Alright, this will probably be a heated thread, but let's give this a shot: In Korea, it will take you about 18 months to get 1st Dahn in Kuk Sool. Now, the training is different over there and children are usually in every night, so it would make sense they are promoted faster. You'll see 20 something year old Masters and you'll see even younger Grandmasters. However, it seems that it is only in Western Culture do you see 30 - 40 year old men/women being promoted to 5th Dahn or higher, and see 50 year old or 60 year old men/women become heads of associations. Why is that? Not to say they aren't capable, but the forms/techniques/weapons do not get any easier as you progress in rank, and they won't be able to do some of the things they could have done when in their 20's. Had they started that material, and obtained that rank in their 20's, then it would be easier for them to be able to continue to do that material. What is the point of Master rank if you are too old to make good of it? Kuk Sa Nim Suh, In Hyuk was 16 when he proclaimed himself master, 18 years old when he founded Kuk Sool Won, 20 when he founded the WKSA, and 25 when he took the title Kuk Sa Nim. Now, no one is disputing him because after 50 years, Kuk Sool is a very common name and is still going relatively strong. Barry Harmon was in his 20's (if I remember right) when he received Master rank as were many of WKSA’s premier masters. With all that being said, what is the problem with a person that works hard and founds his/her own organization, system, or obtains Master/ChiefMaster/GrandMaster level. Is it jealousy of older masters? They weren’t' promoted to that rank when they were young so no one else will be either? Or do they think that maturity comes with age (which is not always the case, since that has been demonstrated countless times but Grand Masters before)? Does age and time in grade make a Master or is it the dedication, heart, and loyalty to their art that makes the practitioner a Master? Thoughts? Comments?
Let's suppose someone aged, say, 16 years takes up a martial art. Unless (s)he lives in a Shaolin Temple (or similar), they'd probably train two or three nights for a couple of hours each week. Let's say 3 nights at two hours a night. That's just six hours a week. On that basis, I'd say it should take between 4 to 5 years to reach black belt. That takes their age up to 20 or 21. Now add two years (minimum) to get to 2nd degree, 3 more (minimum) to achieve 3rd, a further 4 to get to 4th, and 5 more to get to 5th degree master level. That would mean age 34/35 for that person to get to Master level as an absolute minimum — in my book.
Okay, I'm gonna wade into this *hornet's nest* and state my views. I don't think that rank needs to be drug into the argument. As long as someone has trained a sufficient amount of time to discern the nuances then holding back info about any advanced aspects is just plain WRONG in my book. Unfortunately, this isn't how the curriculum usually gets treated. One has to attain a particular rank before getting to learn certain things. This is stupid IMO, and ought to be rectified. However, I doubt this POV will ever gain much popularity in the greater TMA world. Is there a "prima-donna" complex going on with lots of the existing masters & grandmasters in the TMA? For sure. But any smart cookie won't be bothered by this too much, and will simply get on with more important things (like training, for instance). And I'm just nit-picking here, but I think KJN Barry Harmon was in his thirties before being promoted to master level (IIRC, it wasn't until sometime in the 1980's when he got his 5th dan, and since he was born in 1951, you can work out the math). KJN Choon-Ok Harmon would've been in her twenties, however, since they promoted together and she is 5 years his junior. FWIW, master Byung-In Lee is approximately 4-5 months older than her (born in October 1955). See... what'd I tell you, Hyeongsa? What's up with this three years to third dan, four years to 4th dan, five years to 5th dan nonsense? It ISN'T necessary. If the curriculum gets thinner & thinner the higher up you go, there's no reason to stretch out the time required for each successive rank. Shouldn't your knowledge be expanding exponentially, thereby making a few more paltry techniques & forms a piece of cake? Two (or possibly three) years between ranks ought to be adequate, right? ... RIGHT?!
