What makes a "Master"?

[Bob Hubbard]

What truely makes a martial arts master?

Is it that mystical zen qualities that allows you to recite ancient tales while catching flies with chopsticks?

Is it the ability to defeat all foes, regardless of the situation?

A dozen black belts in a dozen different arts?

Hundreds of students?

A string of schools?

Do you have to be a 90 yr old wizened yoda like guru?

Or, be able to break oak boards or pull a train with your john-thomas?

Or dodge bullets?

Or have a tv infomercial?

Seriously, what makes a true master?

:asian:

 

[Yari]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
What truely makes a martial arts master?

Is it that mystical zen qualities that allows you to recite ancient tales while catching flies with chopsticks?

Is it the ability to defeat all foes, regardless of the situation?

A dozen black belts in a dozen different arts?

Hundreds of students?

A string of schools?

Do you have to be a 90 yr old wizened yoda like guru?

Or, be able to break oak boards or pull a train with your john-thomas?

Or dodge bullets?

Or have a tv infomercial?

Seriously, what makes a true master?

:asian:

Well.... no...no...no...no...no...no...no...no...no and oh....

ehm... the last one wasn't that easy.....

I had (have) a teacher who said, that a real sensei is a human being. My first thought was that everybody is that. But as the years have gone by, I find myself understanding what he meant. What is then a human being? I think it has to do with what we believe is human nature, and that's the same reason many different people believe in different "Masters".

TThis same teacher said that teachers (sensei's) are nothing else than people on there way up the same mountain as yourself. Some of them stay were they are, and can help you in that area, others are far away. Some follow a certain part of the way with you, and because you choose differently end up parting.

By this, I think, he meant that teachers arn't nessarly a teacher/sensei/master for the rest of you life. Your need for a master would naturlly change. Though some people are so lucky that they can follow/go with a master /teacher for long periode of there life, giving them a possibility to experience life from another angle.

Hope this was "understandable"

/yari

 

[Bob Hubbard]

That made very good sence. Very good indeed.

I asked my question, in a 'tongue in cheek' manner, yet it is serious.

I think of a master as someone who can guide you. Someome with the power, yet no need to use it. Someone who if called upon, can bring forth great skill in an effortless way, yet is humble and peacefull. To me, a master has nothing to prove, doesn't call out his percieved 'threats' to meet him in a back alley somewhere, or need to bully. A master to me is someone who is always learning, a student of the arts.


Thank you.

:asian:

 

[Rubber Ducky]

I'm a master - bater!

To answer the question, I think the definition of "master" really depends on what your mindset is.

If you study Japanese Koryu then the "master" is the hereditary owner of the style. This may not be the guy that knows the most, but koryu are often family lineages so it's who you're related to that counts the most. He'll be the guy that says who's in and who's out and who gets to teach how much of the curiculum.

In Aikikai style Aikido (which I study) the theoretical "master" is the current Doshu (way head, I think) which is Ueshiba Moriteru. He decides which directions Aikido will take politically, technically, etc.

The above definitions are primarily political definitions of "master". They show some traditional systems of inheritance and indicate that not all "masterships" are based on meritocracy.

Then there is the more immediate definition of "master" that indicates who it is that is currently teaching the style - or who the most recognized teacher of the style is. Often this is either your instructor, or the person your instructor recognizes as his instructor, and so on.

In my Aikido organization that's our immediate Shihan.

In Kali it's my instructor's instructor in Montreal (yeah yeah, one day I'll remember the name, but I'm new).

This definition of master is based more on merit; these are the guys with the skills who are passing them on to us. They are directly involved with the transmission of old and new technical knowledge either through direct instruction of ourselves or our instructors.

"Wisdom" an such is not a pre-requisite for the definitions I've laid out and I haven't really noticed it in my "masters" so far. Not that they don't have it, but they spend so little time expounding on it that I don't have to think about it. Even the Aikido Shihan only ever says "this way" and "not this way" during seminars.

Personally when I see someone billing themselves as Master or Grand Master or whatever, I just assume it's a title indicating some authority to teach the style or ownership of that particular "brand" of martial arts. Usually I assume it's a mix of both definitions of "master" - political and merit based.

I depend on my (albeit limited) martial arts experience to tell me if I'm being bullsh!tted with the martial skills and my (somewhat less limited) critical thinking ability to tell if I'm being conned on the philosophical side.

Pierre

 

[Icepick]

You need a certificate that says so.

 

[fist of fury]

I agree with most of the above answers. A master isn't some arrogant jerk, but someone that can guide you. You won't get the answer handed to you all the time but, makes you think about what your doing so you understand the mechanics behind your art. That way you don't end up a mechanical robot just working strict techniques but you can flow and adapt to your situation.

