I was training in a sambo class. In Russia, Sambists are graded not with belts, but with sporting accolades. You may have heard Fedor Emelianenko and Khabib Nurmagomedov referred to as ‘international masters of sports’. This essentially means that they have won multiple recognised world championships in sport sambo and combat sambo respectively. However the coach that I personally learned from, used the judo grading system.
As sambo is closely linked with judo, he said it made the most sense for how to track his students progress and also give them something to work towards. Interestingly enough though, when I asked his most senior student, his assistant coach, who held a black belt, he personally said that he thought that belts were really for children to keep them engaged, and that as an adult it didn’t make much sense to be pre-occupied with belts.
This got me thinking, as in Muay Thai there are no belts other than those you win in the ring. Which raises the question? How valuable are belts for measuring skill? The only martial arts that use them are martial arts that either hail from or are influenced by Japanese styles. Karate, Judo, BJJ, Taekwondo etc. Kung Fu, Muay Thai, Sanda on the other hand don’t use them.
One one hand I can see the argument that Thai Boxers make, if you are winning championship belts, that shows your ability more than wearing a black belt awarded to you by a teacher… but does it? Mike Passenier of Mike’s Gym, has coached the best of the best in kickboxing, from Badr Hari to Alistair Overeem yet he never fought professionally once. The idea that he is somehow less knowledgeable or skilled than the fighters he teaches is a little silly. Perhaps this is were a belt or grading system becomes more clearly useful. A martial artist might not have an extensive record, but the belt serves as a sort of ‘qualification’ – a symbol to show that they have been assessed by a fellow professional, and that their skills are legitimate.
An argument can also be made that black belts mean less and less in the modern age. McDojo-ism and guaranteed black belts being sold to students regardless of whether or not they are actually worthy of one, is frequently cited as a reason that belts mean very little. Yet I think this is more of an American issue than it is a European one. While I have met a few karate black belts, who shall rename nameless, that weren’t able to control their head kicks – I think for the most part traditional martial arts schools in the UK do a good job of ensuring their students are properly trained.
The issue here is probably just that we often forget that who holds a black belt, often just comes down to someone’s opinions. There are no real formal ‘levels’ to martial arts. An athletic blue belt, with a strong fighting instinct training specifically for competitions, could well defeat a hobbyist black belt, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they have the same level of knowledge. While I like making fun of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, it’s hard to argue that a black belt in that style doesn’t concretely mean something. It takes 7-10 years to get a black belt in the majority of cases, as opposed to the 3 or 4 years it typically does in karate and Taekwondo, but then that just proves the subjectivity. Different styles and different practitioners have different standards to what makes an expert.
This is in all likelihood, a question without a real answer, but it is a question worth considering. How many high level martial artists are truly experts of their discipline, as opposed to experts in their own personal style?
