Should Masters have to prove themselves?

[MA fanatic]

Should Masters have to prove themselves? If so, how?

This is a question that had been burning on my mind for quite some time now. Personaly, I have met many masters (from all different systems and schools) which had never proven or tested their own system. Some just say they're a master because they have memorised a series of techniques, forms, and exercises. Others claim to have some seniority in a system which had been passed on to them. But, how do we know that what these people are teaching has any use? How do we know these people could actually pull off the techniques they teach? Why do so many of us blindly follow the words of masters simply because they claim to be a "master" in a given style? It seems like many of us have blind loyalty to an instructor or system, yet our own teachers have never tested their own skills. We just go by blind faith that what we're learning is very deadly. Would I go to a doctor, and pay him money, if I new that my doctor had never really tested the medecine he prescribes on a sick patient? Being a therapist by profession, I know that there is more to therapy than theory we are taught in graduate school and forced to memorize for exams. I'm just interested at what the forum members have to say. This does not pertain to any particular art.
MA fanatic

[Fred Sanford]

I wouldn't learn from someone who doesn't have any fighting experience. All a person like that has is theories, they don't really know what works.

[MA fanatic]

I know masters who have a rank of 5th Degree Black Belt and above. These same people (I actually know them by names) have never sparred full contact. Actually, one of them, a 7th degree, had never sparred with contact. But, he knows all the forms and techniques to progress from belt to belt.

I think that there needs to be some sort of a criteria as to who calls him/herself a "master." Seems like only through some hard criteria, can the skill level of traditional martial artists be picked up. Now, I also understand that some people are better teachers than fighters. That's ok. But, then I'd like to see what students they produce. I can't see myself training from an individual who never fought and/or never produced some top notch fighters.

I think that is part of the reason why some traditionalists have lost to grapplers. Grapplers test their skill all the time and against as many other grapplers as possible. Many traditional martial artists just memorise, but never test, the techniques taught to them by someone who also memorized but never tested the techniques.
MA fanatic

[Helicopter]

We don't live in enclosed enclaves where no information goes in/comes out, our own experience is our judge.
There is lot of information out there for those that look, if your 'master' has knowledge that surpasses the widely availble stuff, if you cannot get a technique to work and your 'master' can show you where you're going wrong - there are many ways of proving themselves without having to beat someone down.

IMO a Sifu doesn't need to be a proven fighter, you just have to be sure that he can make you one. (If you listen to what he says and practice it.)

[crumble]

I've thought about this a lot, too.

I finally think that if they make the claim of proficiency, they got to have proven themselves. A lot of people think that fighting is somehow a sign of failure in the internal arts. They claim that the point is not about fighting, but about blending, redirecting... ideally before the fight has even begun. Thus the ultimate win is when a fight never occurs.

Okay... but that's comparing apples and oranges. Okay, I agree that a good General is not judged only by the battle he wins, but also by the battle he can manouever out of fighting -- and the latter is what makes a really good General. But the General must also win most of the fights he does engage in! He must win some battles or eventually he will lose the war. He can pick his battles, but he must then go ahead and fight them.

The other thing that people will claim is that "wanting to win a fight is a sign of ego". Okay... but be real careful there. Ego is a **** tricky concept and you might get cut down by your own argument. Creating a "moral rule" that prevents you from testing your skills is pretty egotistical, too. Assuming you are training in the "best and most complete" art is a fantasy -- literally a fantasy -- unless you actually know you can fight. And that fantasy is pretty egotistical.

So the bottom line is: it is fantasy unless you can actually do it. And to claim that you can do it, you must have done it.

It's really a simple matter when it is stated like that. But sometimes I think people don't like to hear that, or they block it out, because it messes with their own fantasy.

I've learned from two guys that have won open championships in Asia... and they are constantly lamenting that people are living in a fantasy. They worry about these people. They never say that everyone should be a fighter, but they definitely say that people should know what is true about their skills.

