I couldn't agree more with David's point of view. I wish that more Shidoin in the USAF had the same opinion and more importantly instill this as part of the practice ethic in their dojos and to their students. I am concerned that many dan tests are mediocre, and that many people pass their tests despite a substandard performance. I feel the test standards should be stricter in order to upgrade the level of practice.

David Farrell made some very good points in his article. One important point he made is that testing is not just an individual process, but one that the entire dojo and organization takes part in. Instructors must show good judgement in presenting their students for testing in order to avoid just the kind of situations that Mr. Farrell described.

Another idea to think about is that there are really no "black belt level" techniques in Aikido. Once a safe level of ukemi is reached, students can really practice any techniques. Not only that, but senior students are responsible for everything they have learned previously. Therefore, testing becomes more a question of quality, rather than quantity. We have all seen "senior" students of Aikido who may know hundreds of techniques, but perform them all at the level of a sixth-month student.

Aikido should not be about rote memorization of technique. We should strive to understand the deeper truths that the techniques can teach us. The testing student demonstrates his Aikido both on and off the mat. These qualities should permeate all of the techniques of the Aikido practitioner, no matter where they fall in the testing curriculum. Therefore, more should be expected of the shomenuchi ikkyo of the yudansha, as opposed to the technique of a fifth kyu.

Shihans steer the course of their students' learning by setting the standards that govern testing. Their testing curriculums will determine the focus of the students. If they choose to emphasize weapons, their students may study weapons to the exclusion of all else. If they choose to ignore weapons, these skills may become lost. By including, or excluding things in their tests, they lay out the road that will focus the student's attention. It is a sorry yudansha that realizes too late that he only just studied techniques to the exclusion of learning Aikido.

Perhaps the fundamental problem is that there is very little insight into the fact that the "test" is as much for maintaining standards of technique for an entire organization as it is for individual promotion.

For whatever reason people seem to need to have something "concrete" to show for their efforts. Focussed on their personal needs they lose sight of the bigger picture. This thinking is something like, "After all, I've spent X amount of dollars and X amount of hours at Aikido and what do I have to show for it!" There is also the 'Should & Ought Syndrome'. "I've got 60 hours; I'm owed my rank...I should have it." Or "I've been at this dojo for 2 years...I ought to be Sankyu."

In our culture it seems we can't even get people to be responsible for their own health. Rather than eat right and exercise the attitude is more like "You're the Doctor, give me something that I can have passively poured into me so that I'll feel better!!" So how difficult must it be to make people understand that they are personally responsible for supporting and maintaining Aikido standards. How often do we find someone who is training to perfect their art rather than gain rank?

The use of ranks, grades, and colored belts is not traditional. It was implemented by Jigaro Kano Sensei, the founder of Judo, who thought that it would motivate students by having them strive towards and attain intermediary goals. It was initially intended for the encouragement of junior high school students! In Aikido the use of colored belts is often seen as encouraging a sense of hierarchy that is not consistent with harmony and equality. But ranks and grades have remained.

Sparring is another matter. Aikido is traditional in the sense that it is a Budo intended for training in "life or death" situations. O-Sensei's first rule from his ‘Reminders in Aikido Practice’ at the old Hombu Dojo begins with the phrase, "Aikido decides life and death in a single strike". Consequently a Budo is saved for that situation only, a circumstance that should be consistently avoided. From this vantage point, sparring, like a demonstration, is also too 'artificial'. Because there are 'rules' the event does not completely replicate an actual attack. As such, sparring could also indicate that your techniques are somewhat ineffective because your opponent continues to attack again and again.

Aikido promotion exams have become the experience that is as close as we can get to an assault and the functional application of technique. As a "Demonstration" or "Embu" it is an approximation of the emotional intensity of actual combat. It is a demonstration of what you know for your instructors, fellow students, and other observers.

Tests are a time where you do techniques "for the record", "live or die", pass or fail. Your instructors, accept the burden of having to render judgment and act as the representatives of a harsher world where consequences are severe. Their job is to guard the validity of that process and provide students with an experience of substance. It is the student's job to approach the test with a particular attitude and set of competencies.

O-Sensei's sixth dojo rule states, "The purpose of Aikido is to train both body and mind and to develop sincere and earnest people." In this context promotion exams have nothing to do with rank but rather are an opportunity to demonstrate these qualities. Certainly there will be some anxiety. This is good! It shows the student is taking the art and the test seriously. However the task is to master this anxiety. Usually in daily training there is not the emotional intensity of an actual attack and even advanced practitioners may not be fully prepared for the power and impact of the emotional stress. Remaining centered is critical and should be evident no matter what happens; even if one totally misses a technique during free-style attacks and is struck by a serious blow.

The minimum requirement is time in grade. But this does not assure either that an individual will pass or is even ready to test in the first place. Kanai Sensei has stated that he wishes to see students who are testing to have more than the minimum hours and a knowledge of required techniques. He would prefer to see students testing who are comfortable and not testing at the edge of their ability. This, he says, is a margin of "something extra...to do techniques with a little bit of room in one's mind".

O-Sensei's fourth rule of training states, "The instructor teaches only one small aspect of the art. Its versatile applications must be discovered by each student by incessant practice and training." Instructors and senior students are resources but practice is the only real teacher. To practice with this sincerity will give training partners the opportunity to experience their deficiencies before a test and make appropriate modifications. It also allows individuals to accurately assess if they are ready to seek promotion. Furthermore, it enables the art of Aikido to maintain high standards.

Kanai Sensei has said it is better to let students struggle on their own. If students are confused they should "think about it and they'll get the answer". Too much explanation is seen as detrimental to a student of martial arts. He has commented, "Yes, that is the problem with the 'good leader'. If you follow under the 'good leader' then somehow you quickly get the technique...you know...the 'movement'...better. But not the essence. You need that to grow...without going through such a struggle, to suffer, you can never get that."

During practice, but especially during a test, uke does no favors for a partner by delivering a feeble attack. When taking ukemi attacks should be strong, clear and sincere. Uke should behave as consistently as possible with the actions of a committed attacker. Most attackers will not keep arms and fists extended or backs bent, waiting for something to happen.

Competency also extends to the individual taking ukemi. This is a significant responsibility during examinations and a critical aspect of the quality of Aikido at any dojo. Without a confident uke capable of competent ukemi, attacks will be slow and insincere. Uke will be too worried about avoiding injury to unleash a committed strike. Again to quote Kanai Sensei, "We have a problem with nage and uke. Nage somehow compromises...that uke will not hurt nage...uke believes the same thing. This situation can bring students down to laziness. They are taking advantage of each other. What we really need to do is that uke has to be able to take any kind of ukemi for what nage does. And that way, and only that way, will they be able to build up."

