Is Claiming to Hold a Black Belt, Essentially Pointless?

Sensei Ryan Nicholls here, owner of, and head instructor at RKD Martial Arts, welcome to my Blog, Martial Arts Perth.

In this, our third topic, I wanted to look at why claiming to be a 'black belt' is essentially pointless.

When people first enter a dojo, one of the goals or dreams they have is of one day obtaining and wearing their black belt. The yudansha (those who hold a dan rank) are often looked at by new comers to any art as being experts and a member of the elite – someone to respect and often, be in awe of. A black belt often confers upon its wearer a status that is; more often than not; greater than the reality. Why then, is claiming to hold a 'black belt' ultimately pointless?

First, let us look at what it generally means to hold a black belt in a certain style. Contrary to the misguided belief that a black belt is an expert, under most styles, obtaining a black belt means that you have completed your basic training, that you are competent in the system's basic techniques. It is essentially, the final step before your advanced training begins. Compared to the lay person, is a black belt an expert? Yes, but it is always a matter of relativity. When compared to a lay person, a blue belt is an expert as they know and understand a whole lot more than the average person off the street. Is a black belt an expert when compared to a lay person or a blue belt? Yes.

Looking at it another way, is a black belt in one system comparable to a black belt in another system? In a word, no. Why not? The simple answer is time and experience. Your skill as a martial artist is usually based on two things - the quality of your instructor and your experience. Generally, the better your instructor and the more experience you have, the better you will be as a martial artist. Removing natural ability, quality of instruction and your training experience will be the dominant factors in determining your skill level. So why aren't black belts across systems comparable? Mainly for the two reasons above – not all instructors are equal, and not all experience is equal.

There is often a big misconception within the martial arts that skill translates into teaching ability. In other words, the better you are as a martial artist, the better instructor you'll make. In some systems it is almost expected that once you reach a certain belt (often black belt) that you will be instructing others. The reality is, teaching and training are two very different concepts and someone who may be good at one is not guaranteed to be good at the other. I have at various times in my training had experience with numerous instructors – some were very good martial artists but terrible instructors, and some were average martial artists but excellent instructors. There were various reasons for the former – some just had a high degree of natural ability so they were good at the physical aspects, but lacked understanding or the ability to impart understanding to others. Some just had no idea of the various types of learning methodologies (to be covered in a later blog) and got exasperated when you didn't understand their approach to teaching. There were a number of people who had a good understanding of the martial arts and were very good at imparting that to other people, despite themselves being of only average ability. Of course, unfortunately, there is also the case of average or less than average martial artists also being average (or worse) instructors – I am fortunate to have had very little experience being instructed by this category, as being taught by someone of this ilk for one lesson was enough!

For students of the same style having a different instructor can mean a vast difference in knowledge at a particular level. This is mitigated somewhat in some styles by having grading panels – trying to ensure a minimum standard is obtained before passing from one belt rank to the next. However, standards are subjective and grading panels are not always comprised of the same people. Also, this is usually an assessment of technique, not understanding.

Myself (right) with BJJ world champ Andre Galvao

Recently I had the fortunate experience of doing a two day workshop with Andre Galvao, multiple times BJJ world champ and an all round nice guy. Andre is an example of the perfect instructor – exceptionally gifted at what he does and able to impart that knowledge to others in a multitude of ways. I can't remember exactly how many people were in attendance (definitely more than 50, possibly around 80) on both days, but everyone left that workshop knowing how to do the techniques being taught, why you would use those techniques, and why they work. Despite a large group, he was able to teach the same thing in multiple ways so that everyone was able to understand.

If we were able to remove the variability in instructor ability (both as a martial artist and a teacher), could we then compare black belts across systems? Again, the answer is no. Different systems have different grading requirements - even different schools within the same systems have different grading requirements! As such, a belt rank from one system to the next is never going to be equivalent. A good indication of this is the experience that the student has at that rank, or put another way, the average time it takes to achieve that rank.

