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.