I have recently come from a dojo from Guam. There all testing was done "in house", that is the Sensei/s of the dojo would recommend promotion. I now belong to a dojo under USAF regulations and have been told that all testing will be done at Seminars. I understand that having several different Senseis watching and grading "you" may be benificial in that persons promotion, but what if that person is having a bad day? The Sensei of his or her dojo would know the potential of each person. It would be a shame if someone practiced for long periods of time, then traveled a long distance, then have a bad day, get cold feet and not get promoted. Will this policy change in the near future?

From the Moderator:

Your concern seems to imply that the only applicable criteria for deciding if a candidate passes a test or not is technical proficiency during the examination. It has been my experience that other factors influence the final decision as well, such as for example age, contribution to Aikido, dedication, to mention just a few. I think that more often than not, examiners are generous in their evaluation, especially if the candidate seems to be "having a bad day", and believe it or not, they usually can tell. To improve the chances, besides the obvious required technical preparation, it is particularly helpful if the examiners have previously seen the candidate during practice, and if the candidate's instructor is present during the test.

Here is my opinion about problem of testing. I think that test are useless. After many years of development of Aikido we can't find two aikidokas at the same level of rank with the same technical or spiritual skills.Even approximately. More sad is looking at the test and see two candidates for the same rank ,who pass because of generosity of shihans, but definitively with big differences in they skill level.

What can we answer for the beginners who ask after the test how is it possible? What confusion !! Concept of preparations for test is much more funny. More like sport champions, preparation,championship and after 1-2 months holidays.....is Budo like that? Many times we can see during the test that candidate comes with his own uke! Not only he knows his/her partner very well but worse, they did 6 month preparation together...heheh. Last time I saw it was 3 dan level! For me is not only kind of joke, theatre play, it's fake. What this kind of 'actor' can teach to his students?. Aikido is suppose to be spontaneous, certainly in dan level - see O-Sensei lectures. If somebody is suppose to learn something from test, is how to react to unknown attack, unknown behavior of attacker. Another problem is with someone who changes dojo/federation. Even if he has good skills ( and hours of training, 'course ;-D for test ,he has to wait one or two years, so what test means for him? Only administrative task. Between high ranking aikidoka tests create also a lot of confusion, ambitions and kind of competition. What happens if A train long time but once a week and B some years less, but every day and going through ranks fast and has higher rank? How they sit when line up, who should instruct? In reality in dojo real hierarchy is much different from formal hierarchy. So why test for ranks if they means nothing? May be better is to focus on the Unification with Universe?

From the Moderator:

We recently received the above submission from someone who identified themselves only as Stephane. While we found the opinions expressed quite stimulating and wanted to share them with our readers, we found ourselves in a bind, because the rest of the personal information that we indicated was required in order to consider a submission for publication was missing.

This prompted us to re-examine two things: our rationale for requesting that contributors to the Discussion Group provide their full name, rank, dojo and dojo affiliation, and how we would handle future submissions with only partial information.

Concerning the former, it is our intent to make this a meaningful, valuable and responsible Discussion Group. We want contributors to take responsibility for what they write, and so we insist on the requirement of providing one's full name. Since the dojo where one practices and its affiliation add context, and one's rank adds perspective on Aikido experience, we feel this information adds value to contributions. However, having said that, we also recognize that in certain cases, someone may want to express an opinion but, for a number of reasons, only under the condition that they remain anonymous. To respect this, and still benefit from the contribution, we decided that we would be willing to sacrifice context and perspective while still maintaining responsibility. Therefore, we will withhold all or part of a contributor's personal information from publication if so requested, but we will continue to insist that all the information required be submitted together with one's comments.

Dave Farrell's article is very good though there are some things I'd like to add. First, testing is absolutely vital, not only as a yardstick, but more importantly, to see whether or not a student can perform the techniques he's learnt under pressure. If we are to retain the "martial" aspect of martial arts then we must be able to perform our techniques under stress for we will be under stress in any "outside the dojo" conflict.

This is why it's imperative that we fail students who do not come up to scratch. Far too many dojo pass students - let's be honest, we've all seen it, - who are not ready. This is very damaging to both the dojo, and the art. To begin with you're not fooling anyone. Spectators, students and the testee all know they didn't earn the rank. That breeds insecurity. Students now begin to wonder whether or not they're really worth the rank they hold. In a dojo where people regularly fail, the people who pass are confident that they are as good as their rank suggests.

If an instructor lacks the courage to fail someone then he is weakening the style. My goal as an instructor (in karate) is to produce students who are better than I am. That way the style continues to get stronger.

There is, unfortunately, so much ego in the martial arts that many instructors adopt the opposite viewpoint. Each succesive generation of students is slightly worse than the preceding one. The style becomes a very watered down reflection of its former self.....something I suspect (at the risk of offending some) has happened in Aikido already, and continues to happen.

The attitude with regards to testing that seemed the most effective was that adopted by my karate sensei who would warn us well in advance "I'm going to try and fail as many of you as possible, the onus is on you to prove to me you're good enough to obtain your rank." I think every single one of us failed at least one test on the way to black belt.

Further to the issue of testing, I am curious as to why the USAF does not promote the use of colored belts? When I would travel the country teaching karate it made my job a lot easier when everyone had a colored belt on denoting their skill level. I knew I could teach group "a" one set of techniques, group "b" another and that another group had already learnt "this" particular kata and so on. From a more practical viewpoint, a friend of mine (who used to train AAA and now trains USAF) attended a seminar, grabbed a girl wearing a hakama (only yudansha wear these in the AAA) and slammed her to the mat. She was nearly badly injured because it turns out it was her third lesson. He assumed she was a black belt. Had colored belts been issued, along with a universal policy on the wearing of hakama, what could have been a serious injury, would have been avoided. Could somebody responsible in the USAF please explain the reasoning behind the white belt issue? Thank you.

I began practicing Aikido in 1982. I live in a small town in Kentucky. I was very fortunate to have had the chance to study Aikido with a student of Yamada and Kanai Sensei.

When I began practicing Aikido there were very very few people practicing in KY. Even now there are only a handfull in the state (regardless of affiliation). I have tested under Yamada Sensei from my 5th kyu to my present rank. I have tried to attend all the seminars that I could during that time.

Some of my test were good. Some of my test - well lets just say --- maybe I just didn't have a good day. But those were the days that I had.

My relationship with Yamada and Kanai Sensei is distant. I try not to impose myself on them with the minor proplems I experience in trying to maintain a dojo (in the sticks). They don't know me because I attend every seminar, or because I've accomplished something stellar. They recognize my face on the mat. I don't know if they even know my name. I've never tried to find out. They know that I am the student of a certain teacher, and that I have been around for a few years. They have been watching me. They have been watching a lot of people.

