Master

[K-man]

I have been privileged to spend a short period of time speaking with a master of Goju. He is a 10th Dan and studied under two 10th dans. I train occasionally with another top Goju man who is truly a master but would never call himself that, such is his humility. And, I train with an Aikido man regularly whom I consider a master. The rest of the top people I have trained with over many years are not at what I call master level, although two would be close.

True 'Masters' are a bit thin on the ground.

 

[puunui]

Same for us. But when I look online it appears to be spelled with an 'n'. I dunno, we say 'sempai', but maybe I am just hearing it funny.

The simplest explanation is that in the japanese language, when the n sound is next to the p sound, the n is pronounced m. so it could be written as senpai, but would be pronounced sempai. Same thing with kenpo, which is pronounced kempo.

 

[Carol]

Indeed. Senpai is a direct transliteration of the characters used in the word:
(SE) せ
(N) ん
(PA) ぱ
(I) い


As puunui explains, when the N sound is next to the P sound (or the B sound, or the M sound), the N sounds like an M instead.

The example likely most familiar to English speakers is:
(TE) て
(N) ん
(PU) ぷ
(RA) ら
which we commonly see spelled as tempura

Ironically the letters aren't really interchangeable (outside of casual speech) in Kenpo/Kempo. Some lineages have chosen the N, others have chosen the M, one very notable practitioner chose to change the spelling of his line later in his career...and all are mighty particular about which spelling is used.

 

[Zenjael]

I have struggled with what being a master means. It is only in reading this article that it has occurred to me I never once had a teacher who refered to themselves as masters- it was only their pupils who did, be they the novice white belt, or the instructor. Something tells me that this is also what is right, and is just how things are done... I have seen those masters who sign their names MS. Just like a doctor; I thought the fellow a pompous ****, and he kinda was ultimately.

For about a month, last year, I struggled with the question again; how do I know what a master is? Am I a master. The latter question was asked for a specific reason. As far as I know, I am the only practitioner of shishi Baguazhang... which is basically like Yin style lion bagua, but with notable differences. When my teacher died, while I was not a master, I had learned the necessary techniques of the art in its entirety. So long as I didn't alter any of his instructions, or make up my own moves, or take from other styles, based off what he taught me, and taught me through, I could hope to improve. Frankly, this means I mostly have memory, and specifically muscle memory to go off of, so in all likelihood shishi bagua will die with me, as whatever I teach will likely be corrupted by the very nature of it coming from me.

But that being said... this has left me as the only practitioner left, as also the highest ranking (the style has no 'belt system'. You simply move from one move to the next as you learn, and eventually your teacher will tell you, that you are a teacher. Mine told me I am not a teacher yet, but if I keep going, someday will.). In skill level, I am not a teacher, yet in other systems, I could be considered a grandmaster (Tae Kwon Do, for example, is a little bit sketchy about doing this, and in no way would ever consider myself even a teacher yet, let alone a master or grandmaster.).

Ultimately I think it depends on the individual definition of mastery, in relation to each style. I am not a master, I am a practitioner. I think the correct state of mind to have, as a master, was like Bruce Lee's; "I am not a master, I am a student-master. For I never stop learning, and growing." and "If I were to call myself great, you would think me boast. If I said I were bad, you would think me lying."

To me a master not only has learned the art, but can execute each technique of it perfectly, knowing exactly when and where to use it. Essentially; which situation to make best use of, for every technique, in a conceivable way. Another put it better; they have gone to a place in martial arts few others have yet, and it is the word which best describes, now, what that place is. They can also teach what they know, and know what they do as well as themself. They have perfect control, though the last I add because of the very nature of the word 'master'. I do not look at the name as a position or role; it is a name of recognition for what they have achieved.

A teacher is a sifu, to me, and somebody who practices a martial art, at any level, a practioner, or a martial artist. The only 'no-belt', to me, is someone who has yet to learn any martial arts.

To me, it is the ability to travel along the journey primarily on your own, without having to have a teacher direct you constantly. In other words, when you can teach yourself.

I had a teacher once who gave me one of my most favorite sayings, "Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect." It is risky to 'teach yourself', since there is no one around with the insight to correct you when wrong. I developed a kick which rotatated the ankle, and while I had no injury, a friend who was a dancer who witnessed it later explained how I was actually destroying my ankle. Don't get me wrong; making up moves is a lot of fun, and I enjoy it a lot. But you have to be careful. I think the only time you shouldn't communicate with your teacher, when possible, is when they are no longer living. No one learned martial arts alone, even those who created styles. It is important to remember the path one walks is made possible by those who came before, and who push us forward, one punch to the face and kick to the groin at a time.

