The Amazing Thing About Martial Arts is...

[Merryprankster]

That there are so many "masters" that have never once demonstrated the ability to effectively use what they purport expertise in.

We demand that master painters be masters at painting. We demand that maestros be master musicians. We demand that master plumbers be able to plan entire piping systems, not to mention routine tasks. We demand that master chefs know the ins and outs of the line cook, the pastry chef, and the chef d' cuisine....

Yet we, culturally, do not demand that an instructor level MA'ist actually have demonstrated their purported skill set - the ability to handle yourself in a physical encounter - at any point in time.

And God help you if you suggest there is something amiss with this.

[red5angel]

what would you recommend as an effective demonstration of ones skill? Fighting? Sparring? Something along those lines? What criteria would you have to fulfill to be acknowledged? So many wins? So many fights, win or lose?


What about the argument that some people teach better then they do?

[Merryprankster]

Nobody is asking for you to be the world's best.

But name me an NBA coach that never played ball. Or a boxing coach who never boxed...ever.

Competence. That's the issue. That's the name of it, right there. And we don't actually demand it.

Nice try though.

[red5angel]

nice try? I was just asking.


however, your coming at it from a sport perspective and I don't buy the sport analogy. No matter how many times you guys want to preach the ways of competition sports, some people aren't in it to score points and having medals and ribbons does not automatically qualify you in my book. If that were a good indicator, we would all be doing TKD, Karate, and BJJ ;)

If you can show me a technique, and I can deduce that it makes sense. If you can put it together against me and use it the way you showed me for the most part, then I'm ok with that.

[Merryprankster]

I'm not coming at it from a sports perspective at all.

Cooking is hardly a sport.

Simple competance. And we really let it slide. It could be sparring on open mat nights, a willingness to engage in some rough and tumble work or to have done so in the past for those over the hill - and account for yourself in a reasonable way.

But how many times do you see formwork, stancework, and drill demonstrations as proof of skill? They are only proof of skill at those individual pieces - not the integrated whole.

That's akin to a chef handing you the mise en place and saying "All done! See how great I am?!"

[red5angel]

It could be sparring on open mat nights, a willingness to engage in some rough and tumble work.


I agree, but then what standards can you hold ALL martial artists by?

Some arts used to have it built in. It was common for people to have to fight so called challange matches to prove they knew what they said they did. Of course this was not organized, nor was it across the board.

Although I've very rarely met an instructor who wasn't willing to do some sparring or what have you. I"m sure most of the people in this forum will say their instructors spar all the time or something along those lines.

[norther practitioner]

Unfortunately, a lot of people assume that "masters" are tested and true. Usually, people assume that by minimal standards, someone is tested hard enough through there school internally and at least competed or sparred, or touched hands with others on a local level.

[red5angel]

the other thing to remember is that most people go into a school and have no idea how to tell if someone knows what they are talking about. Hey, it looks good and osunds good, so it must be good!

[Merryprankster]

I agree, but then what standards can you hold ALL martial artists by?

The standard of competance, demonstrated in any one of several possible venues. Sparring, sport, street fights (one hopes not) organized challenge matches, whatever.

Somebody coming at you hard, and you going at them hard, and not demonstrating a complete inability at what you do.

Let's just tack on "within reason," to everything here, because you can take any argument to a logical extreme that renders the point absurd.


Hey, it looks good and osunds good, so it must be good!

You'd be shocked at what people will eat in the name of haute cuisine.

[bamboo_ leaf]

In each of the things mentioned except maybe plumbing there is no agreed upon standard that applies to all artiest in each category.

What is a master painter? Is a maestros any more or less skilled then say Jimmy Hendrix (rock guitarist)

People that I have met in IMA whom I would say are masters can simple do what they say they can within a given art extremely well.

In many countries there is a board that you have to go to get licensed to teach MA is this what your advocating here?

It has happend already in many other disaplines accupuntuer comes to mind, body work / massage is another one.

[Xeamus]

...

[Merryprankster]

In each of the things mentioned except maybe plumbing there is no agreed upon standard that applies to all artiest in each category.

Wrong.

In each of the above categories, while the style may vary from individual to individual, there are some people who are definitely commonly regarded as masters of cooking/painting/sculpture/what have you.

While there is no standard (how do you judge an abstract Picasso against a surrealist Dali?) to judge against, people have undeniably mastered their medium - which is verified against a finished demonstration of their ability.

Core competance. That's all I'm asking people insist on - not being a Michelin three star master chef!!!

Nice try number two...

[Xeamus]

,,,

[Ultimatewingchun]

"The standard of competance, demonstrated in any one of several possible venues. Sparring, sport, street fights (one hopes not) organized challenge matches, whatever.