What I'm trying to say is that I could never believe that these men make shallow decisions about promotions. You or I may not understand the reasoning behind a promotion or a failure. So be it!

David Farrell's essay offers the reader one of the strongest arguments for the affirmation of testing in Aikido. Its utilitarian reasoning may be the only justifiable rationale for the practice of testing as a pedagogical tool. The history of the examination has been linked to utilitarian logic from its very genesis. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find an example of the examination prior to the birth of such concepts as society, civilization, the state, or the federation. Unfortunately long histories may make us victim to accepting cultural assumptions as unquestioned - and unquestionable - facts. In other words, we may nod our head in agreement - even unconsciously - before we fully understand the implications, definitions, and final consequences of a given statement and/or belief. I found myself nodding in such agreement when I read the following sentence in Mr. Farrell's article: In the same way, the tests in the United States Aikido Federation (USAF) curriculum build on one another and thus, are a powerful learning tool. At first, I merely glanced over the sentence - a deeper reading was not necessary. Having grown up with this idea of "test as learning tool" - living with it as a "campaign slogan" for the modern education system - I was able to complete the sentence in my head before I even came to the last word. However, after a little careful contemplation I came to the conclusion that though I agreed with Mr. Farrell's main objective (stressing the importance of testing in Aikido), I could not agree with his reasoning in total. Mr. Farrell's reasoning is strongest when he justifies the practice of testing with utilitarian rationales. When one, without problematizing, repeats the rhetoric of the modern educational system we are at risk of losing sight of some very important things. We risk losing understanding 1) the examination as a teaching tool and not as a learning tool; 2) the role of standardization in Aikido; and 3) where we as a federation have strayed from meeting the said objectives used to justify the practice of testing.

Before one can begin a discussion delineating the subtle differences between a learning tool and a teaching tool, one first needs to philosophically doubt the given rhetoric with which we are daily bombarded. Secondly, one must return the voices to the readers Mr. Farrell is targeting in his article (those people for which testing is thought to serve no purpose). If one examines the "assumption" carefully, one can come to see that a "powerful learning tool" has nothing to do with the utilitarian justifications for having an examination. Somewhere along the long history of the examination, the idea of testing being a powerful learning tool has managed to attach itself to the utilitarian rationale. Today it goes without question that there is a relationship between testing, learning, and the benefit of the larger group. This relationship, however, works to hide from us some of the means we may use to achieve and meet the very ideals and goals we claim to adhere to whenever we apply utilitarian logic. Therefore, I would like for the reader to suspend in philosophical doubt the "given" relationship between testing, learning, and the benefit of the group. I agree that testing should be a necessary part of Aikido training. I believe that its highest justification is the benefit of the group. Yet I also believe that our examination process, generally speaking, is much in need of improvement. There is a gap between what we actually achieve and what we claim to be achieving. Becoming suspicious of modern education's rhetoric is the first step toward improvement.

The quickest and easiest way for the reader to suspend the above mentioned relationship in doubt is to realize that the practice of learning has a much longer history than the history of the examination. It should also be noted that our own technology of the self, martial arts, has only, comparatively speaking, recently been exposed to the practice of testing. And we must not forget that today there are of course pockets of culture all over the world that transfer knowledge quite successfully without involving themselves in the practice of testing. The examination is not in its nature a learning tool. Rather, it is a tool of surveillance, assessment, and passing judgement - things that became difficult to do once the older system of mentorship and apprenticeship became economically unsound and practically impossible.

If we can temporarily question the idea that "testing is for your own good," we can hear the wisdom contained in the voices that lie in the background of Mr. Farrell's article. When we question this idea those voices no longer belong to the "ignorant" or the "immature". Those voices no longer belong to individuals that do not know what is best for them and require us more "experienced" individuals to set them straight. It is in their voices that we may come to see the perpetual weaknesses of utilitarian reasoning - namely the distance between theory and reality. Their voices contain a critique of our present examination system in Aikido. By listening to them carefully we may possibly begin to meet our said goals for the practice of examination.

There are of course many reasons given by people for why they do not feel a need to test. Some reasons we may consider to be honorable. Some we may feel are not so honorable. Out of the spectrum of reasons only certain rationales address the utilitarian problematic directly. I would like to deal with only one such reason - one that offers the most powerful critique against our current way of testing aikidoka, namely, The test is meaningless (to me). Of course there are variations on this theme: I don't care about rank. I don't train to test. I just like to practice. Etc. You can see in these statements that, for these people, there exists a gap between training/practice (learning) on the one hand and examination/rank (assessment/judgement) on the other. Why is this gap there? Who created this gap? We did. And unfortunately it does not go away simply by telling individuals that testing is a part of learning Aikido.

We create this gap via an inconsistency we let go unnoticed in our present way of training and testing individuals. We tell the aikidoka to train - to train daily if possible - to train, train, train. Train for yourself. Make your heart, mind, spirit and soul the real dojo. We tell them to take responsibility for your learning. We tell them ultimately there is only self-teaching. We tell them don't be obsessed with progress - just practice. We tell them to wear your rank on the inside and not around your waist. We tell them you define the rank and not the vice versa. We teach them to distinguish between the superficial and the essential. We teach them to empower themselves by facing who they are and what the want to become. In the end we teach them that learning is a matter of self-honesty and self-reliance. We teach them that learning is a matter of the Self. And then one day we tell them - Please pay "X" amount - you have to test. (The more polite version - I'd like for you to test - does not wipe away the contradiction that is felt inside the above mentioned aikidoka.) We tell them you don't really know your waza until you test because you can't build upon your knowledge until the testing board has said you can. We tell them you are not really physically and mentally challenging yourself in daily practice and since we have no tournaments to challenge you, you should test. And finally, we tell them neither you nor your instructor can measure your progress without you testing. From a position of placing the examination as a learning tool in a state of philosophical doubt, the absurdity of the latter statements can clearly be seen. We can also see the wisdom in the former statements (all remnants of our mentor/apprentice past). And we can see that ultimately our justifications for the practice of testing in the transmission of Aikido may in fact lie elsewhere - elsewhere from testing as learning tool.

It is my belief that we should fully accept that the examination is in fact a teaching tool and not a learning tool. What is the difference? A teaching tool is one that establishes standards for the transmission of knowledge. A learning tool is one that assists with the acquisition of knowledge. Though knowledge may ultimately be acquired via a teaching tool this is only a secondary consequence. In a learning tool the acquiring of knowledge is a primary objective. The primary use for the examination is to delineate the boundaries for the passage of accurate knowledge. In terms of Aikido this means delineating the senpai/kohai hierarchy. The examination also works to establish the locale - the source - of accurate knowledge. For Aikido this means instituting fukushidoin, shidoin, and shihan. In one sentence, testing is a matter of standardization for the sake of maintaining integrity within a given transmission of knowledge.

