At what point

[tshadowchaser]

just wondering at what point in a persons life do you think a Grandmaster/head of system should stop being the head of the system, or do you feel that they should stay in that position for life.
Please consider all physical and mental conditions

 

[Xequat]

I would put mental conditions way ahead of physical. It's kind of like a business. If I run a car manufacturer, I might not know how to change a tire, but that doesn't mean I can't run a great company. As long as there is someone who is a great fighter and a great teacher to be in charge of that, then I think the GM should stay in charge until he can't think any more. I know we think of older GM's like Mr. Miyagi, who can still kick ***, but the continuation of the style and the organization are what I think matter.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

just wondering at what point in a persons life do you think a Grandmaster/head of system should stop being the head of the system, or do you feel that they should stay in that position for life.
Please consider all physical and mental conditions

I think you would have to make a distinction between being the Grandmaster of a system and the chief of operations. I think that it would be disrespectful to "retire" a GM who was no longer able to function as operational head of an organization - just appoint a new chief of operations as some have done. How a group acts depends, of course, upon whether the living GM is the founder of the organization or not. If they are simply the current GM, than I think you have much more leeway ethically than you would if they were the founder.

Good question, though.

 

[arnisador]

To my mind, it's for life...someone else can handle day-to-day decisions if age or mental status dictate the need, but it's after all an honor, and shouldn't be taken away. What purpose is served, other than feeding the ego of the "new" GM by getting himself the title sooner?

 

[terryl965]

If you are the GrandMaster or chief instructor of your system it is that way until you give up the rings to you next in line like so many have done before.
Terry

 

[MJS]

just wondering at what point in a persons life do you think a Grandmaster/head of system should stop being the head of the system, or do you feel that they should stay in that position for life.
Please consider all physical and mental conditions

I'd say to keep going for as long as they possibly can. Even if they get to the point when they physically can't do much, they can still offer verbal words of wisdom.

Mike

 

[chinto01]

The current Grand Master of the ryu I study is in his 80's and still active in the teaching of his students. Over the last two years I have had the opportunity to work out with him for almost 3 weeks at his home in Okinawa and this last year he came here for a week. On both occassions he ran all of the workouts and taught all of the classes. IMO a Grand Master should keep control of his organization until his death or until HE gives up the reigns to his successor.

In the spirit of bushido!

Rob

 

[theletch1]

I've always seen GM as the same as Shihan. It's a title that is given as recognition of those things accomplished over their lifetime. To strip someone of that title would be almost like saying "Thanks for all the hard work and dedication but it didn't count in the long run." I say allow a GM to hold the title for life...even if it eventually becomes a title only and not attached to any active role being taken. The king is still the king even after death, the president is still referred to as Mr. President after his term is up...so should a GM continue to hold at least the title. If physical and/or mental problems keep the individual from taking an active role in the art then something along the lines of a GM pro-temp should be appointed until that GM passes on and then the title should be passed on. It's kinda one of those "The king is dead. Long live the king." sort of things.

 

[Grenadier]

As long as he can do the job with integrity and competence, and as long as he still wants the job.

Basically, the only way a style should put someone else in as the head, is if something like the following occurs:

1) The grandmaster is mentally incapacitated, such as Alzheimer's disease turning him into a shell of what he once was.

2) The grandmaster no longer cares about the system, and lets it rot. In this case, though, it's more likely that the best people will simply leave the system and start their own faction, etc.

3) The grandmaster pulls a "Count Dante" and does unlawful things that compromise the integrity of the system, such as burning down rival dojos, trying to barge into rival dojos and start some nasty fights, etc.

4) The grandmaster is physically incapacitated to the point that no duties can be carried out, such as being in a coma, or near the point of certain death. If he truly cares about the style, then he will have his successor already named. Even if it's just a temporary appointment, maybe it can help stabilize things.


It should really only be done when something drastic happens, where the very livelihood of the style is in question. Otherwise, for people to attempt a coup would be dishonorable, indeed.

 

[Rich Parsons]

My personal thoughts:

1) If the art has a clear leader of the system or of an organization and it is passed down from onw to another, then it is nice when the time is short to have someone named and people in place to take over.

Sometimes this happens where people step in, to help and end up being in place to make decisions, and may not be the best as the next leader of the system or organization.

Yet if there is a clear leader, in skill and capabilities, then one or more people should be put in charge if there is need.

This however, does not mean that the exisitng GM should loose any respect or position. These who are in place are there only to lead and help, and move the system forward.

2) In a system where it is expected that those that follow will have prove themselves afterwards and there is no history of handing off, only a history of those who do what they do, and as time goes by, people who follow them. (* I have only seen this in FMA *). Yet this is falling to the side as people expect their to be an heir and or the next leader.

I see no problem with a sytem having multiple GM's, and those with the title, all know who the senior is, and most likely would show the proper respect.

Just my thoughts

 

[tshadowchaser]

All excellent points so far.
I personally agree that the head of a system is the head until he steps down or passes away. That being said Grenadier brought up an excellent example of a time that might require a change

The grandmaster pulls a "Count Dante" and does unlawful things that compromise the integrity of the system, such as burning down rival dojos, trying to barge into rival dojos and start some nasty fights, etc.

is this a situation that could require the title to be removed? Some crimes could destroy a system if the head man/woman was convicted (child molestation,rape, murder,etc.)

 

[Grenadier]

is this a situation that could require the title to be removed? Some crimes could destroy a system if the head man/woman was convicted (child molestation,rape, murder,etc.)

Given that John Keehan (aka 'Count Juan Raphael Dante') was the founder of his system, and that there was no real "council" of masters (not exactly known for sharing power) there, he wouldn't be removed unless he personally stepped down.

I am surprised that his system still lives to this date. In today's society, something like this would usually be the death knell of a style, and had such an event happened today, I don't think people would have been nearly as forgiving.

Some info on Keehan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Dante

 

[bcbernam777]

just wondering at what point in a persons life do you think a Grandmaster/head of system should stop being the head of the system, or do you feel that they should stay in that position for life.
Please consider all physical and mental conditions

I am wondering if you mean in a functional sense or a figure head sense??

 

[tshadowchaser]

consider both for the answere this is an open ended question and can take turns without going off topic as long as the answere in some way relate to the original question

 

[Jonathan Randall]

consider both for the answere this is an open ended question and can take turns without going off topic as long as the answere in some way relate to the original question

In terms of remaining the "functional head", I'm at a loss - particularly if we are speaking of the founder of the organization or art. To remove a founding head involuntarily would cause tremendous damage to the organization, yet retaining as head an individual no longer able or willing to function in that capacity would also damage the organization. Catch 22. No easy answers, here. I think members who do not have a strong self-interest, either way, would have to meet and make a hard choice as to which option would harm the group least.