 

[Despairbear]

What makes a master? That is a tough question, perhaps we should look at who is a master as well. Is the founder of Gracie Jujitsu a master? Probably not. Mushashi? Mabey. Founder of Aikido? Some would say yes others no. Bruce Lee? I would say no but others refer to him as Master. My point is that Master is a title that holds an intanglable quality that I am not sure can be defined. Personaly I think there are and have been very few masters, perhaps as few as 4 perhaps as many as 10 it can be hard to say.



Despair Bear

 

[Icepick]

DespairBear -

You have a really high definition for Master! I would call a master anyone meeting these qualifications:

1) Complete command of all aspects in his art
2) Ability to effectively use his art against resisting opponents
3) Ability to articulate not just the hows but the whys of any part of his art, in minute detail

D'Bear, who are your 4?

 

[Rubber Ducky]

Heck, Icepick, mine are even lower than yours.

For me it's enough that a certain individual "owns" a style (that is has political control of it and can say who is and is not a bona-fide practitioner of it) for them to be a master.

That's not to say that their skills are any good, it's a political/legal thing.

If you claim to be a master, people are going to come check your oil. If it turns out that *you* are the dipstick, well...

It's not a question, IMO, of whether someone has "mastered" a particular style. If they claim ownership, then they claim to have mastered it. If what they have mastered isn't worth anything, that's another issue.

Pierre

 

[disciple]

I think "master" doesn't necessarily means someone who teaches an art.

Master is someone who is able to defeat not only his enemies, but also himself.

salute to you
:asian:

 

[vincefuess]

A lifetime of giving to others makes a master.

 

[tshadowchaser]

Master?
someone whom the teachers/instructors look to for guidence.
Complet knowledge of there art? No but complet knowledge of what they have learned of their art and the ability to pass on that knowledge.
If they call them slef master? They are not.
Most they be humble? No but blowing their own horn to much is the same as calling themslef Master. Being sure of their knowledge and ability and weaknesses is a positive point.
Shadow

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bringing this back to the surface...
What qualities would a true master have?

When do you know you've 'mastered' something...
or...what does 'mastery' really mean?

 

[Disco]

A Teachers teacher.
A lifetime student
A searcher of Truth
A deliverer of Truth
An overseer of technique's
An innovator of technique's
An inspiration for learning
An inspiration for practicing

SOMEONE WHO DOSEN'T COMMAND RESPECT
BUT RECEIVES IT FREELY...............

 

[James Kovacich]

The Making of a True Martial Arts Master
Written by Tim Mousel

The title of "Master" is used so frequently in the martial arts community that it has lost a lot of its true meaning. In the past, the term "Master" was a title of respect bestowed on someone whom the community recognized as eminently skilled in the practice of a particular style of martial art. Most "Masters" were older, as they had practiced martial arts most of their lives and had developed a very high level of skill. Some had created new systems of combat or had improved on an existing one over the course of their years of study One thing was certain: anyone who was considered a "Master" could expect challenges to combat from other practitioners and even prospective students. The title was something of a liability as well as an honor. This stands in stark contrast to the use of the term today by self-appointed "Masters" and even "Grand Masters." So how do we recognize a "Master" if we should encounter one? Fortunately, there are some readily identifiable traits and character that a true "Master" possesses.

Skill is one such characteristic. As mentioned previously, a true Master should exhibit a high level of skill that comes from years of practice and attempts toward perfection. Movement should be not only fast, but more importantly, fluid and smooth. Observe a first year student's movements and then compare them to those of a more advanced practitioner. The difference between the two should be obvious. Similarly, there should be a significant difference between the advanced practitioner and a Master. While the differences may seem less obvious to the unskilled eye, the advance practitioner marvels at the difference between himself and the Master. This type of skill is obtained only after years of dedicated practice and sacrifice.


Open mindedness is another attribute of a true Master. It is absolutely essential in order to achieve a high level of ability in the martial arts. Without it, it is impossible to learn an art properly. The "I'll do it my way attitude" can be self-defeating. While learning a martial art, it is necessary to look at all it has to offer before making any judgments about it. Often, it is hard to conceptualize an art unless time is spent learning it as it is taught. Only after you have spent a number of years learning and practicing your art should you make any judgments about its merit. Without "emptying your cup" it is difficult to learn.


Coachability is the ability to listen and learn. When learning a new skill, don't dismiss it by saying that it is the same as technique number 59 from the "Know It All Do" style. Most likely, it is not technique number 59. Look at the setup, positioning and timing in which it is used. Many times these areas are what separate technique number 59 from the technique in the art being learned.


Willingness to put on a white belt year after year, decade after decade is an important trait. There is no "best" martial art. It there were, why would there be so many different styles? Some are "best" for kicking. Some are "best" for punching or trapping or grappling and some are "best" suited for weaponry. While contradictory to most traditional martial arts, cross training in the martial arts can help fill in the gaps.