-crumble

[apoweyn]

My feeling is that the word 'master' holds no importance that we, as the observer, don't give it. In other words, a master is liable for only as much as I expect from him. And I don't expect anything in particular from a person calling himself master. Nor from a person that others refer to as master.

Yeah, the popular conception is that a person with that title is something more than we are. But we've all been around long enough now to know that this isn't necessarily the case. Ranks can be bought, systems invented, and so on.

I doubt that there will ever be sufficient regulation to prevent people like that from trying to rise to prominence. Rather than trying to stop them, better to educate ourselves and the general public, demystify the word, and let common sense guide us again.

I'm not going to believe, without question, a used car advertisement that reads "runs great!" and i'm not going to believe, without question, a man who refers to himself as a 'master' of anything.

that's not to say that legitimate practitioners couldn't readily convince me that they know what they're doing. obviously, they could. i'm just not attributing any more weight to a word than it's really due.


stuart b.

[The Willow Sword]

if YOU call yourself a MASTER then yeah you better prove yourself.

if YOU are CALLED a MASTER, then you dont have to prove one **** thing to anyone.

MAny Respects,The Willow Sword

[Former castleva]

Fairly thought provoking post.
I believe many of us/you/me have noticed that actual people who we tend to call masters do not literally consider themselves masters.
Let´s pick an example:
Aikidoka and film star Steven Seagal has a big bunch of fans who consider him a master.
I´ve read though that some people who have known him somehow have told that he thinks he knows some,but not that much.
I don´t know if this is a good example but it is anyway,point travels trough.
I think it comes to the point that more you learn,the less you seem to know.There´s always so much more to know.
Now I´ll pick a more far-stretched example (which nearly causes verbal ligament damage)
If I read a book of dog´s behavior,it may tell me that the whipping motion of dog´s tail means he is generally happy.
OK,now I know what it´s all about,do I?
Nope.If I pick another book it may tell that it actually means that he is slightly confused,not knowing what to do,leave or stay.
Get it? Yep.There´s more to it.
There are saying´s like "Beginners mind" which means you should always look carefully with open mind towards new things around,not laying back with all-knowing attitude.
A bit like that precious story about empty cup,master and the learned man.
Ignorant ones are probably often showing off to secure their dignity,trying to prove something.
Master has little to prove.

I think that if someone has actually reached the level when others call him/her master,and has a high belt rank or related.
It is also very likely that he has trained and studied very hard and keeps going on.He has had a good instructor(s) which took him to the door which then passed trough.
Besides physical technique,he should also be a great example for others,with high sense of moral and very friendly towards others.
"Nice as hell",as somebody stated.


:)

[Asia]

I peraonally can't see how some can be considered a "master" with NO experience. Would you consider an artist a "Master Painter" if he never touched a canvas? Or a "master mechanic" if he never popped the hood of a car? Or a "Master Chef" if he can't boil water? NO you wouldn't why does MA have to be any different.


I expect my "MASTERS" to be able to fight. I used to add, and be able to beat me, but truth is I can beat the majority of my masters. But I have learned from pple who don't match my pugil skill but have more knowledge than me.


Final note IF the person INSISTS on being addressed as MASTER well.........I don't but much stock in them.

[Felipe Bido]

Memorizing a bunch of forms doesn't make you a "master"; but there's tons of people that think it does...that's why you see the increasing of McDojos. Understanding what you practice and being able to put it into application is the way to become a "master" of a style. "If you don't use it, it's useless" (Sounds stupid? well, it ain't :D)

...you're a master because you have "mastered" the technique, right?

It's very good for a young master to prove himself, but not as a selfish thing, but to gain more understanding of his art, and see what it works and what doesn't (in order to pass on the good info to the next generation of students). After he has learned through experience and hard work, there's no need to fight anymore.

