But black belts are not trophies, finish lines, or deifying. If black belts truly do mean that you are a beginner, then really... aren't children beginners?
I can't help but wonder about the 20 year old black belt who stares at the 7 year old black belt sitting next to him, all the while a 70 year old 9th dan stares at the 20 year old next to him. Everyone is wearing exactly the same colored belt. Is there something wrong with this picture?
There would be, if the belt somehow denoted anything about skill, experience, quality, etc.
But it doesn't.
Also, I see more cases of younger people getting black belts in sport martial arts than I do about non-compete styles. I have no problem with this: after all, each will only compete against others their own skill level. A black belt is just a skill level, but, a level at which they can (or should) more or less compete equally among others of the same age and rank.
But non-martial-art folk do not distinguish sport vs non-sport, and don't distinguish between 1st dan and 9th dan. So the perception is always something about mastery and greatness. While absurd to us martial artists, that's how people perceive it from the outside looking in.
I used to say no to the idea of teenage black belts until I worked out with some of them and learned from them.
It depends upon the child. My criteria is a) if they can take on an adult their size & strength who has less training than them, the child gets the black belt and b) they show the patience and maturity to be able to teach.
Now all other things being equal, an adult black belt is going to dominate a child black belt because the child will typically not do anything unorthodox. Unorthodox and wiley things are the only reason why I could handle teen and young adult (as 18 to 20 year old) black belts when I was an adult brown belt. It certainly was NOT because of skill. Or, if you manage to drag things out for a ridiculously long time, you can get the child to make a mistake. Ironically, that's the same thing martial artists who were older than me have done, and probably, still can do!
But all things are never actually equal in the real world, and there are children who deserve the rank because they actually earned it. The ones who earned it have typically been at it at least 6 to 8 years or more.
I also think that mcdojang kid black belts probably know that they cannot beat a grown man. I don't think they are that stupid. We say "oh it's not all about fighting", and "black belt is a first step", or even "it's all about character, not fighting", yet we get mad when Widdle Snookums Kiddington has his widdle bwack bwelt.
That's why I stoppped caring. Kid black belt, kid not a black belt, whatever! It's the public that wants kid black belts, and if you don't give the public what they want, they won't give you their money.
In a physical art like the martial arts, it would be pretty silly to give a child the same rank you would a grown adult.
In all seriousness, a child isn't going to stand much of a chance against an adult going full force. A black belt is suppose to represent a certain plateau of capability, while the colored belts are just there as a ladder of support for learning.
In other words, it's not about age; it's about physical and mental capability. It's still a near impossible feat for a child to apply his skills to an adult. 16 years old is just a generalization. I think it's silly some schools treat it as an absolute requirement rather than look at the true merit, but even without a belt, there is still plenty of things to learn and sharpen.
Why would a child's curriculum and an adult's curriculum be any different? They're both suppose to be studying the same art, aren't they? If you make an example and model of a certain set of technique, knowledge, skill, application, functionality and know-how, and apply it into representing a rank, then that is exactly what you get with what a black belt is suppose to be. It shouldn't be a flexible scale just to appease some kid. The requirements and demands should be the same for everyone; just like when you apply for a job and specific requirements are asked for certain positions.
Traditionally no one could not earn a black belt before the age of 16 and in some systems it is 18. Even those that do earn it at 16 or 18 it should be the exception not the rule. That must be an exceptional student to earn the rank at that age.
I agree with the standards just like no one can legally drive a car before 16. You can't buy alcohol before 21. You can't enter into a legal and binding contract before the ripe old age of 18. Skill is only part of the equation. There is also maturity and responsibility. These are thing that a minor does not posses for them to be considered for promotion to be a black belt.
I agree with Shaeeck. I have a low opinion, yet mixed feelings about it. Few children under 16 seem to fully understand the aspects of their training, nor could truly defend themselves.
On the other hand, I would believe some children actually might.
In short I suppose dividing it into:
Child Black Belt
&
Adult Black Belt
Is best, but it must be more than apparent that the child is wearing a child black belt. A child is not equivalent in any way, shape, or form against an adult in the first place. Kids, wearing adult black belts is a no no in my book.
But alas, I didn't make the rules. But if I was teaching a dojo it would be 18 or older and they MUST be more than proficient in what they learned and more importantly know.
I don't fly with the whole "blow through the technique" thing. That's like... math class. You are taught algebra, chemistry, whatever. You learn it just to pass the class. Later on you forget about it. I believe the student must KNOW the material to the letter and be able to perform.
I am very passionate about martial arts and very passionate about teaching it. I feel like I am responsible for my students to a degree, bc if it came down to it I want them to be able to defend themselves, so that is why I would say 18 or older.
