I voted 'yes'. The main reason being, that if they were the whole problem with lessening standards and the proliferation of belts would never have occurred.

Not a PC viewpoint, as it excludes many.

I think you have to look at the whole picture of the person, not a specific requirement. No two people are the same, as are the rates at which people can learn a skill. You cannot expect a person who is missing an arm to be able to do a technique that requires two. If your program cannot adapt to a persons limitations, then that student doesn't belong there.

I may be the same rank as several other students in my school, but that doesn't mean that we have the same focus. Even if we are working on the same technique, what I need to focus on improving will be different from what any other student is working on.

A successful program focuses on the needs of the student not passing some arbitrary test. However, if some basic skill is required to be able to work on the next portion of the syllabus, then yes, the student should be able to demonstrate basic ability to perform that technique.

Laura

Sue, standards are good, but there are exceptions for dealing with the physically disabled, older, and younger students. If you have a core group that wants high standards, give them their own class 2-3 times a week and grade them separately for promotions. Otherwise the standard needs to be what the individually can realistically meet. For instance, I have no interest in meeting the standards a 16 year old could meet, I'm just getting up there in age anymore. (no arthritis jokes, I do have it.)

Hello Laura:

<<If your program cannot adapt to a persons limitations, then that student doesn't belong there.

Or perhaps the art itself will die... .

<<if some basic skill is required to be able to work on the next portion of the syllabus

For example..... ?

Jeff

Thank you for the replies everybody. I hadn't originally set it as a poll as I thought people might vote but without leaving comment (which has only happened to an extent) and I was interested in hearing people's views.

I did have specific reasons for raising the issue and hopefully a few more people may add their comments but thanks to all that took the time to do so.

Sue

Cheers for the reply Ronin1966, I don't beleive that approach is the end of their training- Despite that a disability could prevent a student from gaining a higher rank that does not mean that they have to stop studying they can continue to learn. Let me throw a few hypotheticals out there- A kid with a mental processing disability that fails to memorise the correct dossage/kg of drugs for your pet dog but they've let him become a vet... do you take your pet to him? Now I know you're all gonna jump down my throat and say that martial arts should be equal, no one should be prevented la la la... Same deal though it sounds harsh, do you let the kid pass or advance in rank and how far do you let him? Nothing should stand in the way of letting someone learn or participate in the lifestyle and community that MA provides. It is however dangerous and irresponsible to 'rank' them if they are not adequate. What happens in a real life situation and the kid has illusions of granduer or after class he thinks hey I'm a black belt and this guy is giving me greif is only white... What if you pass him/her all the way through to BB. How can you teach a technique that you can not perform yourself? esp when some people learn best with the use of visuals. MA is competetive & can be combative its not fingerpainting

Hi Sue & welcome...

MA were originally practiced by a select group, many of whom never lasted long enough to become an instructor. These tough individuals were the pioneers of what we call MA today even though the population has changed dramatically.

In the old days women, children/adolescence, elderly & handicapped could never have survived, much less wear a BB. But the purpose of MA, for many has gone from fighting to exercize, performance or baby-sitting activity.

2 different groups. So Group 1 should still function as a meritocracy while Group 2 can allow for flexable standards.

The difference is similar to LEO vs citizen neighborhood watch groups/ride-alongs. Both are a part of the LE community but only the LEO will face an armed hostage-taker. Would you want your LEO's standards to be the same as a citizen's group?

owari

Good point, hedkikr. I guess it does depend on intent.

Hello Jimmy:

Can you provide far better parallels (ie rational) ?

<<illusions of granduer

That is what these belts can provide... whether yours or mine! Your examples seem absurd...to me

Jeff