My teacher says that he used to fight a lot, until one day he stopped fighting, went on to teaching and have a family. The experience he gained in fighting was used to teach, and the inner need to prove himself changed for another challenge, that was taking care of a family.-



Helicopter said IMO a Sifu doesn't need to be a proven fighter, you just have to be sure that he can make you one. (If you listen to what he says and practice it.)

Those are the truest words ever spoken by a flying machine :D

[Asia]

"Knowledge is NOT power! Application of knowledge is power. You can know EVERYTHING in the world but if you don't put it to use then what good is it?"

---Someone VERY smart,
ME:D

[Cody]

Well, there are people who have Ph.D.'s in neuroscience, but are not much more than advanced technicians in the lab. And then, there are those who, with the same kind of training, direct these well-educated technicians in groundbreaking research. They know who they are, but someone who is not familiar with how this part of the world works, or with the material, might see almost all as having a certain equality, as bestowed by the title "Doctor."

Your darned well sure a Master has to prove himself. It's not necessarily a matter of making a ring or alley bloody. To a great extent, circumstance determines how we prove ourselves. Yes? It's doing the right things at the right time for the right reasons, and that is a tall order, one which masters claim they have a leg up on, and they should, but this shouldn't be taken for granted. It can't be.

Lots of good ideas already stated. I particularly liked what crumble had to say.

Cody

[old jong]

We all use the wheel without the need to reinvent it every morning before going to work.
Just as an example,all my Wing Chun techniques and principles have been "tested" a million times before any of us "connaisseurs" and internet juge on martial arts were even born.
The only question is: How well you can apply these techniques depends only on your personnal capacity's,training and fighting predispositions.
A true "master" will never call himself this way because any honest practitioner knows that the road never ends and there is always something he needs to work on.Also,someone can be a great teacher and technician and have absolutely no desire or need to "prove" himself in competitions of any kinds.

[Tigerstyle]

If a "master" issues an open challenge, or boldly makes claims to being able to do something, then I think they should, as a matter of integrity, be able to prove it.

For the most part though, I agree with ap. If someone is considered a master of something, and it doesn't affect me in any way, I really don't care what their title is. They're going to get the same amount of respect and civility from me that I give to everyone (which they should feel good about, 'cause I'm a really nice guy :p ).


Slightly OT:
"I think that is part of the reason why some traditionalists have lost to grapplers. Grapplers test their skill all the time and against as many other grapplers as possible.

MA fanatic,
I know this is just a slight matter of semantics, but I just wanted to point out that "grappling" is very very old (probably thousands of years old). What exactly makes it not "traditional"? ;) What makes an art "traditional"?

[SDriver]

Some of the greatest skills coaches in sports were mediocre, in some cases putrid athletes themselves.

One can possess an encyclopedic knowledge of mechanics and have an unsurpassed flair for teaching, but lack the physical tools to excel on one's own.

How many heavyweight championships did Cus D'Amato win? How many Cy Youngs does Tom House have under his belt?

[Cody]

Good points.

Understanding of mechanics, body mechanics, encompasses a specific kind of intelligence. With that, we have the technician. When that is combined with the gift of teaching, one has something special indeed. Yet, that is not a master, who must Know, but also Do (or have done sometime in the past).

The doing must have come in somewhere, or else we might have a different kind of "mastery" (that of mechanical understanding and teaching), which is not what I speak of here, A Master. The Master knows and goes beyond body mechanics. Teaching is a separate skill altogether, and the extent of the motivation to do so is another thing.

Championships may or may not have significance.

Cody

[Ryu]

I like what Willow Sword had to say.
The problem is that too many people put out that "tough" guy image for the sake of the "tough guy" image. They make wild claims and constantly talk about how dangerous their system is.

These people rarely, if ever, prove themselves.
And yes I think loudmouths should prove themselves.

However, I do not think everyone needs to to prove they can fight in a ring or competition. That's just unrealistic. It's like saying anyone teaching people to drive has to be a Nascar winner.