My opinion is that the Japanese and Okinawans did not make provisions for anyone under 16 ever being promoted to black belt. The standards they used for promotion were set up that way, with the minimum age for black belt being 16. In the U.S.A. in the 1960's Black Belt Magazine said that there were no children in most martial arts schools. Less than 3 out of 100 students ever became a black belt in those days and all of them were adults. The martial arts were created for life threatening situations, not for fun, street fighting, or sport competition. Children do not have the maturity, or physical development to lean the original martial arts. Commercialism is the only reason those things changed. I watched the martial arts boom in the 1970's. MA schools popped up everywhere. With it children began to be allowed to train. but their training was not even a shadow of the training I went through or saw in other schools in the 1960's. We fought full or hard contact with no protective gear (except a groin cup and possibly a mouth piece, but most people used no equipment). If less than 3 out of every 100 adults could take the training and make it to black belt, why would anyone even think that a child could or should be allowed to wear a black belt. Today children are more than 85% of all students in the martial arts in the U.S.A. I'm told it is the same in many other countries. Drive past any commercial MA school and you will see not only children but a large percentage of them wearing black belts. It is ludicrous and shameful that instructors that claim to be professionals or masters would stoop so low as to be playing baby sitter and still cal themselves a master.
...
IF a child could do everything an adult could that might be true but in many arts, they cannot. I am not talking about techniques but certain training needs you bones and joints to be completely formed or you will end up with damage. The style I do requires All blackbelts to train with Makiwara at full force. This would damage anyone who is not at least 18 years old. We also use a toe kick which the training for it again needs bones to be fully formed or they will have damage to their feet.
That said, I think people should realize what rank means. a black belt is someone who has some proficiency in the style and depending on the style proficiency means something different.
Sporting arts that are striking based yes they can have them I see no reason why not eg sportive tkd the weaker styles and teachings of sportive karate. Full contact grappling and striking or self defence arts no. The main reason being kids and teenagers myself being 19 can get inflated heads if you go of giving them a black belt they become a bad thing I the world. If you keep them at lower belts eg white yellow orange they think they don't know much and hence don't become a pain on society and are less likely to start fights. Another benifit of this would be a greater understanding of the basics. In judo I'd rather have a few good trows subs sweeps and escapes and be a lower belt like I am then be a brown or black that knows everything and how to demo it but can't pull it off for 20 different angles like I can hence the reason why I give the browns in my club a run for there money if I include abit of power.
No child should have a black belt, there should be a world wide international law that states no child under the age of 18 can be a black belt.
It is completely ridiculous.
A black belt should not only be proficient in the skills required but they should also be mentally and more importantly emotionally ready to understand the responsibilities required of a black belt and i barely think 18 year olds are capable of this.
I think it is more than just skills and how you do in tests.
There is definitely a maturity level needed, as well an understanding. Most people I know don't reach black belt until they have spent some amount of time teaching others as a brown belt. One of the fundamental aspects of achieving a black belt is that you are no longer based on your skills alone, but on your ability to convey those skills and articulate them in a way that you can help better other students. A black belt is the beginning belt to understanding an art, and a large part of that understanding comes in teaching others.
In fact most promotions past black belt aren't based solely on your individual skill, but on your teaching ability and ability to contribute to the art itself.
If I see someone under the age of 18 with a black belt in a school, I immediately will think less of the school, unless that is the most mature kid in the world, who understands the fundamentals so well that he is easily able to impart knowledge and correct others technique, and do so in a patient, mature manner.
For some places (such as BJJ and Judo), since you aren't even allowed to do some of the techniques until you are 16, I see no way in which someone 16 or under could achieve black belt.
Which sort of shoots all kinds of holes in the previous poster talking about sporting arts awarding Black belts.
Frankly I see more kid black belts in arts that do no competition what so ever, aside from maybe forms.
I have heard that some places only accept you one your 16 to become a black belt. And most won't consider you a black belt until your 16. Personally I think the you should be awarded black belt more depending on your characteristics and how you do on the tests rather than age. Also do you think it makes a difference if the child has to do everything the adult has to do does it become equal.
A school can do whatever it wants. However, I am also free to judge for myself the quality of what a black belt in that school's system means by looking at those to whom it is awarded. I don't care about age.
Of course, my opinion and $2 will get you a ride on the bus, so who cares what I think?
often children do not study exactly the same syllabus as an adult from what i've read. therefore if so they should not be graded to an adult standard.
however, within reason, the quality of a student should matter more than an age.
As martial artist we don't understand you at all you should find a new hobby whether you know what your saying or not.
