How do we define "Master"?

[bushido_man96]

Those are some good staples, but not every style has a rank of 10th dan.

[Sasori_Te]

Belts and titles ....... titles and belts ...... Blah .... Blah .... Blah. Too much of this in martial arts if you ask me.

Can you you teach me something? This question can be answered in the affirmative by everyone you train with or meet walking down the street. That's all I need to know. Everything else is ego. If not directly on the part of the person with the title then by the folks who have conferred the title. It's a word and much like the physical belt rank in any given system, it means no more or less than the definition given it by that particular system.

[bushido_man96]

Can you you teach me something? This question can be answered in the affirmative by everyone you train with or meet walking down the street. That's all I need to know.

This is very true. One of the problems that I see with exceedingly high rank is that those that have it don't really approach anyone about learning anything; i.e., asking questions about something new or different. I have never had a problem with asking a lower rank for any advise on how to do something, especially if they have better technique than I do, or a different way of doing it.

I think that this is one of the things that styles like Jeet Kune Do, Muay Thai, Wrestling, etc, that don't have rank, have as an advantage over other styles; the perception of who is higher ranked than the other. The lack of this perception allows for more vertical integration in a class in both an up and down scale, and not just down the ladder.

[Sasori_Te]

bushido-man96

I agree with you 100%. A very high ranking guy once told me that if he ever stopped learning it was time to quit. These were lip-service words from him, unfortunately, but they always stuck with me as a good way to look at training for the long term. Rank just gets in the way, especially when it isn't utilized properly.

[IcemanSK]

In my years in MA, I've seen folks who deserve the titles they've earned & those that do not. And yes, I've seen plenty of folks who have not earned the titles, & yet want others to call them master or GM. These folks have little to do with whether or not I call them by the title. I've met medical doctors that are jerks & bozos, too. Just because I call them doctor doesn't mean I respect them more or less.

On every MA board I go on, this thread is brought up. "Should we or shouldn't we use the title?" If it's uncomfortable for you, don't use it. Sir, ma'am, or hey you works just as well. My question is: Are you having this issue with someone you are currently training under? If so, perhaps you're training under the wrong person for your comfort level. If you're upset that the guy down the street calls himself "master" why do you care? You're not learning under him.

I agree with most of you that say "titles don't make the instructor, teaching ability does." So why get upset if someone uses it?

[Taylor]

I think some of the points about this title about attitude are interesting, but in terms of martial arts mastery, I think there is only one criteria: POWER.

It's nice if a Master can teach, and it's great when they have a good attitude and aren't arrogant, but if they don't fit this image, but still blow you away with the manifestation of amazing power in their art... hmmm? Mastery to me is quite a distinct level of the manifestation of the potential power of their art to the point where it can be dramatic in experience, and consistently so.

Someone mentioned Miyamoto Musashi, and I think he's a good example, but not because he was a master of calligraphy and pottery, which he was, but because he would only fight with a wooden sword because he believed it was 'unfair' for him to use a real sword. He felt it gave him too much of an advantage. He killed 60 'masters' in single combat. On one occasion, he got stinking drunk partying all night with a friend the night before the contest, while his opponent meditated and trained and got a good night's sleep. Miyamoto Musashi killed the guy in one blow while still drunk from the night before. His opponent was also a 'master' according to the standards of the time.

Mastery of character is a notable mastery, but distinct in my thinking. I think a master is simply defined by what he can DO, and by the fact that he can consistently do it, with almost no exceptions.

[snorri]

To me master is just a title used to attract students to a course or school. Until you actually see the guy in action it means nothing, and often still means nothing after you've seen him!

[bushido_man96]

I think that someone can master something, and then turn around and not be able to teach it or relate it to those who admire him and want to learn from him. I think that mastery is truly an individual trait.