Explain this!

[Merryprankster]

A thought that's been mulling in my head:

Why is it that the only place you can be considered a master and never have actually executed your supposed mastery is in the MA's?

A master chef's gotta cook... a master painter's gotta paint, a master welder's gotta weld.

Yet, you've got people out there who've never sparred full contact, never fought, never done anything really, to demonstrate mastery--or even competency of any sort--that are teaching.

What gives?

[Former castleva]

Is that a rant?

At least in MA,can´t speak that much for other things,master does not necessarily consider him/herself one.
Just like one well-known master Morihei Uesiba states,one keep´s growing constantly trough practice,sky is the limit.
Of course those masters are concious that they have trained hard and for a long time,and are then able to pass their knowledge on for their students.
I think for that mastery,there is most importantly more to it than fighting,I think master´s should be a respect worthy example for others and wise in all areas of MA.

As you obviously talk of technical excellence,I believe that is not neglected neither unless you are talking about these/those imposters that don´t do much for community but are rather thirsty for ranks (which can be a problem these days,but to confuse them with masters,nah)

[Merryprankster]

There is as much art as technique in the craft of cooking--just as in MA...

Welding (believe me) is the same way.

And they are required to actually demonstrate both before earning that title.

Is it unreasonable to expect the same from MAists?

[Royal Dragon]

Welding sux!! Only mixing lead and Tin to from Solder rules!! Yes, that's right, I'm dissing traditional Welding and promoting the Mixed Metal Arts

[Ish]

Merryprankster

how would you like this to be demonstrated?
would the so called master have to beat several random apponents, at the same time, blind folded mabe, do they have to have great teaching skills or do they just have to know it themselves.

[No_Know]

Demonstrate to get the title. But do they demonstrate at every demand to prove that they are a Master?

Cooking is entertainment. Like NHB events. It's a hands-on-field. It's a performance field.

Welders are closer but they are commercial. Standardized exams (demonstrations of abilities--certain skills and skill levels).~

In each Kung-Fu System there are System specific Standards. There is a protocol in each System and each form has it's focus. you can tell skills acquired by what form a person is on...The progression is Tiger before Leopard. But if you already have skills that Tiger builds as a foundation to Leopard, you might not learn a Tiger form and get taught Leopard because that's your level of competancy.

They used to not get taught out of order or skipped (much) because going through the System progression you either learned the skill for your level or stayed back in the cirriculum. This is why going to class no matter (just about) what was So Important. The other students would motivate you to practice. There's a positive peer-pressure effect--you get to feel it's what you should do (practice to get that skill (meaning really grasp the form or it's element(s))). You might see people do the form you are on and seen ten times or by ten different people, you can distill the similarities that everyone seems to get, and presume they all had the same teacher or that that's how it's to be done. But realize things you do and don't do by seeing it done again and again. It's a nurturing environment.

Master is different from master of a fighting Kung-Fu. Within a fighting Kung-Fu a person can be considered a Master of a particular technique or skill.

[Helicopter]

What questions does having fought full contact actually answer?


Does the 'master' have the mental attitude for combat?

Does the 'master' have the physical skills for combat?

Can a 'master' read an opponent and use the right technique?

Do the 'master's' techniques work?

I think anyone with a degree of training can make a judgements on a 'master's' skills without knowing whether he's fought full contact or not.

Not every member of the SAS or Navy Seals has actually been on active duty. Hostage-rescue units are 'lucky' if they ever get a real situation to deal with.

[Leonidas]

In order for you to tell if someone is a martial arts master or not is for them to fight. There aren't exactly many reasons to fight these days and no one goes around challenging people to street matches anymore. With a cook, a painter, a welder or whoever else, you can usually tell how good they are by the quality of their work. How good the meal is or how skillfully done the painting is or how strong the weld is, but martial arts skill is all a matter of opinion. Most teachers dont fight anymore and everyone wants to think their teacher is a master or else they wouldn't be learning from them right? It seems like too much trouble to try and go around and prove or disprove everyone. In some cases its just a title. A cultural thing mainly from Asian. If you teach someone they become your disciple, you are their master. Doesn't necessarily mean you learned everything but some people make that mistake and they quit practicing.