A true martial arts Master is without ego. Usually, the martial artist who does the most talking about his/her deadly skills is also the martial artist who is most insecure. The true master has no need to boast. Actions speak louder than words.


One of the best examples of a martial arts master is Dan Inosanto. He is humble, down to earth, kind and possesses legendary skills. Looking at his background, that should come as no surprise. He began training in Okinawa Te and Ju-Jitsu at the young age of ten. He then took up Judo with Duke Yoshimura in 1957 and then Chito-Ryu in 1959.


In 1961, he met a person who would have an impact on his life forever. The man's name was Ed Parker, the "Father of American Karate." Parker introduced Inosanto to Bruce Lee in 1964 at the International Karate Championships. Inosanto was in charge of showing Bruce around town. After taking Bruce back to his hotel, the two continued their discussion of martial arts throughout the night until the early morning hours. Bruce offered to spar Inosanto. The rules? Bruce would use only his jab against all of Inosanto's empty handed tools. The results? Inosanto instantly became a dedicated student of Bruce Lee!


Lee must have found something he liked in Inosanto. Inosanto quickly became one of Lee's best friends and his top student. While Lee was away filming movies, Inosanto took over the teaching duties. Inosanto was instrumental in helping Lee with the development of the concepts and theories of Jeet Kune Do. JKD was a revolutionary way of approaching the study and practice of martial arts. Instead of being bound by one specific style, Lee and Inosanto studied a variety of martial arts. Once the strengths and weaknesses of each style were understood, the weaknesses were discarded while the strengths remained within their own personal methods. The objective was not to develop a new "style" but to develop a martial arts method that will work for the individual. Because of genetic makeup (speed, timing, size, strength, endurance, etc.) and personal preference, martial artists should not be molded into the same robotic mode of self-defense. Each person is different, and therefore will express themselves somewhat differently.


Today, Inosanto keeps busy running his martial arts academy in Los Angeles. He also travels the world 48 weekends a year teaching the martial arts. Not only is he the leading authority on Jun Fan/Jeet Kune Do, but he is also instructor certified in over 20 different styles of Filipino Martial Arts. He is President of the Shoot Wrestling Association, instructor certified in Thaiboxing, Krabi Krabong, Wing Chun, Kenpo Karate, Shorin Ryu Karate, Tai Chi, several styles of Indonesian, Malaysian, and Filipino Silat, Jeet Kune Do, and many more. With an empty cup he continues to learn new styles and methods. One of his latest endeavors is the study of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.


Dan Inosanto is without a doubt a true martial arts master. He is void of any ego and possesses world class skill. If you ever have the opportunity to meet this living legend, do it. You won't be sorry.

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by akja
In 1961, he met a person who would have an impact on his life forever. The man's name was Ed Parker, the "Father of American Karate." Parker introduced Inosanto to Bruce Lee in 1964 at the International Karate Championships. Inosanto was in charge of showing Bruce around town. After taking Bruce back to his hotel, the two continued their discussion of martial arts throughout the night until the early morning hours. Bruce offered to spar Inosanto. The rules? Bruce would use only his jab against all of Inosanto's empty handed tools. The results? Inosanto instantly became a dedicated student of Bruce Lee!

Do you have any other reference for this? Maybe an Inosanto
quote, instead of one man's conjecture? That's a lot to swallow
if you ask me.

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by Kirk
Do you have any other reference for this? Maybe an Inosanto
quote, instead of one man's conjecture? That's a lot to swallow
if you ask me.

I did not imply it was the final word. Its just one mans opinion and he is fairly well respected and he had already written the article for this topic.

Personally, though I can relate to a lot of what he has said.

Food for thought.

As far a referance for that statement in particular. That is well known in the JKD community and Dan Inosanto will tell you himself. I've read interviews of Dan stating that himself. And my Sigung who was Bruces student has told me similar.

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by akja
Food for thought.

As far a referance for that statement in particular. That is well known in the JKD community and Dan Inosanto will tell you himself. I've read interviews of Dan stating that himself. And my Sigung who was Bruces student has told me similar.

I've been told that Mike Pick whooped Bruce Lee's tail all over the
place one time while "sparring". From just as many credible
sources as you on this end. Mr Parker was each one's teacher.
Kind of odd, don't you think?

 

[Crazy Chihuahua]

There are many, many good and perfectly correct answers here.
I would, however, like to address the issue of "the ablility to defeat any oppponent" or whatever the quote was.

No matter how fast or strong or powerful he was in his prime, no 90 year old man is going to take out 5 thugs with bats and knives. Yet, that man may well be a "master"- we would all do well to remember that we train not so that we can fight, but so we don't have to...:asian:

:samurai: :boxing:

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

This is such a broad sweep across the board type of question. Every art has its own definition and requirement to attain the title "master", if there is such title in the specific art.

Asking such a overly broad question will solicit vague and over generalized answers.