Grandmasters

[thetruth]

What constitutes a Grand Master?

Who would you say are great modern Grand Masters?

Who would you say are great Grand Masters of the past?

Why do people feel the need to add this title in front of their name after putting together nothing more than a mish mash system that is just a cut and paste job from arts they have studied?

Cheers
Sam

 

[terryl965]

First off welcome Sam, you should go to the meet and greet section and introduce yourself.

Now on to your question most GrandMaster have put in over 60 years of studing into there Art and to me that is a true GrandMaster the one's that invent there own style I personally have no time for them.
Terry

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Welcome to Martial Talk, thetruth!

I recognize Jhoon Rhee and Hee Il Cho as Grandmasters of TKD. There are others, but those are the two I am most familiar with. I was a student at a GM Jhoon Rhee school and met him in person. As for the other arts, in the U.S., there certainly is Morio Higaonna of Goju who, while not necessarily taking the title is one. I'm sure other MT members will be able to chime in with many martial artists who meet the criteria. Oh, yeah, Wally Jay of JJJ.

I like Terryl965's definition.

 

[Adept]

Personally, I think anoyone who insists on being called a grandmaster is simply grandstanding. While there are halls of fame, and recognised greats, you don't see 'grandmasters' or anything of the sort in boxing, greco-roman wrestling, fencing, or any of the other modern combat sports. They are an un-necessary construct unique to martial arts. Frankly, I feel the same way about belts and ranks. The person in question contributes nothing to the martial arts that they would not, or could not, have contributed before being labelled a grandmaster.

 

[thetruth]

There are reasons I am asking these questions but I am not yet ready to reveal them. I think that the own style issue is one that is not black and white. I would consider Ed Parker and Mas Oyama grand masters, both created their own style but it is the styles uniqueness and massive following that I think also helps give the style credence. I have a funny feeling that these two men never referred to themselves as grand master but were referred to as having this title by their students.

Cheers
Sam

 

[thetruth]

Hi Terry thanks for the welcome. I have been a member before so I'll leave the meet and greet for now.

Cheers
Sam

 

[Drac]

Grandmaster Bill "Superfoot" Wallace..Grandmaster Mark Shuey Sr. of the Canemasters..Grandmaster John Pellegrini of Combat Hapkido..These men because of their depth of knowledge and their dedication to their respective arts are worthy of their titles..
I spent YEARS traveling across the US and met so many phonies with that title it would sicken you..The afore mentioned men are not phonies...My opinion..

 

[mrhnau]

Now on to your question most GrandMaster have put in over 60 years of studing into there Art and to me that is a true GrandMaster the one's that invent there own style I personally have no time for them.

Well, someone had to "invent" the style at some point. Does it make it more special that it was invented 500 years ago as opposed to 10 years ago? How about aikido? judo? There are some interesting "modern" arts out there...

Honestly, I agree with most of your comments... there are alot of frauds out there, just wanting a new title. However, does not preclude the possibility of someone "inventing" something worthwhile. Its difficult to weed out the fake ones unless spending some time on the mat with them. However, this is approaching the "Great Debate" type theme Personally, I think time is a good measure... alot of the fakes will be weeded out, and the jewels remain. I wonder if Judo or aikido was considered a great new art at the time it coalesced(sp)?

 

[evenflow1121]

Welcome to MT.

1. Knowledge of the system, knowing how it can be applied, its concepts, the full system better than anyone else.

2. Ed Parker and Mas Oyama, I have to agree. Jhoon Rhee as well.

3. I always thought Miyagi was a great grandmaster of the past, Funakoshi, and Kano as well.

4. This is my favorite. There are several reasons, some are just not well in the head, a lot more are con artists. People like to soumd important and especially when they have nothing to offer, some are attention whores and need to make you the student feel like they are so much higher than you when they have accomplished nothing. The easy way is always a lot more appealing ot people like this, so they join some idiotic organization and recieve the title of grandmaster of 'rex kwon do' (Napoleon Dynamite) for example, without any care or respect for those that made the martial arts a way of life.

 

[phlaw]

My TKD instructor recently went to Korea to test for his 7th Dan, which would give him the title of "GrandMaster". One thing that truly impresses me is that he does not wear a belt with stripes onnit, he wears his original BB that he was given from his instructor when he was 15/16 years old. He does not demand to be called Master or Grandmaster.

To me this is someone who truly knows what it means to be a Master/GrandMaster.

