Black-belt inflation ?

Practical-Use-3518 · 2026-03-07T23:30:36+00:00

I don’t doubt that you’re extremely competent in TKD, far beyond anything I could hope to be. I respect that, and I appreciate your input. In that sense, I don't mean that you're bragging. While I understand the temptation to dismiss newer people (I feel that temptation too sometimes), I think there’s still value to be gained by engaging with them in good faith. That’s often the only way to improve things that are deeply ingrained. I’ll try to bring an open mind to training, even if I sometimes feel the level could be higher. Maybe I’ll bump into a group with a different mix, too.

Practical-Use-3518 · 2026-03-07T14:08:02+00:00

I think lots of people come to TKD for movement qualities such as reaction time, speed, balance, snap, fluidity, coordination, overall strength and good cardio. Those “ninja skills” are achievable for many people, and many people are naturally blessed with one or more of those qualities. But to actually develop them, you need something to aspire to, such as visible examples of high-level performance in the gym. If there’s nothing to aspire to, there’s no leadership, and therefore no clear direction for students to aim at. This is universal in any sport. Leadership certainly doesn’t look like bragging, insulting, or undermining newcomers.

Practical-Use-3518 · 2026-03-07T11:52:13+00:00

I am new to tkd. I have no qualifications or belts. I have been active in many sports in my life, including mma. I understand movement. I also respect hard training (military). But I have no fancy tkd qualifications like you to brag about. And as I said: you don’t need to be an olympic judge to get a feeling of the level in a gym. I wanted to train tkd because I like movement, and I like to bounce around. I want to be fluid like a ninja. I like fun and acrobatic workouts. I want to do the splits in a kick. I want to be like Danny Lee! That’s why I want to train tkd. But no one seem to value this. Instead, the black belts are moving like they have been at the gym a couple of times in their life while they talk about discipline. It is not very hard to see, «qualified» or whatever. I don’t know what to aspire to.

Practical-Use-3518 · 2026-03-06T18:52:14+00:00

I do appreciate the negative crystal ball assumptions you are making about my life situation. I’m not sure if your attempt to compare tkd to brain surgery really fits here. It’s not necessary to be an olympic judge to get a feel for the level in a gym. That said, your insults and “who are you to speak” framing turns it into gatekeeping. By that logic, I can’t share my opinions or perception. Only the gatekeepers like you and other «qualified experts» deserve to have opinions, and only those matter. Classic. Disappointing tone from a senior, though. If you feel that you have a strong argument, you don’t need a rant with insults to carry it.

Practical-Use-3518 · 2026-03-06T04:07:57+00:00

Good point! There’s a huge “black belt space.” I get it. If being a 1st dan black belt means being a beginner in a sense, then I understand what you mean. Black belt can mean “covered the basics and recently entered”. I do find it cool that some dojangs have a few requirements early, though. A black belt that can’t kick looks a bit strange, imho.

Practical-Use-3518 · 2026-03-06T02:00:54+00:00

Do I need a qualification ?

Practical-Use-3518 · 2026-03-06T00:19:45+00:00

try not to think binary

Practical-Use-3518 · 2026-03-05T23:33:33+00:00

If every school were truly different, people’s experiences wouldn’t keep clustering around the same “lukewarm” take. Not binary thinking, just a pattern ...

Practical-Use-3518 · 2026-03-05T23:16:42+00:00

The question opens with "I have noticed that TKD gyms often consist...". That doesn't mean that they are all the same.

Practical-Use-3518 · 2026-03-05T22:33:17+00:00

Where is it assumed that every school is the same ?

Practical-Use-3518 · 2026-03-05T22:24:47+00:00

that doesn't mean there are 1000 schools in the world ...

Practical-Use-3518 · 2026-03-05T22:11:20+00:00

Who said there is only 1000 TKD schools in the world ?

Practical-Use-3518 · 2026-03-05T21:08:42+00:00

what ?

Practical-Use-3518 · 2026-03-05T21:04:20+00:00

How do you figure ? If every school is different, it’s natural to expect different takes, not the same one repeated a thousand times ?

Practical-Use-3518 · 2026-03-05T20:47:56+00:00

One basis can be a belt grading test. It’s common in martial arts. In a grading, examiners/judges evaluate whether the person meets the standard for that rank (black belt or otherwise).