I believe that Mr. Farrell's article allows for this definition when it employs a utilitarian logic free of the idea of testing as a learning tool. Mr. Farrell's article is strongest at these points - points when is says things like, (A well executed test) is a positive reflection on yourself, your instructors, the USAF Shihans, and the USAF at large. (Of course this is also true of testing in other Aikido federations.) It is important that we tell the prospective testee that they are testing not for their own sake. It is important that we tell them that they are testing for the sake of the federation and for the sake of the future of Aikido. These are not small purposes and should not be treated as if they were. In this light the importance of testing cannot be underestimated. Testing should be understood to be something beyond the realm of personal learning. Testing is a matter of social responsibility - an idea that is easily, and tragically, lost in today's quests for personal growth.

We must never lose sight of the social role that testing plays in Aikido. We must see it even through the common practice of applauding and congratulating the testee only. We must imagine an examination where the testee is understood to be the testing panel, the uke, the nage, and even the spectator. We must imagine an examination where we all fail or we all pass. We must imagine a testing situation where we all share in the responsibility of meeting the set standards and of maintaining the integrity of our art. And we must not restrict this vision to our own little corner of the world. We must include in it dojo and aikidoka that we will never visit and never meet. Therefore, it is only right that we seriously question some of the practices that have slipped by us within the well-intentioned but misguided view of understanding the exam as a learning tool. We must question the common assumption that everyone can and will attain the rank of shodan and/or higher. We must question the common practice of testing and grading according to the "given skill" or "given physical condition" of the testee. We must question the common pedagogical strategy of using the awarding of rank to inspire individuals to train more. In light of the high failure rate in other examination systems where standardization is also thought to be very important, we must in the end be suspicious of Aikido's high passing rate. For the sake of the future of Aikido, we must all be willing to remain (for example) third kyu forever if the standards set in place have established us as such. This is something we can learn how to do from the targeted readers of Mr. Farrell's article.

I have been practicing Aikido for only a few months, so naturally I cannot give any sage advice gleaned from my years of experience on the subject of testing. I actually have yet to test for 5th Kyu. However, as I have noticed that most of the comments so far have been posted by those of advanced rank, I thought it might be of interest to volunteer the opinion of one who is just beginning the testing cycle.

At my dojo there are a number of rich and varied techniques practiced in class. Students, both beginning and advanced alike, are exposed to a myriad of variations and permutations of basic waza. This daily experience in class allows students to savor the richness and diversity that is possible within the style, and as such I believe it to be a very good thing. I view this type of practice as absorbing the style in whole, a little bit at a time, a sort of "working toward the middle from all sides of the circle at once" approach.

On the other hand, using this approach exclusively can lead to students overlooking the basic techniques that are fundamental to the effectiveness of the style. To me this is where the validity of testing lies.

I believe that one tests to display that one has a basic understanding of the things being tested. Being given a few techniques to pay close and particular attention to has proven to me to be an invaluable learning tool. Also, everyone has witnessed the increases in both attendance and general intensity of practice when testing time rolls around. This observation in itself should be worthy of consideration.

I have faith enough in the existing heirarchy to believe that there is a reason that certain things are tested in a certain order, and that that order will build upon itself to create strong Aikido. Without the testing, would students diligently practice the individual techniques which those who are passing the Art on to us have deemed essential? I believe the answer to be no.

Hello,

My name is Barbara and it's the first time I write down my thoughts for your discussion group. I am German and out of practice with my English - I hope you are indulgent!

I have been training in Aikido since February this year and my first test - 5th kyu - will be held in a few weeks. I am very nervous about it, and I wish I wasn't.

There IS a difference between practicing and testing because during testing I am the center of attention: all the other Aikidoists are looking at me and watching what I do and how I do the techniques. I know this because I trained in Karate years ago and I hated these tests. But they were necessary to advance to the next level - so I did them.

In Aikido I feel differently because nobody knows my rank - I'm not wearing it around my hips! I can practice Aikido with a more relaxed feeling. In our dojo we only have two groups - beginners and advanced. I can join the training I have time for, and my partners explain techniques to me as needed.

Why do I need to show my knowledge and progress by taking a test?

Greetings from Germany,

These are a few ideas that come to mind after reading David Farrell's stimulating article and everyone else's contributions.

Testing has always been to me the occasion to set standards for the basic techniques. So much of our practice consists of variations that we need to focus on the basics from time to time. It is an occasion for the student to demonstrate that they know the basics, for the audience to be reminded of them and for the student to get the confirmation that they do know something.

After all of our testing sessions at seminars, Kawahara Sensei takes the time to correct the errors he saw. For me it is one of the most important parts of the seminar. It is not just for the students, but for the instructors and sempai too. It's our job to bring this back to the dojo to maintain the standards and to help our kohai, particularly when they prepare for tests.

The tests themselves are a challenge and the hours are certainly only a minimum. Sometimes Sensei asks for more - to demonstrate a technique from a lower level test, to demonstrate a technique from a higher level test and often to show a variation. The minimum hours aren't enough for most students to have that range or scope.

Anyone preparing for a test should read Chiba Sensei's article on Choosing Partners. One cannot always choose one's partner for a test and the only preparation is to train regularly with a wide variety of people, including one's seniors as often as possible. Of course practising with one's seniors is meant to be primarily a learning opportunity. However, the ability to respond to one's seniors has to be acquired before a test, there is too much more to demonstrate during the test.

The following article was written, in part, to communicate my perspective on testing to my students and as an exercise for a larger project that I am working on. The larger project is a collaboration with Michael Bell, an Oregon based Swordsmith. We are working on a video that will compare the process of swordmaking with the development of a student through Aikido training. My most recent Sansho article (Summer 1998 issue) "Aikido: A Way to Forge the Body" was written in reference to this same project.

Having become a regular visitor to Aikido Online I thought I would submit this to the discussion on testing. (I have enjoyed reading David Farrell's article and the various responses submitted. I applaud your efforts!)
D.Bluhm

Testing Your Metal (Mettle)
Darrell Bluhm, Chief Instructor, Siskiyou Aikikai, Ashland,Oregon

The most critical phase in making a sword is when the sword is heat treated or quenched. This is the stage in which the curvature of the blade and hardening of the cutting edge are established, and resiliency of the blade reinforced. The process involves coating the blade with clay in a prescribed fashion (thickest toward the back, thinnest along the cutting edge), then heating the blade to a critical temperature and plunging it into water. The differential rate of cooling of the metal that happens due to the varying thickness of clay creates the curvature of the blade and hardens the edge while maintaining a softness and toughness in the remaining part of the blade. This event is the make it or break it point in the sword making process.