You need to prove what you can do in the physical realm of martial arts. "Masters" who've never sparred at all are people I do think need to prove they can "spar" at least.

Not everyone has to be a competitor, but I think all instructors should get out on the mat with their students, and try to keep their skills as functional and competitive as possible.

Ryu

[bob10]

Master is the least of our worries, these days the place is crammed with Grandmasters and even Great Grandmasters!

The best guys I ever trained with, in any style, never called themselves master.

For the rest, there are three issues

1. - it's marketing. If you run a school, no-one wants to learn from you unless you are a "master". It used to be "black belt" but I guess they are run of the mill now. So look in a UK martial arts magazine that is illustrated and see how many masters you can spot.

2. - ego. Pure and simple. It's all about status, both for master and student - "our teacher is a master"

3. - cultural. The term sifu for instance, which is usually translated as master.

Should they prove themselves? Depends what they claim. Those who claim deadly self defence skills, but have never been in a fight (like my first teacher), well, what exactly are they teaching?

If someone is honest and straight forward, then fine. Someone raised the idea of the boxing coach - true, I agree, but they don't call themselves Grandmaster do they?

[Asia]

Sifu translates as "teacher"
Sensei (lit Before the student) translates as "teacher"
Sabunim translates as "teacher"

These terms are not just reserverd for MA. A doctor in Japan is called "Sensei" and Professor is called "Sensei" etc. And it is the height of bad manners in all three cultures to call oneself or insist to be referd to by these titles.

[SDriver]

Y'all are right about the jabber factor. People who present themselves in a certain way should not be surprised if they're called on the carpet.

If you call yourself (or "allow" your students to call you) a "master," but you've done nothing to earn that title by any meaningful standard, does that mean that people should come into your school and ask to beat the crap out of you? No, because people shouldn't beat you up for being pompous or delusional. People should pity you, or humor you, or whatever, depending on how entertaining you are. Does it mean that people *will* come into your school and ask to beat the crap out of you? Well, it certainly increases the probability.

[jun_erh]

Nowadays they have two types of competition: forms and fighting. Both of these fall under the heading of kung fu. What's crazy is if you have one school that focuses on forms and another that focuses on fighting, the forms class is more likely to have "Kung Fu" in it's title. This is so wrong for a number of reasons. All the reasons lead back to one point, forms are considered more kung fu than combat.

I know because I'm in this exact situation myself. I go to a forms school and a fighting school. The forms school has lots of artwork and trophies and whatnot, the fighting school looks like a gym.

so what is kung fu? nothing

[Braden]

The quality of a good teacher is in making his student's skill improve.

You should be finding out for yourself, via your exposure to him, whether or not your teacher is "good", with respect to the goals you have.

'nuff said. (or, if you want more, read SDriver's posts, who said the same things better than I did)

MA Fanatic - Your analogy is flawed. A patient doesn't give medicines, a patient gets better. A doctor can be good at giving medicines without being good at getting better himself.

[MonkeySlap Too]

I met a Master Bator once. He seemed kinda pale and tired all the time...and he had hairy palms.

I never really wanted to see proof of his skills....



Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

[CD Lee]

Yes, absolutely!

Don't ask me how yet...I'll have to think about it.

MA Fanatic said:


I think that is part of the reason why some traditionalists have lost to grapplers. Grapplers test their skill all the time and against as many other grapplers as possible. Many traditional martial artists just memorise, but never test, the techniques taught to them by someone who also memorized but never tested the techniques.


Nail on the head. I think it is *ridiculous*to consider anyone a Master, who at least at one point in their MA career, were able to fight very very well against resisting opponents and apply the skills of the art to great effect!!! Not even that they were able to win always. But I EXPECT any so called Master, to be able to apply the art, and techniques to an effect that the moves work a lot of the time.

Guys, nobody wins all the time, even if they are much better. No preacher is sinless either.