Some martial arts schools advertise that you will be black belt in a year – ps, if you see a school that does this, avoid it like the plague! In some styles it may take you an average of three years to get your first dan, some five years, and some around ten years to get a black belt! Does this make them equivalent? No. Does it mean the one that took longer is 'better' than the others? Probably, but not necessarily. What it does mean however, is that the black belts of the style which takes ten years to attain are going to have experienced a great deal more training than those in the style that takes three years to achieve. Given that a martial artist's ability is generally a product of instruction received and experience, it would stand to reason that the longer it takes to get a black belt, the better that black belt would be. Put another way, assuming that both were receiving decent instruction, it would be expected that a martial artist with ten years experience would be better than a martial artist with three, four, or five years of experience (remembering we are talking average times here – some people will experience in five years what others take ten years to experience).

Looking at my own experience within the martial arts is a good illustration of this point. I hold black belts in a number of styles (one 4^th dan, one 2^nd dan, and three 1^st dans) but I don't consider them at all equivalent. It is actually one of the 1^st dans that I value the most of my martial arts achievements. The 1^st dan is in a taijutsu style, and it took me about ten years to achieve it. My 4^th dan is in a freestyle martial art and it took me about the same amount of time to achieve. However, I felt I learned more and experienced more achieving my 1^st dan in the taijutsu style than I did in achieving my 4^th dan in the freestyle. It should be noted however, that unlike most martial arts, in the taijutsu style I did, the basics ended with purple belt, not on attainment of black belt. It stands to reason therefore that achieving a black belt in the taijutsu system is a number of stages into your advanced training, not the beginning of it, as was the case with the freestyle.

The issue of quality of experience became clear to me following a particular incident. When I started training in the freestyle system I was already a red belt in the taijutsu system, and the experience and quality of training I had received meant that my skill level was above many of the people who outranked me. This was made abundantly clear to me when I was a green belt sparring a black belt who was getting angry and frustrated because he couldn't land a strike or kick on me, and his efforts to close distance and grapple were thwarted by my superior movement and counter striking ability. As his anger rose and frustration increased, he tried using more and more power to bully through me but was still unable to land a blow. After I had put him on his butt a few times (he had started trying to crash through my kicks) our Sensei abruptly ended the sparring session then chastised the black belt for his anger and lack of control. The issue was, the black belt knew I had been training martial arts as long as he had but assumed because I didn't yet hold a black belt in any styles that he must be better because he did – he didn't see me as his equivalent and certainly didn't entertain the notion that I could be better than he was. He made the mistake of assuming that his black belt in the freestyle was better than my red belt in taijutsu, despite the fact they took a similar amount of time to achieve. This always reminded me of a quote by Royce Gracie:

“A black belt only covers two inches of your ass – you have to cover the rest.”

So does saying “I'm a black belt” really hold any meaning? Despite how I opened this blog article, and what I've said above, it does. A black belt; regardless of the style in which it is achieved; has internal relevance. First, it holds some meaning within your system – for example, you'd expect that two recently graded black belts, both studying Zen Do Kai but from different schools would know similar things. Second, it holds a great deal of meaning within your school. Regardless of comparisons to other styles or schools, you have achieved a hallmark within your school, amongst your peers. Third, and probably more importantly, it speaks of your character – it has shown a degree of dedication, persistence, and mental strength that the average person does not have. In China, the term kung fu is applied to any individual skill that is the result of a great deal of effort and work, and in light of the achievement of a black belt in (almost) any style, it is highly appropriate when used to describe the martial arts.

I'd like to end this article by sharing a paragraph from an essay I was required to write for black belt in one of my martial arts:

“...I realised that a goal is only a moment in time, a brief and short lived emotion that ultimately fades. It becomes a memory of a time and a place; a marker or sign post on a longer journey. And this is where the martial arts mirrors life; life is a journey marked by events - some good, some bad - but all contribute to the experience that is Life. For when looking at Life what is the goal? Life always ends at some point and all we have is the memories and experiences of the journey, so why focus on the endpoint? The martial arts are no different - it is my realisation within the martial arts that a black belt or 2nd or 3rd Dan is just a marker, a single moment in a larger journey. The important thing to me is that I have enjoyed the journey so far, that I have experienced so much and learnt a great deal about myself in the process.”

Be proud of achieving your black belt, but remember that it only marks a certain moment in your journey, nothing more. And never make the assumption that being a black belt in your school makes you better than anyone in any other school, regardless of their rank!

Thanks for reading – until next week make sure you subscribe to the blog, and if you have any subjects you would like to see covered, post them in the comments section below.