At the moment the blade is quenched all of the hours of smelting and forging and shaping that have gone into the metal can be lost, because the blade can break if the smith errs in judging the temperature (too hot) or has inadequately forged the metal. The blade may survive the quench but the curvature desired may not result due to error in temperature (not hot enough) or in applying the clay. The critical nature of this event cannot be underestimated. Swordsmith Michael Bell asserts that the moment of quenching is when the sword takes on its character or soul. It is a moment of truth in the life of the sword that brings together all the elemental forces: Metal, Water, Wood, Fire, and Earth.

The testing process in Aikido bears parallels with the quenching of a sword. As described above, the moment of quenching tests the swordsmith's skill and the strength of the metal's forging . While there are opportunities to confirm the quality of a student's training in the context of daily practice, there is particular opportunity in kyu and dan examination to assess the student's forging process as well as the teacher's skill in transmitting the technical elements of Aikido. The quenching of a sword occurs once in the life of the sword while an Aikido student will mark their progress with many tests and each one can have a formative impact on the student's development. The failure of a sword to survive the quenching process is a much more definitive failure than failing a kyu or dan exam. If the blade cracks the metal must be scrapped and the process begun anew. Failure of an exam, however, does not necessitate seppuku . Both events invite scrutiny to determine the cause of the failure. The sword of course has no means for self-examination, so the reflection is the responsibility of the smith. However, both student and teacher must account for their responsibility in the success or failure of an examination.

The ability to evaluate a kyu or dan test is not based on as concrete a set of criteria as with the sword, it is by nature subjective and complex. The swordsmith must develop the skill to prepare the blade (forge, shape, apply clay, heat to the specific temperature) to enter the water and emerge transformed ( from undifferentiated, straight piece of forged steel to a curved, edge hardened, tough bodied blade ready to be polished). The teacher of Aikido must develop the skill to prepare students to meet the challenge of a testing situation and emerge enriched from the experience, sometimes through passing, sometimes by not passing.

As quenching the sword is a make it our break it moment in the making of the sword, the experience of participating in and passing or failing a kyu or dan test can be critical to a student's (and teacher's) development. The responsibility to recognize the readiness of a student for testing is a shared responsibility of teacher and student, yet there are times the teacher must encourage or discourage testing to serve the needs of a student's training process. Over the years that I have conducted tests in my own dojo and participated as a member of the teaching committee for the USAF Western Region, I have come to appreciate the opportunity for growth that testing can provide as well as gained respect for hazards inherent in testing. The decision to take a test, which is based in part on the number of training hours accrued, is not a simple consideration. Acknowledging a break-through in a student's practice can sometimes be best accomplished by creating the opportunity for them to test. At times, when I have not created that opportunity, a student has remained frozen in their progress or given up their practice altogether. At other times, students have tested prematurely and the ensuing frustration or discouragement has led to a rift in their training. This is similar in nature to recognizing when the metal is at the right temperature to plunge into the water. If the metal is too hot the blade breaks, if it is not hot enough, nothing happens.

Preparation for examinations is the shared responsibility of the teacher, students and senior members in the dojo. One of the most valuable benefits of conducting tests in one's dojo is that it fosters conditions for free practice and a deeper exchange amongst senior and junior students. It is important to make clear that advancement in rank in Aikido brings increased responsibility for the care of others in the dojo. One important way that care is expressed is through helping one's juniors and peers train in preparation for testing.

If I observe a student mistaking advancement in rank as a means for increased privilege rather than responsibility, I may use the testing situation to adjust their attitude. Technical proficiency is not the primary determinant in success or failure in the testing process (although it is an important factor). The test can expose strengths and weakness in levels of conditioning, attention to space, sensitivity to others and important qualities of character. The evaluation of any test must be predicated on seeing the individual student in light of their strengths and challenges and not by means of comparison with others or a rigid ideal. Factors of age, personal history, contribution to the care of the community and dojo and commitment to training are important considerations in evaluating an individual's test and promotion in rank. Of course, individuals that are testing for rank that are also actively teaching or seeking to become teachers must be evaluated by stricter standards.

The function of testing in Aikido must be understood relative to two domains, that of the individual within the art and that of the art within which the individual practices. Testing should serve the individual and serve the art. One expression of a spiritual perspective is gratitude for the past, service to the present and responsibility to the future. The student's struggle to perfect the forms that have been passed on to them honors the efforts of O-Sensei and countless individuals whose lives have contributed to the development of Aikido. In the present, testing serves participants as an opportunity for learning under more intense conditions than in daily practice. In that testing is both reflective and rigorous, it addresses our responsibility to the future of Aikido, providing a means to maintain high standards for the transmission of the art.

The transmission of any art is dependent on a vital teacher-student connection and the testing process must affirm that link. The teacher-student relationship exists within a community of dojo, organization of affiliation and ultimately the whole Aikido community. The ranking process must reflect the reciprocal accountability that exists between members of a community. Testing is always a very personal experience and by necessity public, and both aspects should be acknowledged. Aikido testing brings together all the elements of human relationship; relationship to past, present and future, as well as relationship to self, teacher and community.

A friend attracted my attention to AikidoOnline recently, and this is the first time I have checked out the site. I would like to thank the editors for doing this work for us, Aikido practitioners. From the responses I have read about the testing issue, it is clear to me that such an initiative deserves our respect and attention. I will pass the address on to other friends as well.

As the editors want us to, I am all in favor of making myself responsible for whatever opinion I send. But if this letter ends up being posted, I might be the first person from the Midwest Aikido Federation to be heard in this forum, so I must say that what I am now writing represents only my opinion, not that of the MAF or that of Tohei Shihan.

Is it a matter of good editing? All the letters I have read so far, including the original piece by David Farrell, are really interesting and worthy of respectful consideration. However, a couple of points remain that I would like to mention now.

First, I would like to respond to Mr. Valadez from Osaka, who wrote a penetrating piece on "the difference about practicing and testing" in this forum. If I understand it correctly, one of this gentleman's main arguments is that testing has no learning value, but only teaching value. The difference is, in his terms: "A teaching tool is one that establishes standards for the transmission of knowledge. A learning tool is one that assists with the acquisition of knowledge."

Am I the only one to have seen a student achieve considerable progress from the moment s/he has decided to test? Am I the only one whom testing/preparing for a test has personally helped in figuring out some links between techniques that I had not thought about before? I do not agree with you, Sir, because my own experience of testing has always been connected to growth. I do not "push" testing on my students (some of them might even say they wish I pushed a little bit...), but certainly, one of the main attractions for me to do so is the fact that I KNOW that with testing will come a certain level of growth. To me, testing can definitely be counted as a learning tool, even if it happens to be, undeniably, a teaching tool as well.

