not disagree more.
BJJ is not "Gi groundwork with a sporting focus". BJJ is a fighting art. That is how it was marketed, that is how I was introduced to it and that is how I was/am taught. IMO anything less is exactly that "less".
Maybe you are not interested in the fighting aspect and are only enamored with the sporting aspect. That's cool, to each their own(personally I don't understand, the sport is super boring unless you or someone you know is competing and is growing worse everyday and yes I do compete) but you are only learning "sport jiu jitsu" and most likely have a poor understanding of BJJ.
To answer the op: BJJ includes all things mentioned(maybe not at first but it is always evolving) and a blackbelt in my unworthy opinion should have some minimum proficiency in all things but the only prerequisite should be being to use whatever techniques you are proficient with in a fight.
My judo sucks.
xpat -shen -
FWIW, I would say there are currently PLENTY of BBs out there (of all skill levels) who lack MOST of those. They really JUST have proficiency in "newaza"; grappling on the ground with a gi. No more, no less. I would even guess they are perhaps the majority now.
I guess I really don't have a strong opinion anymore on such topics. BJJ is going the direction it's going, there's no stopping the train.
PERSONALLY, I think one (or at least "I") should have SOME proficiency in all of those areas.
I agree with your first comment and less so with your second one on the "direction" of BJJ.
I think that the modern proliferation of information, competition and cross-training have raised the bar for the breadth of what one SHOULD know, and amplified awareness of what one doesn't know to a level that does not necessarily reflect the gap in standards between now and 20 years ago.
I'm confused about what you are saying. Do you seriously mean that black belts had a broader range of skills or that they were better 20 years ago?
It really depends on how you define "bad".
Someone can be relatively bad at takedowns yet know how to teach the techniques and actually take down the untrained. 
I get frustrated with this topic. I trained and competed in boxing and kickboxing, karate of various styles. I got involved in bjj to learn to defend myself if I got taken down. That is what bjj is. Grappling. Learning to handle yourself in case you get taken down. This whole idea that you have to learn stand up you have to learn self defense, have to learn judo, have to learn mma I don't get. Those are all different martial arts or fighting styles. Are you telling me that because I dont train stand up in bjj class I shouldn't get a black belt? Despite the fact that I can beat 99% of guys in stand up? Are you saying I should have to train self defense in bjj to get a black belt despite having trained in self defense for years? In addition, whose self defense do you learn? Many martial arts styles would scoff At bjj concept of self defense. I scoff heartily at bjj concept of stand up. It is beyond a joke. So again, why is this silliness being incorporated????
Look, if you don't already have a base in that stuff then is great and not a bad idea to learn (or try to) if you want. But if you are not interested in those aspects of fighting and want to learn bjj or how to handle yourself on the ground then why should you? You can reach a black belt level in grappling on the ground aka "newaza" if we are insisting on stealing from other martial arts. Why should I also have to train all the other bullshit if that is not my focus? The concept that bjj somehow must also include black belt competency in 5 other martial arts is nonsense.
Everybody that I came up with that made it to black belt is very well rounded. If I tie a black belt on someone they will be well rounded. Not much one can do if others don't follow that standard.
xpat - In your opinion, what could a BJJ black belt be relatively bad at yet still be "legit"?
For example:
- Self defence
- Leg locks
- No-gi groundwork
- Judo-style throws
- Wrestling-style takedowns
- Modern competition BJJ
- BJJ for MMA
Would your own instructor promote this person? What if they were at a very good standard in all other areas?
For those who have been practicing for a long time: would your opinion have been different 10-15 years ago?
A BJJ Black Belt, in my eyes, should be at least have a competent awareness in those areas although for the love of me i don't understand why to be a BJJ anything you should be proficient in JUDO and WRESTLING takedowns..
Go train judo or wrestling if thats what your goal is.
A BJJ black belt should only be pretty damn good at minimum in groundwork... period.
Christophr -xpat -shen -
FWIW, I would say there are currently PLENTY of BBs out there (of all skill levels) who lack MOST of those. They really JUST have proficiency in "newaza"; grappling on the ground with a gi. No more, no less. I would even guess they are perhaps the majority now.
I guess I really don't have a strong opinion anymore on such topics. BJJ is going the direction it's going, there's no stopping the train.
PERSONALLY, I think one (or at least "I") should have SOME proficiency in all of those areas.
I agree with your first comment and less so with your second one on the "direction" of BJJ.
I think that the modern proliferation of information, competition and cross-training have raised the bar for the breadth of what one SHOULD know, and amplified awareness of what one doesn't know to a level that does not necessarily reflect the gap in standards between now and 20 years ago.
I'm confused about what you are saying. Do you seriously mean that black belts had a broader range of skills or that they were better 20 years ago?
With regard to the areas I mentioned in my original post, I do not think that an average, three-day-a-week BJJ black belt from 20 years ago would necessarily be better at those areas than his modern day counterpart. I think that particular perception is somewhat distorted, for many reasons.
Whether his overall BJJ style would be more "fighting oriented" or his belt "harder earned" is different discussion.
andre - It really depends on how you define "bad".
Someone can be relatively bad at takedowns yet know how to teach the techniques and actually take down the untrained.
I think of being good/bad at something in terms of overall confidence in the technique - you know in your heart when you can vouch for something you are teaching and when you are just spouting theory.