Is History and Tradition Important When Choosing a Martial Arts School?

Sensei Ryan Nicholls here, owner of, and head instructor at RKD Martial Arts, welcome to my Blog, Martial Arts Perth.

In this, our second topic, I wanted to look at whether or not history is an important factor to be considered when choosing a martial arts school.

History and lineage are often controversial subjects in the martial arts community. People sometimes make claims to have studied under this kung fu or karate Master, or claim historical links to this or that style, but how important is it? There are two main issues here so I will define them as such - history will refer to the style of martial art (what was studied eg. karate, ninjutsu, bjj) and lineage will refer to instructors within the arts (who you studied with). This article will look mainly at the history of a style.

The history of a style is often used to establish its authenticity, that it has some historical basis from which it is derived. Historical ties can sometimes claim to be hundreds of years old with links to some legendary master or event. This historical link is often used to convey credibility. Let's look at the history of a number of “traditional” martial arts styles.

• Judo was developed by Jigoro Kano and has its history in jujitsu. The style was developed under a unifying principle of “seiryoku zenyo” - “maximum efficiency with minimum effort”. It was developed in the late 1800s so is over a century old. 
• Karate was developed by more than one person though it was given its name by Gichin Funakoshi. It has its historical roots in Chinese kung fu combined with native Okinawan boxing (Okinawan te). It was developed in the late 1800s and early 1900s and became known as 'karate' ('empty hand') in the 1920s, so is just under a century old. 
• Brazilian Jiu Jitsu was developed by Helio Gracie in the 1920s from Kodokan Judo. Helio was unable to perform many of Judo's moves, so adapted and developed the BJJ focus on leverage and joint manipulation. 
• Aikido was developed by Morihei Ueshiba derived mostly from jujitsu, sword and spear fighting arts, in which Ueshiba was well versed. The central tenet of Aikido appears to be a commitment to a peaceful resolution of conflict whenever possible. Although developed earlier than this time, the art wasn't given the name Aikido until the 1940s so it is around 70 years old.
• Tae Kwon Do was founded in the 1950s by Choi Hong Hi (by unifying nine schools) under instruction from South Korean President Syngman Rhee to introduce the martial arts to the Korean army. While it is claimed that TKD has its origins in Hwarang-do, the ban on traditional Korean martial arts during the occupation of Korea by Japan (1910-1945) makes tracing this link difficult. It is suggested that many of the kwan (schools) that emerged after the occupation have influences from Japanese or Chinese styles, or were based entirely upon Karate. 
• Jeet Kune Do is a modern martial art founded by Bruce Lee in the 1960s. It has its style roots in Wing Chun, boxing and fencing, but Bruce Lee said “adopt all which is useful”, so it also contains grappling and wrestling techniques.  

Just from this list we can see that many of the styles that are steeped in 'tradition' are less than a century old. There are people still living and teaching who trained directly under the founder of these styles. When it comes to history, 100 years is a drop in the ocean so why do we put so much stock in a style's claims of historical ties? Let's go further back and look at some “older” styles:

• Any style of kung fu (Hung Gar, Wing Chun etc) – nearly all styles of kung fu claim to be rooted in the Shaolin monastery, which when destroyed, scattered kung fu Masters across China. From this one event, came the supposed foundation of many current kung fu styles. 
• Ninjutsu – the art of which Hatsumi Masaaki is the 34th Grand Master apparently has its origins in the 1500s. 
• Jujutsu – various styles which originated with Samurai in various periods. 

These styles have historical ties that are hundreds of years old. The problem with these claims is their verifiability. Many of these historical ties are oral history, which often can't be verified as fact. For instance, if you mention the “Ancient art of Ninjutsu” amongst historians in Japan, you will be laughed at. Does this make the techniques of ninjutsu any less useful? Given that the history of many traditional martial arts is relatively short, what importance should be placed on the historical underpinnings of a school?

While Jeet Kune Do isn't usually referred to as a traditional martial art, I have included it in the above list for a specific reason. Jeet Kune Do marked the first major style in recent history to come from the amalgamation and blending of a number of styles, and its founder, Bruce Lee, sparked the martial arts craze in the West. JKD is essentially the Father of most recent non-traditional martial arts schools, who have followed a similar philosophy of adopting what works. These days, the number of martial arts schools dedicated to a particular style seems to be in decline, with more and more schools opening up that offer a blended (mixed or freestyle) martial art. Given that the history of these styles usually originates with the owner or founder of the school, do people place a value on the traditional styles, or is what is being taught more important than the style being taught?

