Recently, I read a post on another platform in which the writer expressed his disbelief that people who started Jiu-jitsu in their 40s were getting black belts in 8 – 9 years. The writer was insistent that this was a sign of the monetization of Jiu-jitsu and that the martial art was now watered down. It was his opinion that a Jiu-jitsu black belt did not have the same meaning as it did in the past because schools were handing them out to keep students. I think that this is an interesting position that does not take a lot of variables into consideration. I usually hear comments like this from guys who started training in the late 90s or early 2000s. I did not train in Jiu-jitsu at that time, but I was playing competitive sports. It was a different time. We were working out like bodybuilders while playing baseball. Now, we have a better understanding of functional weight training and nutrition, which improves our game and ability to train consistently. We have more opportunities to be on the mat. Even if I travel to work, I can find a gym to get some rounds in. Not to mention, I can compete every weekend if I want, giving me a chance to see what works outside of the gym environment and pushing me to train so I do not get smashed in front of everyone at a tournament. Maybe most importantly, we have practically unlimited access to training materials. We can buy instructionals from top Jiu-jitsu athletes or google a technique and find 100s of videos that break it down. This is no longer a couple of guys rolling in someone's garage watching a VHS of the Ultimate Fighting Championship if you were not lucky enough to be near one of the few gyms. What are your thoughts?

I've heard plenty of stories about Royce Gracie promoting people to blue belt just for attending his seminar, so I honestly doubt things are less strict now than they were. And honestly, a big reason people might be getting black belts sooner,assuming that's really happening, is because people just teach better. We tend to avoid wasting the first 30 minutes of class running around the gym in a circle, sequences are more thought out, everything is more systemized and easier to digest. It's not enough to just show and Armbar and then tell people to roll.

Almost every other post is saying that the saturation of high quality information and instruction is the real change.

So what is the difference between teaching better and high quality instruction?

Main thing I've noticed, at least compared to when I started 10 years ago, is most coaches just waist less time in training. When I started, we'd spend the first 30 minutes of the class running around the gym and doing calisthenics. The coach would then show one or two techniques, then we'd roll the rest of the time. Horrible class structure,most of the time, the coaches weren't planning their classes and just did whatever they thought of on the way to the mat, and a lot of time was wasted with things that had nothing to do with jiujitsu. This still happens in some gyms, but overwhelmingly, a lot of gyms I visit nowadays really try to maximize the training sessions and they waist as little time as possible.

The irony of commenting on this while being a mere brown belt is not lost on me.

The writer was insistent that this was a sign of the monetization of Jiu-jitsu and that the martial art was now watered down. It was his opinion that a Jiu-jitsu black belt did not have the same meaning as it did in the past because schools were handing them out to keep students.

And yet despite the fact that we generally accept that belts should come quicker today than in decades past, there are still countless disputed ranks on this site because minimum times were not met.

That's normally on black belt degrees, I thought? As those are purely on time, meaning better teaching doesn't impact them. Can you point to some examples? I don't pay that much attention to the disputed stuff, as I only vote for people I've met in person. ;)

Regardless of what it's for my statement still stands. If you have two blackbelts with one training once a week and one training four times a week, which will improve faster if all else is equal? Using time as an arbitrary measuring stick is silly. I also don't pay attention to disputed ranks unless they are specifically addressed on this forum and rarely vote for anyone I don't know personally or am at least familiar with their ability via a relatively short line from A to B. The only reason I know of it is because this has been discussed numerous times on this forum.

Yes, it's an incredibly silly measuring stick. That's why stripes are meaningless, as are belts after black belt. So I don't think that's relevant to your statement. A third degree black belt hasn't necessarily got more skill compared to a second degree, they've just trained longer. You were presumably referring to people getting TO black belt faster, not what happens once they've got it. Hence why I commented, as stripes/degrees etc don't matter. Or have I misunderstood your point?