Somebody coming at you hard, and you going at them hard, and not demonstrating a complete inability at what you do.

Let's just tack on "within reason," to everything here, because you can take any argument to a logical extreme that renders the point absurd." (Merryprankster)

Good post...makes sense.

[Merryprankster]

Xeamus is cracking me up!

[SifuAbel]

LOL!, was that completely necessary?





But seriously,


Coming from a fighting school and having teachers whom have fought AT LESAT AT ONE TIME, I must agree that there must be some experience on the part of the instructor. The next step in line would be if he produced students who could fight.

[bamboo_ leaf]

He is some ones teacher. The idea of standards is good and a fair argument. One that i agree with to a point. The US Gov, has tried to push this on differnt occasions. I think school owners like Sifu Able, and others might have some thoughts on this.

I like things the way they are now, peopel who are good get known, people who are not also get known. :cool:

[Fu-Pow]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
That there are so many "masters" that have never once demonstrated the ability to effectively use what they purport expertise in.

Would would be an acceptable forum to demonstrate martial skills?

At what standard of skill in a such a forum would someone be declared a "master?"




We demand that master painters be masters at painting. We demand that maestros be master musicians. We demand that master plumbers be able to plan entire piping systems, not to mention routine tasks. We demand that master chefs know the ins and outs of the line cook, the pastry chef, and the chef d' cuisine....

But what is different in any single one of these examples?

The demonstration (or subsequent failure to demonstrate) these skills has minor consequences.

So you make a bad painting or you make a crappy dish or plumb someone's pipes badly. The result does not have life or death consequences.

Furthermore, demonstrations of martial skill (not talking sporting events) in this day and age will at the very least send you to jail.


Yet we, culturally, do not demand that an instructor level MA'ist actually have demonstrated their purported skill set

Again, in what forum and to what standard? The old forum was the battlefield or the street. The standard was that if you were good then you lived, if you sucked then you were beat up, maimed for life or were killed.

You didn't really care what anyone thought of you, you were just happy to still be alive and hopefully still walking.

Any standard short of this is going to be "artificial." Even so-called "no holds barred" matches.


- the ability to handle yourself in a physical encounter - at any point in time.

This statement is so general as to be meaningless. To "handle oneself in a physical encounter" could me many things. Do you mean against one opponent, two, three, fifty? Do you mean in a sporting event, on the street, on a battlefield?


And God help you if you suggest there is something amiss with this.]

There is definitely something amiss with this and with martial arts in general . The fact of the matter is that hand to hand combat is totally outdated for self-defense for a very long time. It has been ever since guns became widely and inexpensively available.

The question in what forum and to what standard will keep coming up again and again because "mastery" is so subjective.

I guess the bottom line is that you become a "master" when you FEEL that you have "mastered" some skillset or some body of knowledge. If you have competed and won against others you will FEEL more confidence and FEEL that you have a higher level of mastery.

But not everyone is going to agree with you because they will say "that's not the right forum" or "that's not a high enough standard."

It's as true for painting as it is for martial arts.

The "true" forum for martial skill does not exist in this day and age. It is both a curse and blessing for modern students of martial arts. A blessing in that most of us will never experience the trauma and horror of battle first hand. A curse in that we have to create "artificial" forums and the standards that separate the "wheat from the chaff" within those forums.


;)

[WanderingMonk]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Nobody is asking for you to be the world's best.

But name me an NBA coach that never played ball. Or a boxing coach who never boxed...ever.

Competence. That's the issue. That's the name of it, right there. And we don't actually demand it.

Nice try though.

Allow me to try my hand at this. Whose name come to mind?

http://www.nba.com/coachfile/lawrence_frank/?nav=page

Lawrence Frank, coach of the New Jersey Nets. He never played b-ball at college/professional level. I don't think he even played at the high school level that was what I glean off an interview he did with ESPN.

There's alway some exceptions to the rule.

But, other than that, I think you are on the money.

[Merryprankster]

Right. The exception that proves the rule :) Although if he'd played high school ball, that's enough, IMO.

Kinda like my wrestling coach in high school. On the other hand, he had a Judo black belt, smoked like a chimney and still beat the **** out of the men in the 40-50 division even though he was over 50 :D So I'm pretty sure there was some carry over.

[Nick Forrer]

My Instructor doesnt call himself a 'master' and he is dismissive of people that call themselves that. However he has no problem showing his level of skill- which is immediately obvious to anyone that 'touches hands' with him.

He also has a habit of inflicting pain on anyone that trys to test him too much:( :)

[CFT]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
While there is no standard (how do you judge an abstract Picasso against a surrealist Dali?) to judge against, people have undeniably mastered their medium - which is verified against a finished demonstration of their ability.