[CD Lee]

Posted by Helicopter:


IMO a Sifu doesn't need to be a proven fighter, you just have to be sure that he can make you one. (If you listen to what he says and practice it.)


You have a GREAT point here. This is true. Same in music, ,tennis and western boxing. Do you think Dan Duva could beat ANY currently active pro boxer? I would bet on the boxer. But I would bet on Duva to produce a world champion boxer any day over the fighters than could beat him. However, in boxing, calling somone a MASTER is almost unheard of. A few names apply however, that I would call a master. Teddy Atlas, Dan Duva, Emmanuel Stuart, Cus Diamatio, Eddie Futch. Not a **** one of those guys can beat current active pros. (Some are dead)...But they know a whole hell-of-a-lot more about boxing than 99% of world class boxers.

So...I don't know anymore. I would NEVER call Mike Tyson master, but I would call Eddie Futch master with no hesitation. Why is TMA any different?

[Chang Style Novice]

A master is someone who has proven themself, be it by his or her fighting ability or teaching ability, it matters not. There's different kinds of masters, after all. What every one of them has in common is that their credentials are above reproach.

[MA fanatic]

I recently wathced a martial arts special on television. It featured many masters, grandmasters and fighters. But there was one guy who claimed to be neither. He looked out of shape and would most likely lose in a physical confrontation with any other artist featured. But, he ran a none for profit school for young inner city kids. Though he had no solid fighting skills, he was able to teach martial arts to children who would otherwise not be able to afford martial arts classes. Actually, some of his students even did well on the tournament scene, though he himself was a virtual unknown. Because of him, many kids have chosen school and even college instead of joining gangs and using drugs. He gave kids hope. He gave them a future. In my eyes, though this man would not last long in a full contact ring, he is a true master. We need more people like him, that tough fighters or masters who charge 100 bucks a month and still teach unproven techniques.

Someone here mentioned that we should ignore the word "master" and have teachers prove their claims. Master or not, if someone claims to teach deadly skills, he has to have had the chance to use his techniques. If someone claims that his style would wipe out any NHB fighter, he should get in the ring or the cage and fight. If someone says he's ready to fight anyone, he should then be able and willing to take on any apponent. Should one have to win every fight? NO. By just having the belief in your system to take on a challenge is respectable.

I saw a class taught by an organization called Universal TKD Federation. These guys believe their skills are too deadly to fight with and even spar with. They spar with full force, but with no contact to body (fight at a distance). That is called, "no contact, full contact." Yet, they claim to teach self defense. HOw can that be self defense. To promote in black belt rank, a student just has to exicute a form (they call pattern). Once when training with my partner in Muay Thai, a UTF master (who has no sparring experience at all...I mean 0), was telling us the proper way to distribute "ki" force by keeping our chins up in the air. (What a way to get KOed!!!). Anyway, I use that as a real example. but there are numerous other schools and teachers like that. In my opinion they are ripping off the public who really doesn't know much about martial arts. Most of the time these guys give false promisses and demand loyalty.
MA fanatic

[Braden]

FWIW, every postural requirement I've ever read for the optimal circulation of chi (tantric, yogic, taoist, buddhist, etc) has been to tuck the chin.

[Croaker]

This might sound wierd coming from an MMA-type player...but I don't think that the simple ability to fight is what should make a grandmaster (If, really, ANYONE should be a grandmaster...but different subject). It isn't even the most important thing.

After all, how many people actually spar or fight in your classes? Who stays because it's just interesting and fun...maybe a little exercise and a lot of cool learning.

IMO, there are several things that go into this:

Knowledge of fighting. Yeah, ya gotta fight sometime, and put some quality time into it. You DON'T have to be a world-beater. Just understand it.

More importantly, an in-depth knowledge of your art: where it comes from, where it's going, and its strengths and weaknesses.

A great ability to teach

An encyclopedic knowledge of techniques.

