Standards, Verification, and the Responsibilities of Senior Practitioners.

 

Posted by ADAM CARTER on FEB 06, 2026

Standards, Verification, and the Responsibilities of Senior Practitioners.

After enough years in the martial arts, you stop asking only what is legitimate, and start asking how legitimacy should be handled.

Senior rank does not just confer authority. It reveals how someone behaves when given the power to accept or reject others.

In every generation of martial arts, there is a tension between two necessary forces: the responsibility to uphold standards, and the temptation to police others. From the outside, the two can appear similar. In practice, they are very different things.

As martial artists – particularly those entrusted with senior rank or advisory roles – we carry a duty to protect the integrity of what we teach. That includes verifying lineage, assessing skill, and ensuring that those who represent an art do so honestly. These are not optional concerns. They are essential.

But there is a line that must not be crossed.

Verification is not judgement. Assessment is not condemnation. And maintaining standards does not require humiliation.

Over the decades, I’ve seen many organizations attempt to safeguard the legitimacy of black belt grades. Some do so quietly, with humility and clarity. Others drift toward something less constructive: public rejection, “calling out”, or language that frames misalignment as moral failure rather than simple non-acceptance.

This is where the spirit of budo is often lost.

At the same time, we must be honest. The martial arts world does contain individuals who inflate rank, adopt titles they have not earned, or elevate themselves far beyond their actual ability. Some of this is misunderstanding. Some of it is wishful thinking. Some of it is deliberate fabrication. Anyone who has been around long enough has seen all three.

I have written about these patterns, and I have commented on them in general terms. I have even been asked, more than once, to publicly name and shame individuals whose claims were clearly exaggerated. I have never done so. That is not avoidance. It is a conscious choice.

Public shaming may feel justified, especially when the claims are blatant. It may even attract applause. But it does not elevate the art. It does not educate. And it rarely reflects well on those doing the shaming.

Even when an applicant’s claims are clearly fabricated, the response still reflects the character of the organization. Professionalism does not require ridicule, sarcasm, or public disbelief. A firm, private, and respectful refusal is enough.

“Thank you for your submission. After review, we cannot accept your application.”

Clear. Direct. Dignified.

The goal is not to protect the applicant’s feelings. It is to protect the integrity of the organisation – without abandoning the values it claims to uphold.

Senior practitioners must remember that we are custodians, not crusaders. Our role is to guide, not to shame. To clarify, not to condemn. To uphold standards without turning ourselves into judges of character or public enforcers of orthodoxy.

The martial arts are already fractured enough. We do not need further division created by those who mistake harshness for integrity, or exposure for responsibility.

Standards matter – deeply. But so does dignity. And standards reveal character – not just in who we exclude, but in how we choose to do it.

– Adam Carter