For sure, not everybody grows the same way, or at the same pace. Some believe that testing does not mean anything because any given rank reflects widely different levels of expertise. You cannot compare testing in Aikido to the sport of high jumping: in the latter, if you leave the bar untouched, you pass but if it falls, you fail; in the former, as Akira Tohei Sensei likes to tell us in the Midwest: the line is not really a line, it is a band. Some people place high within that band of proficiency, some low, but all those who pass do pass. Don't we all understand that we cannot expect the same kind of workout from a 25-year old and a 50-year old? By the same token, are there not other factors, both internal (natural flexibility, learning style...) and external (teacher, environment, availability...) that determine the type of "output" one produces at "the end" i.e. at the test? Let us remember that the three principles of Aikido are "agatsu," "masakatsu," and "katsuhayahi." "Agatsu," is probably the most pertinent of the three in this case: victory over oneself. Who cares if student A who took his/her 5th kyu test outperformed student B who was taking the 4th kyu test, as long as both show that they are growing, each according to his or her timing? I believe that Aikido is a genuine "-do" of Japan, that is, a way of self-improvement, not a way of impressing the heck out of the other members of the dojo.

Of course, there remain issues of ranks being awarded too liberally, which threatens to weaken the standards of the art. In the M.A.F. (also the U.S.A.F. / Midwest region), we are fortunate to be small enough that Tohei Sensei can oversee all the testing. He or she who does not like Tohei Sensei's judgment, can always take it up to him... To those of you who do not have the luxury of being tested by a shihan all the way through the ranks, I would suggest that you should leave the weight and responsibility of that decision to whomever has been entrusted with making it. I am glad this decision is not mine to make because I would certainly agonize over issues of 'level' and 'fairness'. Besides, in the end, are we not able to recognize quality Aikido wherever we see it? I have been a yudansha since 1986, but never have I felt that this black belt around my (growing) waist gave me anything over anyone else, except, maybe, more responsibilities toward the art and my instructor. Those who think that wearing one of these is the end of all things will have to reconsider their way of thinking eventually (whether or not they are already wearing a black belt.)

In that sense, I was glad to be reminded, reading other people's reactions, of the birth of the belt system in Japan: Kano Sensei and his Judo Junior-High students... Isn't it time for us (at least, the ones practicing the martial arts) to let go of the "black belt" mystique that invariably surrounds the acquisition of yudansha status? (The corollary to which, of course, is our current "kyu" ranking). Another gentleman (Mr. Hughes of Aikido of Charlotte) was bemoaning the lack of "color" in our belt system, because of an unfortunate misunderstanding that happened at a seminar. My opinion on this issue is the following: we already hang on too hard on external reminders of our own "glory." Quite appropriately, I have seen color belts at the Midwest Aikido Center in Chicago... they were worn by Aikidoists in the kids class. In my eyes, the real issue that your friend should be confronted with is that of the necessity of "feeling out" the proficiency level of your partner ! (especially if s/he is a complete stranger to you, as often happens in seminars) before you throw him/her so hard as to risk injury...

In his posting, Nick Hughes wrote: "Dave Farrell's article is very good though there are some things I'd like to add. First, testing is absolutely vital, not only as a yardstick, but more importantly, to see whether or not a student can perform the techniques he's learnt under pressure. If we are to retain the "martial" aspect of martial arts then we must be able to perform our techniques under stress for we will be under stress in any "outside the dojo" conflict." (Post 7)

In my view, in order to train the "martial" aspect of Aikido it is not enough just to see how a student can perform the techniques he's learnt under pressure. That aspect must be emphasized in daily training in many ways. One of them is for example Chiba Sensei's method, where his students are always under pressure when they attack him . A bit of stress during the test is nothing in comparison with a confrontation in real life. So for that reason tests aren't so vital. 

This is my experience about dan grading:

You need to know there are four dojos in Tahiti, related to the French Federation, headed by Tamura Sensei, which sends us one of his high ranked students every year for a seminar. My teacher settled in Tahiti after a one year stay in Iwama and of course, is strongly related to Saito Sensei.

Anyway, after three years of practice on a daily basis, he thought I was ready to try the shodan test in front of Tamura Sensei's representative, along with my partner who had started practice one year before me. I was a bit worried for we had never had a test before, his point being "a test has nothing to do with Aikido".

So, my friend passed, and I failed. I was hurt by this failure beyond what I could say. One could say my ego needed that experience. I'm not sure. I lost all confidence in myself (it was one of the things I was expecting from this practice). I put the blame on my teacher for the lack of preparation, and he put the blame on me because I had told the examiner I was not sure I was ready. I don't mean it was an injustice: I still think I didn't deserve my shodan at that time (neither my friend, maybe. But if I say it was given to him not to hurt -too much- my teacher's feelings, this could be taken for bitterness...)

It took me some time to recover and evacuate bad feelings. So, when Hitohiro Saito Sensei came to Tahiti last July, I was still not ready -psychologically and physically- to make another try in front of him. My partner took the chance. I won't comment the performance no preparation). Saito Sensei just said he should wait one month before he could make the request for his grade (and then pay for it - around two hundred dollars for shodan).

At this time, I'm not willing to try again. I must say I'm 44 and I don't need another failure. I've been practicing for five years now, and I can feel my improvement - as well as my clumsiness.

I have been a student at New England Aikikai for a year and a half. I took my first test last July and I found the whole experience to be very educational as well as enjoyable.

I wasn't going to test at first because testing didn't seem that important to me. However, one day after class a fellow student approached me and asked if I would be his uke when he took his test. I said,"o.k." I thought for a minute and figured, If I'm going to be here that night and I'm going to be practicing with this guy a lot within the next few weeks, then I may as well test too.

We both got to work right away. We both felt confident that we knew the techniques. As we practiced together, we received a tremendous amount of help from the more advanced students. They were showing us a lot of tiny details in order to perform the technique better as well as other little things that Kanai Sensei will be looking for. By the night of the test we knew the techniques ten times better than we did before. THANK GOD WE PASSED!!! When we did, I really felt a sense of personal accomplishment, not because of the piece of paper, but because of all the things that I learned. I look forward to training for my next test.