Finally, an open mind, and enough humility to know that it's the people around you that consider you a grandmaster...you don't really think so, yourself.

[Aramus]

So how do you test a master, how does a master prove he/she is a master?
I have the opportunity to train with people who others called master, but the "master" always said, I'm just OK, I have a lot to learn. I, of course, had more respect for that person than I have most of the people that call themselves master (maybe all?)
Anyway, does a master fight a lot in tournaments (different types or all the same), accept challenges, and/or fight in unorganized fights (street fights, bar fights), or does he/she train in the military or special forces.

I agree, a person doesn't have to be a master to be a good coach or teacher. Some of the best aren't (pick a sport...)

Side note: Wrestling is traditional, it has been around for a very long time in many different cultures (hell, I'm an OK wrestler b/c I have an older brother and of course we fought and wrestled). I wonder if there are many cultures that don't have wrestling in them somewhere...
Peace.

[yu shan]

I also agree with Willow Sword...

To me, a "Master" should be first, a good teacher! If he or she is not, move on. Alot encompasses being a good teacher. Hopefully for you, your Master was taught the wisdom & fighting theory of the ancients.

[Jimbo]

If a master is a real "master," then in general he (she) has already proven himself from experiences gained throughout the decades. I am not talking about some self-proclaimed 25-year-old Great Great Grandmaster, but experts who have proven themselves already through their track records not only as martial artists, but as instructors as well.

Sure there are paper tigers out there, but IMO it is extremely rude to ask a 50 or 60 year old instructor who has had fighting experience and been teaching since way before most of us on this board were even born, to have to "prove himself" to us. That is akin to one of us just entering the work force and seeking employment at a major corporation, and asking the established CEO of that corporation to "prove" his qualifications to us. I mean, there are ways of learning these things the right way.

Observe his movement. Speak with him politely. Observe his classes and especially watch his students. A guy doesn't have to be a world champion to be a top-notch instructor. If his students are good, then it's fairly certain he himself is.

Of course, no one wants to enter a martial arts school and spend years under an instructor who isn't what he claims to be. But outright demanding that a "master" prove himself to you is just rude. Even if he is an awesome fighter, in certain schools, such a demand will get you put out the door. Sometimes you just can't win. In some cases, the "master" answered the challenge and got sued after inflicting damage on a challenger. In some other cases, the person demanding proof got a little more than they bargained for.

All I can say is, even if you're a young man, just think about if you trained and had decades of sparring and hard work and teaching behind you, you're now firmly established and proven, then some young kid saunters up and demands you prove yourself to him?! At that point you'd probably tell him to take a hike.
Jim

[Cody]

It wasn't my understanding that the "proof" was to be in the form of a challenge, or approach with the up front demand of proof. Indeed, the proof can be very hard to determine. I guess what many of us are considering is the existence of some form of proof. We don't all look for the same things.

One example I gave was "It's doing the right things at the right time for the right reasons...". That covers martial ability, as well as other abilities and characteristics, which have relevance to some or all students. There is an idealism to this which might be too much for what's out there, yet aren't we led to expect this in many cases?

While an outright verbal demand of proof makes a circus of the whole thing, a civilized crossing of hands might be appropriate in some cases. There seem to be precedents of becoming a student in that manner. Yes? Of course, not everyone is up to this. And, that's okay.

The student who isn't, either needs extraordinary perceptive qualities to see the mastery in a teacher. Or, might be willing to take a lot on faith based on whatever understanding he/she possesses, interest in the art, and so forth. In any event, it's a gamble. The teacher who is at some recognizable Masters' level, can choose to reveal it in one movement, but it's not like "show and tell" at grade school. The process is subtle, but it's there. If it's not apparent, the student either can't see it, or the teacher isn't showing. Can't be forced. But, at some time a degree of proof needs to be apparent in some way, depending on many factors. To me, being a master is more than being a teacher (a role I greatly respect as well, as indicated).