Core competance. That's all I'm asking people insist on - not being a Michelin three star master chef!!!MP, that seems to be exactly what you're asking for!

Your analogies in sport are to do with professional sportsmen; in the arts with true masters. In cooking, you would be asking for a Michelin star.

However, I do agree with your sentiments, but there will never be any kind of agreed-upon standard or format/venue for "masters" to prove themselves; nor the willingness probably.

But the "kick the door" of the school type of challenge just seems so uncivilised, even if it is a "tradition", don't you think?

[scotty1]

I think MP is making good sense.

Without getting into the whys and wherefores of what makes someone a 'master', what I'm getting from his posts is that it's a habit peculiar to some MAists that they don't demand proof of competence or ability of someone they are trusting to teach them that ability.

To get back to the plumbing analogy, you ask someone to come round your house and fix your pipes, you choose someone who's qualified or registered, and is willing and able to provide proof.

In the case of a plumber, proof is a certificate.

In the case of a MA teacher, its being able to prove they could apply their skills on you, which means it's neccesary to do some 'rough and tumble work'. Or at least have seen it done /seen evidence of it being done on someone else, or have known that it has been done on someone else in the past, or know someone whose opinion you trust that's seen it done etc. etc.

But by far the best way is surely to have them apply it on you, when you're trying your hardest not to let them.

I regularly wrestle, box and spar with my instructor, and I know he could beat the **** out of me in a very short time if he wanted to. That's why he's my instructor.

In the case of teachers who're 'past it', then they probably will have produced some students who can demostrate it on you.

[Merryprankster]

MP, that seems to be exactly what you're asking for!

Then I don't think you understand this at all.

A Master Chef is a title somebody earns by having demonstrated, over time, core competencies in ALL areas of the kitchen. It's not an issue of being a celebrity or having a certain rating.

Most major kitchens have a chef d' cuisine in charge of the dinner menu, a sommelier in charge of the wine, a pastry chef for the desserts and a host of kitchen staff and help to manage that the executive chef should be managing.

A Master chef has demonstrated core competency in all of these areas. He or she may be better at one than the other, but I'm not saying everybody needs to be Alain Ducaisse (sp?).

The painters example I gave was to demonstrate that even though it's hard to compare something across styles, beyond your individual preferences, it is indeed clear that some people have demonstrated a mastery of their medium. One need not be Picasso or Dali. I have a friend who is an excellent painter although she is not internationally acclaimed and some may not like her style it's rather clear she knows what she is doing.

A Maestro knows how to competently play a certain number of instruments and direct an Orchestra. That's what makes him a Maestro. But not every Maestro is going to be a Mozart (who played more than one instrument and could hear entire symphonies in his head, or figure out exactly which instrument in a section was a tad off).

The list goes on. I refer you back to my wrestling coach - not world class, but certainly capable.

So no, that's not what I'm asking for. But if you seem to still think it is, I can't help that.

Personally, I use the term master loosely. Replace it with whatever you would like that connotes a level of skill commensurate with competence.

And scotty1 is correct, and has nailed exactly what I'm driving at.


But by far the best way is surely to have them apply it on you, when you're trying your hardest not to let them.

Or they've got verifiable proof they did that to many others and that is part and parcel of their training.

[scotty1]

I love nailing the correct.

Mmmmmm.

[MasterKiller]

What brings on these little tirades?

Was somebody here claiming to be a master of something?

[Akhilleus]

We demand that master painters be masters at painting. We demand that maestros be master musicians. We demand that master plumbers be able to plan entire piping systems, not to mention routine tasks. We demand that master chefs know the ins and outs of the line cook, the pastry chef, and the chef d' cuisine....

Ya know, you're right...we are way too hard on those artists and chefs...we need to be more trusting of them, like we are with martial arts instructors...just take their word for it...

j/k yeah I hear what you're saying...for me personally though if I'm going to be giving some dude money then yeah I want some visible proof that he practices what he preaches and he's not getting a dime till I see said proof...the other thing is in some orgs you can get black belts and even different degrees of black belts without breaking a sweat (ie you can promote tournaments, donate money, help out, kiss @$$, kiss major @$$)

[bamboo_ leaf]

(Core competance. That's all I'm asking people insist on - not being a Michelin three star master chef!!!)

I don’t know MP, all the people that I have ever trained with either had one of their students or themselves touch hands with me. In fact most where very happy to do this and insisted on it.
They wanted you to feel it. In this meduim its the only true way of knowing something.

On the other hand people have to know what they are looking for and what makes up any core competency of the style or method that they are intrested in, just being able to kick ass alone dosnt count. :cool:


have a good weekend all.;)