[Ryu]

While I do agree with the sparring aspect, you've got to ask yourself just what "martial art" demonstrating is.

A welder, painter, and cook use the skills of their craft, but that doesn't necessarily mean they compete with each other.

Does "martial art" equal fighting only, or does the master's "skill" cover more things?


That's the thing. People have different opinions on just what a "master" should show.

Ryu

[FatherDog]

Actually, when I was in college, one of the main complaints of myself and many of my classmates in the computer science courses was how many of our professors had never worked in the industry, or ever used their programming knowledge for anything useful (or, frequently, anything at all.)

Although I'm sure this varies greatly by subject, in many cases, the professors teaching a subject are all the people who never did go out and test their knowledge... because they instead stayed at college to teach.

Not exactly the same thing as a Master, but certainly a parallel.

[rubthebuddha]

very much a parallel.

compare the old days -- a master martial artist often had to prove his stuff to other masters, and then the title was given by them. same with a mason. they worked and worked and worked their stone, and when their skill was one of a certain level, their fellow masons granted them the title.

not sure how it is with masons (the stoneworkers, not the lodgemembers down the street) these days, but anyone these days can start calling thsemvelves master right now, and with a little fudging, they can have the "certification" from a few associations to show it.

basically, it comes down to a checks and balances system. we have none these days, and thus shmucks can call themselves what they want and get paid for it.

speaking of masons, i wonder how many of the current guild's membership has actually worked with stone to any degree.

[apoweyn]

merryprankster and me have just been discussing this via email (before he buggered off to go and take a nap or something).

thought i'd post the gist of it here:

me: thing is, in all fairness, we DO demand proof. the real question is how compelling that proof is to everyone else. think about it. in WTF taekwondo, 'master' is a title given to 4th-degree black belts. and despite my personal misgivings about the title, and perhaps even about the requirements for a 4th-degree black belt, the fact remains that there is a test. and
depending on the individual school, the evidence presented will be more or less compelling.

if a master chef is well known for his thai dishes, but i find thai food unpalatable (i don't), then i may consider this guy a master of jack and sh*t. but that's a subjective assessment.

you know me. combat effectiveness is an issue for me. but not for everyone. (anyone that makes semantic debates about MARTIAL arts can help themselves to a big, steak-flavoured piece of my arse.) i believe that, if you're going to use that accursed word at all, proof should be provided. i just don't expect that i'm personally necessarily going to find that proof very convincing. and that's fine. i'm not going to find a 'master chef' in french cuisine very convincing either.

merryprankster: Exactly. And I don't have a problem with that. But the thing is that any idiot who starts up his own school calls himself master and we (collective) don't ask for proof.

Now, the truth, and I think you know it, is that an MAist should be able to handle themselves in a violent confrontation. I don't think we ask for proof of that.

stuart: but if i went into a restaurant that pimped itself by saying, "all meals cooked by master chef pierre stinkybottom", i wouldn't ask to see credentials before ordering.

merryprankster: No but you would if you wanted to train with him.

here's the point, as i see it (and i think it's a good one): if someone says he's a master welder, perhaps we ask for certification of some sort. but we all know how not difficult it is to get paper certification for martial arts. you can literally order it out of the magazines.

more likely, we ask for examples of his work. welding. we can look at something the guy welded and say, "boy, yeah, that looks well done. doesn't seem to leak. excellent."

same thing with a master chef. he says he's a master at french cuisine. i taste it and say, "yep, that's good french cuisine."

but when master joe mcdojoe says, "i'm a master of martial arts", the analogous experience for us is different. and here's why:

the purpose of welding is relatively precise, right? within a given context, we know what welding is supposed to accomplish. water still leaking from that pipe? yes? not a great welding job. did the thing fall off? no? excellent. good welding, pal!

cuisine is a little more subjective. but assuming i know my cuisine, i can make an educated call on whether the guy genuinely is a master.