I agree that world championship need not be a factor. There's a lot to fighting, and a number of ways to fight, as there are ways of living. The master makes an art of his work and of his life, because the work infuses his life. And, his life infuses his work. This is not to say that there can be no flaws, even serious ones. Because the template is human, capable of just about anything. So, a champion (one who defends the weak, for instance) need not be a world champ.

I think polite observation is advisable. Asking intelligent questions about the training is also okay. demanding proof. That this is understandably unwelcome, and could show foolhardy ignorance.

There might be an issue of threat and control here. Unless there is a real threat to a master (he will be hurt unless he hurts first), which cannot be gotten around, there is no reason in my view why a master should harm someone who comes on like a wise guy or jack*ss. There should not be a need to do so. That is part of being a master imo. Because there is the ability to deal with violent situations, where the opponent is far inferior in learning, to stop it. just stop it.

There might be young men who would issue the challenge to prove. We might think about the natural inclination of men to challenge each other, sometimes with immaturity. There are two sides to this. The young man wants the teacher to prove he's king of the mountain, and he also wants to prove himself. In this scenario, there is the potential of that glorious journey from punk to a person who at least understands and respects his own abilities and lack thereof. There is a choice on the part of the master whether to pursue this journey, or to refuse it. People make mistakes in this world. Everyone. So much is based on inclination or circumstance which affect us all. The jack*ss of today might be the Secretariat of tomorrow.

Cody

[Asia]

To me, a "Master" should be first, a good teacher! If he or she is not, move on. Alot encompasses being a good teacher

I disagree with this. You can be good at something but can't teach worth a dam. Teaching in itself is a seperate skill, not everyone can do it (we all talk to pple on a daily basis but not everyone is good at public speaking, does that mean they are not good at talking?) . You can have someone who is technically proficient and has knowledge but can't transmit it effectively that doesn't make him a bad MA or negeates he is a master at his craft. He just can't teach well. So no I don't thing this is a good criteria for judging a master.


So, a champion (one who defends the weak, for instance) need not be a world champ.
I don't get this. There is NOTHING sayin a "Master of MA" has to defend anyone but himself. He doesn't have to champion the weak or anyother BS like that. It would be nice if he did but this is reality. Historically (them good ol ancient times) this was NEVER a criteria for one being judged on MA skill.



Being able to fight IS a valid criteria when dealing with MA. MA is FIGHTING no matter how you dress it up, pple say "MA is more thatn just fighting yadda yadda yadda" but if you strip all the extra stuff away at the core you have FIGHTING, bottomline. He doesn't have to be the BIG DADDY BEATDOWN machine but he should at least be able to somewhat defend himself. Would you call some a master in MA if some 100lb out of shape guy was slapping him around? No you wouldn't. And how is someone going to tell you about fighting if he's never done it. Who would you go to for flying lessons. The guy who read everybook written and plays simulations but never flown or the guy whos logged hundreds of hours in the a ****pit? It a no brainer.

Now does a MASTER have to PROVE himself. A TRUE MASTER doesn't. Those who profess to be masters DO. I seriously doubt pple would accept my claims to being able to run at supersonic speed without proof.

(This reminds me had anyone ever seen Jet Li's last HK moive, Hitman, where he was the worlds greatest hitman but never killed anybody?)

[ArrowFists]

I agree with Asia. A master should be able to at least fight on SOME level. Martial Arts mean literally "war arts", so why would I wish to learn an art of war from some chump that I can beat down myself? Why would I bother learning Jujutsu from a guy I could slap a choke hold on with little trouble?

I think masters should be tested if they're peddling the idea that their art is "self defense", or a fighting art. If you're a "master" of a fighting art, you should be able to fight with it. If you can't, then you shouldn't be teaching.

However, if your teacher is peddling some granola crap, with no practical application this side of Jackie Chan, then by all means.