Rank and competence

Every now and then I hear stories of some 10th dan teacher of such-and-such martial art who apparently doesn't know what s/he's talking about. Or about a high-ranked teacher or self-appointed "shihan" who is teaching iai but cannot sit in seiza, etc. And it makes me wonder about ranking systems generally, and what they are for (and what they are not for).

A very long time ago, I was involved in a very traditional iaijutsu style. Among the students was an older American who had some movement issues. I was at the honbu dojo for a seminar and ranking exam to be administered by the fuku-soke of the style, who had come for his annual visit from Japan. At one point, the American shihan noted to me (apropos of nothing in particular, except that in those good ole buddy-buddy days we used to share a lot of teaching lore) that the movement-challenged student would be allowed to test during this round, but that the fuku-soke had advised him to tell the student that he would not be allowed to test for any higher rank - ever. I thought this was a little harsh, but I was intrigued by the reasoning: "Fuku-soke feels that in order to attain higher rank than sandan, one needs to be able to do all of the techniques, and be able to teach them to others." Someone who had trouble sitting in seiza, or tatehiza, for example, or who struggled to get up and down from the floor, would be excluded from higher ranks because he would not be able to pass on the techniques of the style to others. The object was not exactly to encourage the student to quit (though he could make his own decision about that) but to advise him that, if higher rank was in his plans for this art form, he should instead pick something less physically challenging to train in. And the corollary seemed to be that the American shihan would be wasting his time trying to teach him techniques he would not be able to master.

By my next visit, the senior gentleman was no longer practicing the art form. I never asked, but I always wondered what that conversation was like. Did the American shihan (not known for tact, by the way), simply tell the student he was not eligible for higher rank, due to his physical limitations, while offering to still train him to the best of his ability, or did he more strongly suggest he not train any longer, period?

I don't know the rest of the story, but it does raise some interesting issues. The sympathetic part of me feels that the American shihan should not have discouraged the student, even as he had to deliver what many competitive-type Americans would consider bad news. After all, if he really loved the style, why not keep going, even if progress would be limited? On the other hand, I have been to seminars where the senior American teacher could not do all of the techniques of the ryuha commensurate with his rank. In one or two cases, it could have been said that the senior on the floor was INcompetent, relying on his students to illustrate his points. In one case, the instructor was muddling through because his students were not even well-taught enough themselves to know (I didn't go to another seminar there - live and learn).

Occasionally, one of these dinosaur-types raises his head on one forum or another, and other members of the American budo community tend to be somewhat derisive, let's say. They have a point, as do organizations, such as the Kokusai Budoin, who insist that higher-ranked members must be able to teach all the techniques of the style wherein they have senior rank (the American shihan that I knew was just making that point abundantly clearly). In Japan, I know that, every now and then, a senior person will actually retire in favor of someone younger and more technically able to teach, but not always. Of the older Japanese teachers that I know, they are, even in their 80s, still able to kick butt, even if they do it more slowly; and they have a legion of senior students and a couple of menkyo kaiden who can fill in any gaps. Their students speak for them; additionally, when it comes to the wisdom behind a particular technique or kata, no one can match these shihan. Even the menkyo-tachi still ask questions seeking better insight into the techniques. I would never say these older gentlemen are incompetent. There is more to techniques than just technique.

This leaves aside the whole question of honorary rank. Honorary rankings are just that - honorary. I look at this as being somewhat similar (though I think more common) to honorary Ph.D's for commencement speakers. No one expects Julia Roberts or Barbara Bush to begin teaching seminars the following semester - their degrees are simply honors and not indicators of ability. Why then do Americans (I am limiting the discussion to my experience) in budo tout their honorary dan rankings as measures of competence? I am not just talking about the occasional honorary rankings from a Japanese shihan, but the ones conferred by organizations where one gets a certificate of rank by paying a membership fee. Is caveat emptor all we have, then?

Unlike Japan, a small country with a fairly close koryu budo culture where many people know of each other even if they don't know each other personally, American budo is like the Wild West (as we are in some other ways, still). In this case, caveat emptor is indeed all we have. I'd like to be able to say I have some sort of magic formula for being able to tell the difference, but I can't. But I can say that the proof is in the doing. Can the instructor answer questions? Can he show the techniques, or does he rely on someone else? Do his senior students seem tentative or unsure, or competent and knowledgeable? Is there a senior student who clearly seems to be in charge, even when the instructor is present?

And then there's this - some years ago, I visited a seminar where the senior instructor was actually sitting off the floor, apparently napping while activity was taking place all around him. Somehow I didn't think this one was worthwhile, so I didn't sign up.