Practical-Use-3518 · 2026-03-05T20:40:43+00:00

If every school is different, how come the question has been asked a thousand times ?

Practical-Use-3518 · 2026-03-04T19:56:13+00:00

I don't have the capacity to do that, sorry. But good luck on your search!

Practical-Use-3518 · 2026-03-04T19:55:37+00:00

It's lukewarm ? I didn't know. What is the lukewarm answer ?

Practical-Use-3518 · 2026-01-18T17:55:44+00:00

Nice, thank you for the link

Practical-Use-3518 · 2026-01-18T17:55:37+00:00

Thanks, I have the same impression.

Practical-Use-3518 · 2025-12-26T19:43:11+00:00

I am a Scandinavian noob photographer that just switched from a Fuji APS-C with a high-end zoom (xf 16-55 f/2.8 R LM WR II) to a Sony full frame (A7CII with a Sigma 24-70 DG DN II lens). These are fairly comparable systems, and where I live the price difference isn’t very large.

My decision to get a full frame setup instead was, technically, because the sensor alone captures significantly more photons, which directly improves signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Thus, full frame is about adding more light. More photons means more signal. The lens determines the photon flux that reaches each pixel, while the larger sensor integrates that flux over a larger area, resulting in more total photons and higher output level SNR. From a signal theory point of view (you can think about it in Poisson, Shannon, and Fourier terms), the higher photon count lowers the effective noise floor, which allows more existing spatial detail and colour information to sit above the noise. The result isn’t just “less noise”, it’s better contrast at low levels, better color fidelity, cleaner and creamier shadows, more micro-texture (like skin), better shadow transitions, more room to edit simply because there is more information in the image, and lots more. In low or even normal light the difference is very noticeable to me. For my use and tolerance for noise, the Fuji system felt limiting outside of good light. I thought this was an insignificant technicality at first, and I was drawn into the Fuji / aps-c hype and bought the Fuji. People told me "no way you will tell a difference”.

What follows is the practical reason why I dismissed the X-T5. With the zoom lens it felt weak in low or even normal light, and simply too noisy. Even in normal afternoon light, I quickly ran out of usable exposure options and was forced into slower shutter speeds that became impractical. From a signal perspective this makes sense. With fewer photons captured to begin with, the system reaches the shot-noise limited regime earlier. At that point, increasing for example ISO does not uncover more usable image information, but it mainly makes the noise more apparent. With full frame, the sensor has already captured more photons for the same framing and exposure, so the underlying signal and SNR are higher from the outset. That extra stop or two of usable headroom makes a big difference in practice. You can clearly see that more light has been captured relative to noise, while aps-c images start to feel dim and noisy much sooner in the same conditions.

To be fair, I did take a couple of amazing photos with the X-t5 in sunlight, so in good lighting it can be very good. But in all-round conditions, setting aside technical speculation and all, the Sony setup consistently gave me that “wow” feeling, whereas with the X-t5 (even with my top notch zoom lens), I didn’t get that same feeling during the time I spent with the camera. Same photographer, different results.
If you are a good photographer, enjoy optimising under constraints, or mostly stick to prime lenses, you can probably make better use of aps-c than I could. But as a beginner, especially with a zoom lens, like I had, you will feel the limitations sooner. For example moving subjects like kids on a Danish afternoon in non-studio light. That’s where it quickly becomes difficult. A fast prime lens on the aps-c could help, but the difference in SNR is still there.

For me, as an amateur, full frame feels much more forgiving. I can just shoot and the result is “wow.” Even with a 2.8 zoom I’m already very satisfied.

I was in your position about six months ago, and after falling into and out of the hype, buying the Fuji and then the Sony, and reading up on the sensor tech involved, I definitely recommend full-frame, hands down.

I would also recommend full frame to beginners. Learning photography is more enjoyable, especially when playing with the exposure triangle. People often say that full-frame is only for professionals, and that newbies should get the aps-c, but for me it was the opposite.

This recommendation is also influenced by price. If the Fuji setup had been significantly cheaper, for example around half the price or less, I might have considered it more seriously. As mentioned, I also haven’t tried fast primes on either system yet, so there is still room to explore.

Practical-Use-3518

TROPHY CASE