Wondering how you got your belt?

What do you think getting a belt should be based on?
Should their be a standard for testing with a set amount of techniques for each belt like in judo?
Or a combination of knowing the techniques for each belt plus tournament wins and "tapping out higher belts or holding your own with higher belts".

in bjj i've seen it done several ways: instructors set out specific techniques that a certain level should know and then the students practice those techqnieus and then there are specific test times and evaluations.

then i've seen, like at my school, where the instructor is constantly evaluating you with your progress and what techniques you use and how you roll with others, etc. and just decides when you are ready. there isn't a "test" that you take.

i think both are ok.

While I think it's excellent that many instructors have begun to provide a curriculem so their students know what techniques they should be focusing on in order to advance to the next level, simply "knowing" the techniques is not enough. BJJ is performance-based, and in my opinion, you need to be able to pull off the techniques against a resisting opponent in order to really advance in the art. No, that doesn't mean you have to rack up a certain number of tournament wins, not everyone has the time or inclination for tournaments. It doesn't even mean that you have to tap out everyone at your belt level in order to get the next belt up. But you should be able to pull off the techniques on the mat against a progressively resisting opponent of similar size and experience. The day you decide to award belts based on the amount of techniques a person can show on a cooperative partner or how much time they've spent coming to class, that's the day BJJ becomes another McDojo art.



good points rockwell.

imho (which, I know doesn't count for much), there is a serious problem with promotion based upon a set curriculum.

Almost every advanced person (purple and above) I know has a limited "set" of favorite moves and combinations that they work on everyone. I'm a purple belt, and although I've probably seen hundreds of different techniques and variations, my everyday technical "vocabulary" (what I use everyday in class) consists of about 20 basic techniques (passes, sweeps, finishes) combined in any given match. My game is not based on "fancy" or "advanced" moves -- but rather proper application of "bread and butter" techniques.

It's not about the number of techniques you know (unless you're an instructor -- then you need to be able to show the full repetoire of techniques to your students) -- but how and when you apply them in combination. Timing and proper application is everything. It is a mistake to emphasize the number of techniques over the proper application of such -- especially in the beginning stages of learning.

In the US, most Judo schools do not promote based solely on a set number of techniques. Both USJA and USJF have a point structure in addition to required techniques. You get points for everything from class attendance (a very small amount per class) to entering a tournament and beating people below, at, or above your level. I am not sure of the point structure, but it would be something like .25 points for beating someone 2 ranks lower, .5 for someone 1 rank lower, 1 for beating someone your rank, 2 for someone 1 rank higher, and then 4 for 2 ranks higher. The more you compete and do well, the faster you are promoted.

"Almost every advanced person (purple and above) I know has a limited "set" of favorite moves and combinations that they work on everyone. " Except that it is black belts instead of purple, Judo competitors seem to work the same way. The really good guys have a few good throws and a really 'great' throw.


I like what u said JRockwell