One of the criticisms of many traditional martial arts schools is the lack of 'aliveness' in their training. 'Aliveness' refers to the realism with which techniques within the martial arts are trained. For example, an opponent standing there allowing you to perform a technique on them lacks aliveness, while a sparring session with an opponent who fights back and resists techniques is closer to real life. The traditional martial arts often contain patterns or kata which are seen as being irrelevant if the techniques within them are never tested. This has resulted in some changes within the traditional martial arts – for example, kyokushin karate was established primarily with a focus on sparring or aliveness missing within other karate styles.

Now a martial art can't always be trained in an alive manner as it is impossible to learn a new technique with an opponent trying to hit you or resist and counter what you are doing. There must be some compliance in training or technique can never be refined before it is truly tested. At some point however, technique needs to tested in an alive manner. How will you know if a technique works for you if you've never had the opportunity to test it against an opponent who resists and fights back?

For potential students, when you are looking at a school, find out if they spar and the parameters of that sparring. Sparring needs to be relatively free for it be considered 'alive' – as soon as too many restrictions are placed on it it becomes fake. Now sparring shouldn't be confused with real life as your training partner isn't trying to hurt you. Obviously, some restrictions must be in place to prevent injury, but the restrictions need to enable as realistic a training environment as possible within the realms of safety. By the same token however, don't expect realism in a class of beginners – they have yet to learn anything to use in a realistic training situation! Some styles claim that they don't spar or train in a realistic manner because their techniques are just 'too deadly' – if you hear that excuse quietly chuckle to yourself then look for a different school!

Sparring and training in some schools use a graduated approach to increase the level of realism as students become better equipped to deal with it. In my school, RKD Martial Arts, for example, when students first start to spar they aren't allowed to kick at or below the knee (to prevent knee injuries) and should a throw or takedown occur it ends at this point. As students progress, the restrictions are removed so that all techniques are allowed and if a sparring round moves to the ground it continues on the ground. Weapons training is treated in much the same way, moving from drills to free weapon sparring as students increase in ability and experience. I find this approach works well for increasing the level of realism in training in line with my student's abilities, while still maintaining a safe training environment.

So given that 'aliveness' or realism is important, what does that mean for history and tradition in the martial arts? Very little - history and tradition in the martial arts are only important if they are important to you. If you have a reason for wanting to study a particular traditional style, or the history of that style interests you then you will find the history and tradition important. If you are getting into the martial arts for the spiritual and character building aspects, then the spiritual underpinnings of the style will be important to you. If however, you are getting into the martial arts to learn self defence, history and tradition mean very little when compared to the 'aliveness' of the training involved. Without a degree of aliveness, there is no 'martial' in the martial arts.

Thanks for reading – until next week make sure you subscribe to the blog, and if you have any subjects you would like to see covered, post them in the comments section below.

Martial Arts and False Advertising?

Sensei Ryan Nicholls here, owner of, and head instructor at RKD Martial Arts, welcome to my Blog, Martial Arts Perth.

In this, our first topic, I wanted to look at the claims that martial arts schools often make, and whether some of these can be considered false advertising.

Martial Arts schools tend to fall into 2 broad categories – those that teach self defence and those that train for competition. Some particular styles have a natural emphasis towards one or the other, for example Krav Maga and Jujitsu have a natural focus on self defence, whereas BJJ and Judo tend towards competition. The issue however, is what happens when a school or style that focuses on one advertises that it does the other?

As an example, my school RKD Martial Arts, does some advertising under the term MMA, or Mixed Martial Arts. I use the term on my website to describe what it is we train, as we are a Freestyle system not limited to one style. In the past however, I have had potential members call up saying that they were interested in training MMA. Now MMA these days brings to mind the UFC, and many people who use the term MMA are referring to that cage or ring style of competition. Knowing this, it would be remiss of me to say to these potential clients that my school trains MMA without clarifying this point for them. I could potentially, just get them to come down and check out our school maybe convince them that ultimately what we do is “better”, but that is not what these potential clients were looking for. If I didn't make this clarification, and got these clients to sign up under the belief that they were training in UFC style MMA, is that false advertising?