THAT is what makes a Master a Master or Grand Master. You can call yourself whatever you want, but it is creating something LASTING that warrants the respect that goes along with the title. IMHO, a black belt who has produced pupils worthy of a black belt could be called a Master. By this I mean YOU took a number of persons from White belt to Black Belt. Then, if some of these black belts produce other black belts (and THEY become Masters), there may be a reason to be called a Chief Master. No sense using that title unless YOU have played a significant role in spreading the art; and, this art will now carry on with or without you, because the roots have grown so they will re seed by themselves. So, to add to Pugil's math... take the time line for your own training to black belt, add to that the time it takes YOU to become a Master, add to that the time you need to train others to black belt, and then add to that the time it takes to help all of these folks to become Masters. I think you get the idea. It is not how good YOU are... it is how good you can make others. It is not how good you tell people you are, it is people telling others how good you are. That kind of respect for your abilities does not come around so quick, and time is the real indicator of the worth of a title. Rudy
Another point is.....Master of what? Without mentioning any names....some MA have a much thinner syllabus than others. Therefore given the same time in training, if you are learning one of these arts surely you could be really Master level abitlity much sooner than someone who is studying an art which has a much wider sylabus? But I dont see how you can have an "absolute minimum" anyway. Some people have natural ability which can give them a BIG head start. Others train much more than average, and don't just restrict it to time spent in class either, so surely could gain rank quicker? Plus of course I have to agree with UK that if the syllabus gets thinner and thinner, why the need for 2 years for 2nd dahn 3years for 3rd etc? It makes no sense at all. As Hyeongsa pointed out KSN was Master at a very young age, as were many others, though I do find it a bit hypocritical that the WON now has a min age for masters and yet has a junior 2nd dahn syllabus and yet juniors are not required tore-test when they reach any particular age but can carry their rank forward or just retain it forever. As for the young Koreans, my only real experience was at the 2005 world championships where I have to say that I didnt really find the opposition ALL THAT daunting considering that I was giving 20 plus years (maybe 30 in some cases) away to many of the Koreans. OK so I didnt win much, (well I didnt WIN anything actually) but I was fairly well placed in several events ie 5th or 6th (yes I am one of those sad people who keep track of the scores) in a field of about 25 to 30. So maybe spending everyday at the gym doesnt reap that many rewards after all? I dunno. I go with Saja's idea. If you have trained others to Black Belt rank plus can pass the test then you are worthy of the rank, PROVIDED that the tests undertaken are worthwhile!
By every measure in the above posts...should someone like KJN Gause, WKSA 5th dahn, be recognized as a CM or a GM? After all, he does have the years put in...does have the age...does have MANY students reach BB...and even has a student reach Master rank (and currently outranks him at 6th dahn). KJN Middleton states that KJN Gause was his first KS teacher here: http://www.upstatekuksoolwon.com/chief_instructor.htm In any case, the timeline in post#4 seems a little off to me. Time it takes to reach BB: 4-5 years. Time it takes for this BB to teach others to BB: another 4-5 years. So if you can get a student to BB to be called a "Master"...according to this timeline...it can be done in as fast as 8 years! 8 years to become a Master seems a little fast to me...but I guess stranger things have happened. LOL.
VM, I think you left off one more step, that person must teach someone to BB, 12- 15 years. Still to short if you ask me. I hope we are still talking Avg. I need more time than most.
And then of course you have BB's and 'masters' who cross over from other arts who get their master BB w/o having trained a day in a new art. Most ranking systems are jokes, once the people get in, they want to close the door behind them to limit those who can reach rank.
Yes of course that makes absolute sense in many ways, but by having time in grade that person (if active as an instructor) will have learnt far more from teaching his/her students over that period of time, etc., etc., than anything the syllabus could have taught him/her. A requirement for time in grade also prevents 26-year-old muppets from prancing around and telling everyone they're 6th or 7th degree — or whatever. And when I attend seminars with people like Dan Inosanto, and others, I realise just how little I know, even after 37 years of training, and how presumptuous I would personally feel about referring to myself as Master Batts. In any case, it's too close to sounding like masturbates to me!
Well, according to the logic in this thread, you wouldn't be Master Batts...errr, masturbates until you taught someone else how to masturbate. And you wouldn't be a Chief Master Batts until your student has taught another student to masturbate.
Well, I have certanly met the time in grade standard on the bates side. lets see..... 51 - 13 = Yep I'm a master...er!
Well, unless someone sat you down one day and taught you...I'm assuming you are a self-promoted BB? It would be disturbing to know if you were a Master...at ANY age or time in grade...since that would mean that you actually sat down with someone else and actually taught them your style of hand-kido.
In case anyone was keeping track, it's why I said, "I don't think that rank needs to be drug into the argument" way back in post #3. Please take note of this, Ollie. And I'm not dismissing your TIG argument, BTW, as I wasn't equating dan rank to the term "master" but only to syllabus requirements.
I'd say the difference between an expert fighter and a master is one knows what works for himself, and the other knows the art in much more depth and has honed their ability to pass the art others. The master is not neccesarily an expert fighter, but an expert teacher. I know plenty of expert fighters who cannot teach and I would not consider them to be anything of a master. Don't undermine the value of years of experience. No matter how skilled you think you are, your non-physical abilities increase with time(until senility). Ignoring time requirements shows that you are not aware that the martial arts go beyond physical skills.