Bruce Lee says that all questions must fall before a student calls himself a master. Another way is when your teacher calls you one, sort of like the saying you are not a man until your father calls you a man.

I liked that a lot, thank you.

I suppose anyone can call themselves that. Like 'sensei', it only means something to the person who uses that title and those who refer to him with that title.

If I had to hazard an opinion, I would say that when a sensei has students that are themselves sensei, then he is their sensei and their students would likely refer to him as 'master'. If his or her students have students who are sensei, then perhaps the term 'grandmaster' becomes warranted.

But honestly, I don't know. I know of one sensei who styles himself 'Grandmaster', but then again, he holds 10th Dan in a legitimate ryu. Can't get any higher, so if he wants to call himself that, who am I (a humble student) to say he is not?

Bottom line, though? Personal preference. Nothing stopping a person from founding their own style, and claiming GM status if they wish. It's up to others to decide if that is deserving of respect or not.

A person can call themselves whatever they want, truthfully. But it's what everyone else says which tends to get what the person is considered to be. I would venture to say the only person willing to say that grandmaster, wasn't, would be the one who got the unfortunate proof that the man is. Or then again, perhaps not. I recall a 'kiai-master' apparently getting owned by an MMA fighter. Titles are just titles; martial arts exists less for that, andmoreso for just the skill within the art itself.

I was told by one older Japanese gentleman that it's difficult to tell who would qualify as a master, but easy to tell who does not. If someone calls themselves master, then it is very obvious that they are not since a true master would have no need to call himself such.

A master to me is someone who's skill is so awesome in a particular art that he/she is beyond the need for such titles. He/she only is called a master simply as a sign of respect and for those under him/her to have something to inspire to become.

 

[K-man]

I have struggled with what being a master means. It is only in reading this article that it has occurred to me I never once had a teacher who refered to themselves as masters- it was only their pupils who did, be they the novice white belt, or the instructor. Something tells me that this is also what is right, and is just how things are done... I have seen those masters who sign their names MS. Just like a doctor; I thought the fellow a pompous ****, and he kinda was ultimately.

For about a month, last year, I struggled with the question again; how do I know what a master is? Am I a master? The latter question was asked for a specific reason. As far as I know, I am the only practitioner of Shishi Baguazhang ... which is basically like Yin style lion bagua, but with notable differences. When my teacher died, while I was not a master, I had learned the necessary techniques of the art in its entirety. So long as I didn't alter any of his instructions, or make up my own moves, or take from other styles, based off what he taught me, and taught me through, I could hope to improve. Frankly, this means I mostly have memory, and specifically muscle memory to go off of, so in all likelihood shishi bagua will die with me, as whatever I teach will likely be corrupted by the very nature of it coming from me.

But that being said... this has left me as the only practitioner left, as also the highest ranking (the style has no 'belt system'. You simply move from one move to the next as you learn, and eventually your teacher will tell you, that you are a teacher. Mine told me I am not a teacher yet, but if I keep going, someday will.). In skill level, I am not a teacher, yet in other systems, i could be considered a GRANDMASTER (Tae Kwon Do, for example, is a little bit sketchy about doing this, and in no way would ever consider myself even a teacher yet, let alone a master or grandmaster.).

Ultimately I think it depends on the individual definition of mastery, in relation to each style. I am not a master, I am a practitioner. I think the correct state of mind to have, as a master, was like Bruce Lee's; "I am not a master, I am a student-master. For I never stop learning, and growing." and "If I were to call myself great, you would think me boast. If I said I were bad, you would think me lying."

I am glad you are so modest Alex. I mean few of us would consider we were on the same level as Bruce Lee.

Perhaps you could also post a reference for Shishi Baguazhang as all I can find is Shi style Baguazhang. :barf:

 

[Josh Oakley]

Ok wait... In what style could you be called a grandmaster?


I want to thank you, by the way. Without reading your posts, I would never have known the limits of my patience. Now I can expand them.


But first... Some tylenol. Maybe a stiff drink. Might go slam my head against the wall for a few hours.

Seriously... Put yourself in an outsider's perspective. We have actual masters here. Some grandmasters and professors, too. Some of us have, or currently DO train under masters and grandmasters.