Lets look at the flipside of this – if I run a school whose martial art is considered a sport, and my focus is on competition, yet I include in my advertising that I teach self defence, is that false advertising?

Competition schools can be further broken down into 2 types – demonstration and one-on-one point scoring. It almost goes without saying that a school that focuses on demonstration style competition is not teaching self defence. A good example of this is the Wikid Weaponz programme run by Jason Lee – Jason is awesome at the tricking and extreme martial arts but he knows it is just for fun and display and not for use in self defence and he tells people as such.

The potential issues usually come about in the second category of competition – the one-on-one point scoring. A lot of martial arts fall into this category – BJJ, Judo, kickboxing, wrestling, western boxing, taekwondo, fencing, and of course MMA. Now while I've never heard of a fencing school claiming they are teaching self defence, a lot of the others do.

Now lets face it – knowing any martial art is going to be an advantage in a fight, and most of these martial arts do teach how to fight, or at least teach some form of fighting skill. So the big question is – is training someone how to fight the same as training someone for self defence? Lets look at it another way - would someone trained in UFC style competition MMA or western boxing know how to deal with a knife or other weapon? Would a practitioner of BJJ or a judoka know how to deal with a multiple attacker situation?

If you're an instructor of one of these styles and you advertise that you teach self defence, do you train with knives and other weapons? Do you look at multiple attacker situations? For the grappling arts such as BJJ, Judo and Greco-Roman wrestling – do you look at striking and kicking? If you are not doing these things but claim that you teach self defence, are you potentially opening yourself up to a lawsuit?

I suppose the point of this article is two-fold. First, as an instructor know what it is that you teach and let that be your focus – don't make claims either in your personal dealings with clients or in your advertising that you are not fulfilling or incapable of fulfilling. At best you may end up with some unhappy clients, at worst you may end up in litigation.

Second, as a potential student, do some research – if you are getting into the martial arts to learn self defence look for a school that teaches actual self defence; if you are getting into the martial arts because you want to enter competitions and win medals etc, ensure that the school you are looking at can fulfil that wish. Basically, you should watch some classes, look at their photos and videos, and understand what it is that that school does. If it doesn't match what you are looking for, find a school that does, there will be one nearby.

Thanks for reading – until next week make sure you subscribe to the blog, and if you have any subjects you would like to see covered, post them in the comments section below.

Martial Arts Perth - Introduction

Sensei Ryan Nicholls here, owner of, and head instructor at RKD Martial Arts, welcome to my Blog, Martial Arts Perth.

Not surprisingly, this Blog is about martial arts in Perth, Western Australia. Perth has a thriving martial arts community. Regardless of your flavour, it is generally taught somewhere within the Perth Metro area. From the Freestyle arts who have no real country of origin, to the Chinese arts such as Wing Chun, Hung Gar and Chow Lee Fut, to the Japanese Arts like Jujitsu, Ninjutsu, Judo, Karate and Aikido, to the Korean stalwart Taekwondo, and other Asian arts such as Muay Thai, Silat and Escrima. Through the European Arts like fencing, savate, boxing, and Greco-Roman wrestling, through to the rest of the world such as Russian Sambo, Krav Maga and Kapap from Israel and from the South Americas, BJJ and Capoeira. They are all taught within our city.

I read a statistic a while ago that said that Perth had the highest number of martial arts schools per capita in Australia – whether it is true or not, there is no denying that as a community, we are spoilt for choice.

I want to look at various things on this Blog, such as looking at individual styles available in Perth, expectations on schools and students, training and technique tips, tips for running a martial arts school, to some of the harder hitting questions within the martial arts community. I will aim to upload a new article every week though spare me the pointy end of the blade if I fail to do so (I do have a life and a dojo to run after all!).

My first article after this intro will be of the hard hitting variety and will not only be a question of integrity, but of legality too, when we look at the topic - “When does a martial arts school's claims constitute false advertising?”

Join us next week to find out – for now, subscribe to this blog and leave ideas for topics you'd like to see covered in the future in the comments section below.

For those of you who are interested, the links below are to my school's website, and a youtube vid created from some classes in action.

www.rkdmartialarts.com.au