 

[kamishinkan]

I do not know about styles that actually use the title "Grandmaster", but in traditional Japanese style Martial Arts, If someone titles themselves "Grandmaster" it would be suspect. For someone else referring to a great master of the past (or present) as Grandmaster, it is probably being used as a term of endearment. It seems to be more of a title used by others for someone great as opposed to an actual title to be earned. Again, do not know about styles that use the term, I think a previous poster mentioned TKD actually using it?

Darrell Collins
Kamishinkan Dojo

 

[funnytiger]

Personally, I think anoyone who insists on being called a grandmaster is simply grandstanding. While there are halls of fame, and recognised greats, you don't see 'grandmasters' or anything of the sort in boxing, greco-roman wrestling, fencing, or any of the other modern combat sports. They are an un-necessary construct unique to martial arts. Frankly, I feel the same way about belts and ranks. The person in question contributes nothing to the martial arts that they would not, or could not, have contributed before being labelled a grandmaster.

I agree with most of this. Anyone who insists on being called grandmaster is probably not who he claims. I also agree with your sentiments regarding belts and ranking systems.

I however disagree that having a structure in a martial art is a an "unnecessary construct" to martial arts, especially when being compared to "modern combat sports". Traditionally, one would not recongnize him/her self as being a grandmaster. Rather the community (ma community) would recognize them as being a grandmaster. It is not a title to be won, it is a title to be given.

There a great deal of martial arts out there that are more sport oriented. (I would personally question whether it still constitutes as a martial art at that point, but that's another argument for a different thread) but some of us study not for sport, but for the love of tradition and discipline and culture.

That's the end of my rant. I swear.

With much respect.

 

[rmclain]

I believe that a Grandmaster, in the traditional sense, would more appropriately be called, "Old expert." Someone that has continuously trained for years and has never quit training. By years, over 40+ years. Plus, someone that has taught long enough to produce students that are Masters (20+ years training).

Ki Whang Kim (deceased 1993), was an example of a Grandmaster ("old expert"), M. Nakayama was an example.

Modern times: Kim Pyung Soo, Ji Han Jae. I'm sure there are a handful of others still teaching in the US (not to mention other countries) that not many people hear about.

I don't believe in people that "invent" their own style and suddenly they are a "Grandmaster." These people reflect the "fast-food mentality" of some people.

R. McLain

 

[Xue Sheng]

Just a quick statement on the title of Grandmaster from what I know of Traditional Chinese Martial arts from the North of China. Many Chinese feel that someone who insists on being called a grandmaster is basically a joke and not to be taken seriously.

There are many CMA people that have been training martial arts their entire life and some of them are now in their 60s and 70s and the title they use is Sifu (teacher)

 

[Drac]

I believe that a Grandmaster, in the traditional sense, would more appropriately be called, "Old expert." Someone that has continuously trained for years and has never quit training. By years, over 40+ years. Plus, someone that has taught long enough to produce students that are Masters (20+ years training)R. McLain

I couldn't agree more...

 

[tshadowchaser]

I have met a few that i call a grandmaster. Only one of them I ever used the title when addressing them.
I know of a system that I knew the original grandmaster in and after his death I have known those that he promoted to GM (beor he died) and one of the decendents or 3rd generation Gm on the passing of the 2nd generation gm.
A gradmaster to me is one who has taught a system for most of his/her life and earned the respect of the martial arts community by their teachings and that of the students that they trained. There should only be one grandmaster in any style/system to my thinking. The may be many high ranks but only 1 GM.
I also know of a gemtelman who is called grandmaster by many masters and gm's of different systems but who called his teacher GM and refused to be called even master by his students.

 

[Marginal]

I agree with most of this. Anyone who insists on being called grandmaster is probably not who he claims.

Geesh. I wonder if you think Terry's a fool for accepting a master's ranking.

 

[Cujo]

I think that most real Grandmasters, are obvious to those in the martial arts community. Also, I have no problem with the title of Master. To me a Master is simply one who has learned enough to be a teacher of teachers.
Pax
Cujo:asian:

 

[evenflow1121]

I dont really have a problem with people using the title Master or Grand Master, if you respect them enough for their accomplishments then why not address them as such. If they are a joke, then dont bother with them, but if a person has dedicated their life to a particular art and has legitimately earned that rank then I see nothing wrong in addressing them with the title of master or grandmaster.

 

[MJS]

Reading through some of these posts, a few that I came across IMO, hit the nail right on the head with what the title should mean. Having that exceptional knowledge and dedication as well as time put in are all key parts. I do think though, that the title often gets attached to a name because people think that by having it, it'll make people look at them differently. As I've said countless time before, I'm not looking at the title, I'm looking at the person and the way they're performing the material. No matter what the title, its their actions that will speak louder IMHO.

Mike