As far as having colored belts in Aikido is concerned, I believe they don't belong in any martial art. They stimulate an ego. Having a big ego is a very undesirable human trait that we all need to try to eliminate, and one way or another it will get the best of you whether in the dojo or out. Passing into the next rank is a very personal thing and should be kept in one's own heart and mind and not flaunted. (This of course is in response to the other letters that were written). And concerning the suggestion that everyone wear colored belts so we automatically know one another's capabilities: that is weak! I couldn't agree more with the woman from the M.A.F. when she said that you should feel out your partners capabilities while you are practicing with them. Even if your uke is at the rank of 5th dan, don't automatically slam them on the mat. Perhaps they are just getting over an injury or an illness and need to take it easy. They need to ease back into practice.

Although there is more support for the many to test and place themselves in the ranking of the many who practice Aikido, I am not one of them. Maybe it's because I am in my mid-forties and most of the time I am happy to do the practice when my ailing body allows.

My thoughts go to the old thoughts of proficiency in the art by those who teach, and grading by periods of observation. That is to say, that one should observe a period of observation before an award of grade based on mind body and spirit, not just one day or one hour.

As the grading level rises, there will of course be input by two, three, or more dan. Could be this is the long way around the mountain, still.... I never started the study of martial arts with the idea of rank or grade.

It tends to lose something in the translation when someone wants to do something because of a desire and one wants to do something because of recognition. (If my teacher did not ask me to test, I would be just as happy to practice).

I really do understand that the system of checks and balances in the grading system is for building a strong and long lasting knowledge, but sometimes the older students who have trained in other martial arts and those of us who are older with infirmities are really on the mat to find the joy of practice.

Submit, there should be a choice of grading that amends the physical performance. Those of us who walk the other path of the mountain should be able to choose a path of promotion based on overall quality and have the choice to enjoy the practice.

Nick raised a couple of issues and I would like to offer my perspective. (Post 7)

Aikido is not a sport as are 90% of the rest of the martial arts. We do not have competitions, tournaments. We do Aikido not to become a shodan one day (although most novice practitioners do not see past shodan at first), but because we enjoy it, because it brings something positive to our life, and because one day it might prove useful beyond that. I do not care at what level my partners are: whether 6th kyu or sandan, they allow me to have a different experience and I enjoy both. I do not need to see a colored belt to know whether my partner can be thrown to the mat or whether I need to be more gentle; I just don't assume, I observe and ask if not sure.

As far as testing is concerned, as Aikido is not a sport but an art, I have a strong opinion about testing. True enough, a student who feels insecure about his level but passes the test will gain confidence and often improvements in the person's techniques will be observed just because of the extra confidence. Most people do not practice Aikido to compete with each other, or to be the best; they do it because it adds positive elements to their life. Some people do not need the incentive of competition to want to improve, the enjoyment alone brings the improvement.

The street test, if ever, is the only real one. The stress provided under a test is very different from the one from a street attack. I personally moved instinctively once attacked in the underground, but could not move during a rank test where I hated to be observed and evaluated. In the underground no one was observing or judging - I just moved.

I do not need to be better than my instructor, this not my goal. I do Aikido because I like it, not to compete. If I had wished to compete I would have chosen Karate or Judo not Aikido. I do not do it as a sport but as an art. Do you need to take test to become an Artist ?

In the years that I have been practicing Aikido, I have come to realize that testing is not really about the individual at all. Testing is really about the future of Aikido.

There will come a time when the Shihan and Shidoin that we look to for guidance and help will retire from the teaching duties that they have taken on. The next generation, the Fukushidoin and Sempai of today will pick up the mantle, and so the art will continue. At some point, the 6th Kyu who is testing today, with help and courage and more than a little luck, will be the Yudansha and eventually the Shihan of tomorrow. All of our Sempai and Instructors started this way, and that should not change.

It’s very interesting to read different views by different people on testing. In my opinion testing is necessary

1. to know where you stand at skill level;
   
2. because it helps you tap your hidden potentials, as people would try hard to get it right when its in front of a large gathering;
   
3. to get rid of the fear of facing people. Besides in Aikido nobody is insulted, as the basic philosophy is give and take and everyone can learn from mistakes. In short, it gives one a better outlook, ‘practice makes perfect’, and it will make people realize that brilliance is not out of luck but by sheer hard work;
   
4. because it helps you realize that the actual meaning or significance of a kyu grade or a test is that the master has found the person concerned has matured enough to receive instructions on advanced techniques and to be promoted, and the test is just one of the guidelines. Yes there may be people who are doing it for other purposes, but with each test the student has to be a bit more responsible.

Regarding techniques looking like a theater play or act - as someone mentions - it is sad to know that the person has still not understood the basics of the art. No martial arts system is a fool-proof method guaranteeing one to be a super fighter: it just gives one a better chance or option than an untrained person. Besides, Aikido is a way of life dealing with character building and it takes a lifetime for any art to be mastered, as 'Rome was not built in a day’, and ‘patience is the only way’ and ‘a little knowledge is a dangerous thing’.

In our life we see people who have hardly any knowledge about an art giving opinions. I am not saying Aikido is without flaws, but one must appreciate the good rather than condemn it.

With the exception of Tom Berry's post, most of the posts here seem to be from people from established, modest-sized dojos. I am currently faced with a much different experience. I had studied Aikido when I lived in Des Moines pretty steadily (2-3 nights per week) for nearly 3 years, plus I've been involved in other martial arts (primarily judo and tai chi, plus some ninjutsu recently). Testing was not important to me then, but I'd like to think my skill level is higher than my rank suggests.

Several years ago I moved to South Dakota, and where I'm living is 4 hours away from the nearest Aikido dojo. Up until recently I had been pretty busy with other things (grad school and coaching cross-country) but have recently been trying to get more active in Aikido again.

I'd like to train on a regular basis, but since I'm the only person in the area who has practiced Aikido, I'm forced to teach. I've met several people interested in training. I've been straight-forward about my rank, but I would feel more comfortable taking on students if I had a better (objective) measure of my level. I regret not testing more frequently when I had the opportunity.

David Farrell responds:

Peter,

You raise a number of good issues. First, you point out that while testing early on was not a priority for you and now that your location has changed, you wish that you had tested when you had the chance. I think this is a very valid point, and raises a more general comment. Students who want no part of tests and their requisite preparation must be aware that their circumstances can change. They may not always be at the same dojo, and they may not always have the same opportunity. Injuries also have a habit of showing up at the worst possible moment. The focus of the original article was not to avoid tests, but to not rush into them and to prepare diligently. (I understand that the more general comment may not apply to your specific case.)

Second, you point out the difficulty of practicing Aikido without the benefit of a well established dojo and teacher. You are to be commended for your efforts. That is a difficult situation, but I encourage you to persevere. A number of current USAF dojos started just this way. They are thriving today. So it can be done. Perhaps you could make it to one of the regional USAF summer camps or seminars and then take what you learned back to your fellow students. The seminar schedule is posted on this website. Perhaps in the future you could organize a seminar yourself. I'm sure there are other suggestions that members of this discussion group could make.