I don't know if you are trying to come off as pompous, egotistical and... Well... Insane... But that's how it comes off.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[Zenjael]

In certain arts grand-master is less the honorary title denoted toward skill as it is normally in Japanese arts, and in certain Korean can be awarded for being the highest ranking. For example, there can, at times, be more than one grand-master, but in some arts there is only one, and he's usually a dude as old as the pope. In those arts, using their criteria to define a grandmaster (the most experienced in the art) I would qualify in shishi bagua, since I of no one else who does it. The only other student my teacher had died in either the Japanese occupation of China, or went missing during the war in Korea. The story kinda changed, so i'm not confident about relaying it. However, such criteria for being a grandmaster, and what a grandmaster actually is (how the japanese treat the title is what I think appropriate) I think are very poor. I realize you did not read my post josh, but understand I do not think myself on the level of even a master, let alone in the league of bruce lee. Nor am I claiming to be one, no matter how some people might poorly define the title. My point is that the title 'grand-master' is different between arts and even cultures

(I've met proficient fighters in muai thai, but rarely masters, and I have never heard of a grandmaster. There are some arts without any such heirarchical roles. Many actually, I would even advocate that the role of grandmaster is something which originated from japanese culture and their highly sophisticated social roles and interactions, and was later brought to Korea during occupations. You don't see many chinese arts with a 'grand-master).

And in addition to being different, can actually be badly defined where even someone as churlish as me COULD qualify. But my point here is the same elsewhere; grandmaster is a title of honor, and should be given for great insight to skill. I can think of an example which might demonstrate better this confusing nature of the title; if a person is a founder of an art, than how they do the art, to me, is how it is supposed to be done. Aikido as O-sensei does it, is actual Aikido, or whatever he wanted to call it (I've read before he changed the name multiple times) yet what he did is much different from even the style his own descendants use. He invented the style, and they ran with it, evolving it. The very fact is became so diverse so quickly gives great evidence of it actually being invented by O-sensei, rather than it originating from a predeveloped art. I've heard it argued it inspired by bagua, and though I agree with the theory, I think it less that aikido came from it, but took the idea of circular movement, and instead of deflecting strikes, used the circular theory to control them instead. In essence, another case where the japanese take something good, and make it a lot better. Sorry if that came off racist.

To K-man, I consider myself like Bruce Lee, though not him. Is it wrong to admire another for their abilities and insight, and while not mirroring them, attempt to achieve in your own way as they have. When I can kick with 100 different kicks per legs without having to drop the leg, and when I get over 8 punches in a second I will consider such things like that. But they are merely personal goals. There are certain techniques I employ which Bruce Lee favored, and like it or not, through the Chung Do Kwan school I trained with, I am a descendant in the sense of martial arts from the great figure. But I am not as good as him, and I also think the fact he had image to uphold for the sake of how he lived has caused us to overhype and exagerrate his abilities. They were great, but they were not legendary.

As for the evidence of shishi bagua, I've got nothing I can produce as a hard copy. When my teacher died he did not even leave me with diagrams. Just a few letters which spoke more about his life, and what he thought about me and our experiences, than what I should do to complete my training as best as able. And I'll be honest, that kind of letter isn't something I care to just post online. So if people think me a fraud, so be it. His advice for me was simple; he recognized in me that I can differentiate on styles very easily. Because I can learn a style quickly, though it takes much longer to understand and master of course, he understood that if I were to pursue bagua under a skilled yin style teacher, I would be able to hone my techniques, and later return to shishi bagua and apply those advances. To be honest, I think he intended shishi baguazhang to die with him; for what I have of the style is incomplete. for example, the dog style which is utilized in Shishi I was taught how to do, to understand the theory (think you know how to do a flying side-kick, the actual motions involved, but are not yet able to do so) and though the reason arguable, I have because of this switched out ground sweeps for high kicks, due to my own background and that I frankly don't think a system which relies on low kicks and hand strikes to 'ground' instead of 'sweep', that adding dog style was unnecessary in the first place. Anything I end up teaching will probably not be shishi; it will contain elements of it and will be yin style, with my own personal touch to the style, as we all give to the arts we practice.

I have an excellent memory, so I have not forgotten any of the techniques he has taught me. But I am still lacking form, internal mastery, and ultimately insight how to apply the more advanced techniques, and achieve them. In the years since he died, I have gained a fraction in what I would gain in a week with him. Exploring any art, I imagine, is difficult.