but it requires a certain degree of knowledge on the part of the student to know whether the master is a master or no. me personally, a master chef could serve me braised dog poo in a bernaise sauce and i wouldn't know it wasn't 'authentic.'

and that's the problem with martial arts masters. the people asking the questions don't know what the answer's supposed to look or sound like. if a newbie asks, "does this work for self defense?" and then the master demonstrates a series of killer moves on his assistant, a more experienced martial artist might understand that this is choreographed, or that the opponent is leaving his hand extended, or that a punch to the stomach won't necessarily finish someone, etc. but to a newbie, that's proof.

add to that the inherent ambiguousness of our standards. am i interested in how well this master adheres to the aesthetic or stylistic details of the art? am i more concerned with his ability to stop the shoot? are weapons a concern? etc. what one person considers a master, even after demanding proof and getting it, isn't necessarily going to correspond with another person's requirements.

besides, even when we get proof, how do we know what we're looking at? as a teenager, the knife defenses i learned in taekwondo seemed perfectly viable to me. it wasn't until i got to eskrima that i started thinking, 'boy, that wasn't like self-defense sequence no. 3 at all! that was random and chaotic and ugly!' and, in truth, my eskrima experience was probably far from the reality mark too. so how am i, who's never experienced a real knifefight, supposed to judge whether joe mcdojoe has mastered knifefighting?

there are too many degrees of separation between perception and reality. personally, i think part of the solution would be a better-educated public. and that would require breaking down the mystique we like to attach to martial arts.


stuart b.

[ShaolinTiger00]

I'm going to open my big yap and say this.

(kungfu) If your sifu isn't a proven bonefide ass-kicker then find one that is. Otherwise you are wasting time.

You train kungfu to fight. If you wanted a positive role model go hug a research scientist or nun.

Internal hippies please continue...

[No_Know]

In Fighting Kung-Fus, you are noticed and improvements can be seen As you progress it is obvious who can do what to what degree. The proving of mastery is done throughout one's training. With enough Skill and Time-in, word of mouth will announce your mastery automatically, if you have it. They wouldn't saty if it wasn't true. Sorta thing. Rumor establishes Respect.

The Chinese were so, procedural that acquisition of a position, unless rumored or stated otherwise was presumed to have the preoutlined general skills or characteristics for That position.

Position in China was earned by Skill with Time-in. By the time someone ascended to a high position, they had acquired the skills of the positions below that and were superior. This was almost without exception. By the time they got to a position, you had an idea of their skills without them having to prove to the No_Knows. They proved themselves to the appropriate superior, literally, All along the way. No need to prove what has already been established.

One can tell a person's training by their musculatures, hand, forearm, shoulders, calves, thighs, breast design. Skin texture (apparant quality). I can only speak of skills. And a skilled person can be suspected of Mastery (In a Fighting Kung-Fu).

As the skill improves it filters in to everyday actin and becomes virtually indiscernable from just doing something except for the perfectnss of it. One can understand that there is skill, without having that level of it. And one might just thionk Wow or there's something special about that person, and not know conciously exactly what it is. (Read apoweyne's say, and recalled this aspect and put it here).

Pouring tea...
How they walk...
How they step...
The way their arms and hands move together...
They might move quietly or lightly.
They are usually reserved (beware of the quiet ones~)
They might move heavy things effortlessly.
.
.
.

A Master in Kung-Fu seems to be not a status thing. In China~ (ancient) you are not a sifu because or when you have the title in front of your name. You are a sifu when The People Call you Sifu. People you never met will address you that way type-of-thing. Relevantly perhaps, Master is not a self appointment, but a social awareness.

There perhaps is a lightness to them (one movie refers to this as the Glow. While not quite as pronounced as that perhaps you get an idea. They look special in a not bad way. These are perhaps Masters.

I'll look for a more credible description. But I answered as to why they don't have to prove themselves. There was a description of a Master...not what you asked but seems appropriate-ish, in a blue book on staff and flute.

[apoweyn]

'go hug a nun,' is about to become my new catch phrase. you've been warned.