Best of luck. Keep in touch with us.

First of all, and for numerous reasons, I believe all students should test for Aikido rank even if it is to build character, which is one of the main reasons I practice. What better way to show that you are proud of the art you are studying ?

But when a student is blatantly unprepared for a test, it reflects poorly on his or her teacher and the school. On the teacher, because to have the privilege to step on a mat to test means you have completed all requirements and have a firm grasp of all the techniques. If this is not the case, the teacher has not been watching his or her student carefully, presenting an apathetic approach to his teaching. My instructor always says that testing begins way before your scheduled test day. Many things are taken into consideration. Has the student approached senior students to help "polish" their technique ? (the last few weeks before testing should not be the time to learn the techniques.) Does the student behave in an appropriate manner when on (and off) the mat ? Does the student take an active interest in their dojo (attending seminars, helping to keep the dojo clean, etc.) ?

It reflects poorly on the school because you would not be able to test at all without the hours of practice with fellow classmates. Every student in a school is part of a student’s progression in Aikido. Rank is insignificant - many times there is a lot to learn from a brand new student, and of course, the more experienced students should help by pointing out where practice could improve. A poor showing on a test often means students aren't working together to help better each others’ practice.

I think that testing has its merits, but I don't believe that it's the bottom line on how capable or proficient a person is. Here's an example: you can have 50 black belts in a number of martial arts, but it doesn't mean beans unless it's proven effective in a real situation. I've seen guys with high ranks in other arts, but they got creamed in a real fight on the street, because for one thing, most martial arts teach you so much stuff that if you had to use it, you would have to take a mental inventory in a split second, before a fist cracks you in the jaw. Most people who pick fights "can" fight.

A brief history will help my opinion make sense.

I only started Aikido to be a familiar face for a friend who joined a local dojo. I was in terrible shape, and had never taken a martial art in my life. I showed up for the first class, and was asked to simply watch and remain silent - to see if this was something that interested me. After the class had ended, the fellow who was running the class (now my sensei) came over and discussed the class with me. I had preconceived notions of the martial arts, and this class I had just watched was outside of my expectations. I joined promising myself that I would reserve judgment until I had attended class for 6 weeks.

In my third or fourth week, outside of class, my sensei discussed with some of us his personal Aikido philosophy. One thing he mentioned was that "ego" was a great obstacle in Aikido. In the next few days I had an opportunity to realize this philosophy. I was huffing and puffing around the dojo, doing 5 laps of shikko. It seemed intolerably exhausting, and I would have quit then and there if not for my memory of that earlier discussion. Directing our own whimsical conduct is one of the cornerstones of western culture. I realized that it was only my ego, habitually relying on itself, that was suffering. I had always assumed that I knew what was best for me, and it was difficult to accept that maybe, someone else knew what was best for me. In this case, it was my sensei who knew better than I the physical limits I could endure.

Now about testing.

To me there were only two belts, white and black. I felt that kyu ranking was self-gratifying and boastful. I romantically placed myself in a lofty place far above all those who would seek such treasures. The friend I had joined with however was full of "belt-fever." He wanted a belt to legitimize his exertions for the past year. He wanted me as his Uke, and I accepted. Since we were of the same skill level I felt pressured to test also. When the day came I was surprisingly calm. My sensei would never let me test unless I was ready, so I had perfect faith in his faith in me. My friend and I both did very well on our tests. And then we watched the other tests.

This is in response to Nick Hughes' question in regards to colored belts (Post 7).

The Test Waza

Testing is part of Aikido just like certain waza, such as koshi nage, are part of Aikido. Students must practice koshi nage because it is part of the wide range of Aikido techniques that must be learned. Students should consider testing as just another one of those techniques, a waza in and of itself.

Its my opinion that true rank can only be earned through your own personal efforts of study and hard training. The true test is in the amount of dedication and effort a person puts into their training.

True rank can not be awarded, it can only be earned, and its value can only be appraised based upon the amount of effort one has put into training. A person earns true rank automatically as they train and encounter new experiences. The belt rank that many people associate with the martial arts is not true rank, only socially recognized rank.

Every class should be a test. In my opinion tests should not be prepared "specially" for a specific grade and in a short period of time, just to get the details of some weak points that we have in specific techniques. Grades should be given by the teacher during a normal class, and when it is least expected by the one that is going to receive it. In this way, people would give the best of themselves in every class, and not only during the short period of time before they do a test.

In order for this to be useful and achievable there would have to be consideration for the usual points such as effort, attitude and respect to oneself and others, continuity of practice, and technical abilities. The main problem would be the risk of losing a formal technical curriculum, but that is the responsibility of the teacher. He should not give a specific grade if he is not sure that the student has all the technical repertoire expected for his/her time of practice.

In response to Mike Lee on his piece "The Test Waza" (Post 34), I have to disagree with some of his thoughts.

While I feel he is correct to say one should embrace the whole art of Aikido, I dont think that necessarily includes testing. While I feel students should test for their personal growth and benefit, it is not an essential piece of their training. I believe that if they are going to test, it is an honor and they should not take it lightly - after all they are a reflection of their dojo. But to say that not testing is "self centered" and hazardous to Aikido is a bit extreme.

A rank test is something that should not be taken lightly. You must be prepared; not only do you represent yourself, but you also represent your teacher. Also do not forget about your fellow students that help to forge you on a daily basis. With all of that in mind though, everybody has their own level of proficiency and should not always compare themselves to others. It matters if YOU are ready.

Think back of the tests that you did. What did they mean to you? Were they bad for your development or did they help you?

I remember that for my first three kyu tests, my teacher set the date and I never had the feeling that I was ready for them. From that experience I can understand those who dislike tests and respect if they don’t want to do any.

Then I came to the Dojo where I still train. My first test there was in a way to show who I was and to make an impression (It´s a large dojo and I don´t know if it worked). Today, I don´t think that was an appropriate use of an Aikido exam.

For the next one I gave myself a lot of time, three years or so even though I was training 5 or 6 days a week, because I wanted to get rid of some basic mistakes and develop a good state of mind. The exam was anything but spectacular, but for me it contained what I had been working on. That’s a good approach when taking an exam: focus on one point in your continuing stream of training and use it as an indicator. Then ask yourself : did I reach the goal I wanted to reach ?

My dan came quite quickly after that one and it was a pleasure; it was more like playing with my uke than anything like fighting. I just wish everybody that kind of an experience in a test, when you go beyond the oh-it´s-a-test-and-everybody-is-watching-me situation.

My point is that especially in Aikido, a test is what you make it, because it doesn´t have many other effects; for example, you´re not banned from the mat if you fail.

In response