I say I practice shishi bagua because though I hail from TKD and Karate, my teacher to me of Shishi has had a hugely impactful role in my life. It is out of respect for him, his ability, and that he honored me by letting me learn from him that I say I practice his style mainly. Ignoring shishi, I am far more likely to resort to TKD and Krav Maga for self-defense than I will circle walking techniques. But, I am 22, and there is plenty of time to learn given fate is kind to me.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

To K-man, I consider myself like Bruce Lee, though not him.

Aw crap. I need a fresh cup of coffee, and a new keyboard. And the cat is in hiding.

 

[MJS]

Nice replies here. IMHO, I think that alot of the time, the titles that we see, get over used. In other words, some people tend to think that if they have a fancy title, that somehow, that'll mean that others will look up to them, be impressed, etc. For myself, its not the title, but the ability of the person.
In some arts, the title will depend on your rank. Sifu, Sibak, Sr. Instructor, Professor....those are titles that are used in Kenpo/Kajukenbo, again, depending on your rank. I usually picture someone with the title of Master, as one being in the arts for a long period of time, ie: upwards of 20+ years. Of course, their skill level should IMO also reflect the title. Their execution of everything should be flawless.
When has someone mastered their art? Thats an interesting question, because usually I hear people say that it takes a lifetime to master an art, which would imply that it'll either never happen or you'll be very old when it does. I suppose one possible answer would be what I said above....when your execution of the material, your understanding of the material is flawless.
Is there a certain age? Well, frankly, I've never been one to see people under say, 16, maybe 15, wearing a black belt. If you use the time standards that I've seen some use, ie: wait the number of years depending on what rank you're going for....1st to 2nd= 2yrs. 2nd to 3rd= 3yrs, etc. then one would imagine that you'd probably be in your late 30s-40s. I just can't picture, with a straight face, a 20 something person, calling themselves Master.

 

[MJS]

To K-man, I consider myself like Bruce Lee, though not him. Is it wrong to admire another for their abilities and insight, and while not mirroring them, attempt to achieve in your own way as they have.

Sure, as long as the person understands that they may never be like their idol.

When I can kick with 100 different kicks per legs without having to drop the leg, and when I get over 8 punches in a second I will consider such things like that.

And what exactly does this prove? Balancing on 1 leg, tossing out a bunch of kicks, well, as I said before, something will begin to suffer, namely power and balance. And if those 8 punches are sloppy taps, well...


Oh, BTW...what does any of this have to do with my OP? Are you saying that when someone can do that, they should be considered a master?

 

[Zenjael]

Sure, as long as the person understands that they may never be like their idol.

Are you like your teacher at all? The martial art heritage, at least concerning the chund do kwan school, is directly descended from bruce lee, even Ip Man. When Bruce Lee altered his style of Wing Chun to improve TKD's high kicks, how do you think Chung Do Kwan gained its punching? Jhoon Rhee incorporated the handwork he learned when practicing with bruce to modify his style, and Bruce Lee did the same. It is arguable Bruce learned how to execute his high kicks from Jhoon Ree, but that is something of such debate I highly advise us not to go into it. I am a supporter of JKD, and my favorite and choice style of TKD is directly descended from Bruce. At some point you guys need to stop assuming I'm being arrogant, and consider the background a tad. I started martial arts because of the power rangers, and ultimately ended up at the school which trained the original red power ranger. But that character was as real, truthfully, as Bruce Lee was, who could not even publicly admit when he lost a defeat after trash talking the MA of sanfran.

I am like Bruce Lee, but I am not Bruce Lee, and I do not have his skill. Let's take the arrogance out of the equation and look at it analytically- he inspired one of the arts I've learned, his philosophy for combat I have learned to apply, I utilize not just kicks, or punches, but both, as he did, and he trained, in part, my master's, master's, master. But it's a lot like Americans claiming royalty... you look hard enough, you'll find a connection between yourself and practically anything. The only relevance Bruce Lee, to me has, is that the things he did which impressed and further martial arts in the United States, are worth learning for that reason. Did he grow martial arts? Yes. Was he good, yes. But lets take some of that myth out of the legend. He's not been dead THAT long.

And what exactly does this prove? Balancing on 1 leg, tossing out a bunch of kicks, well, as I said before, something will begin to suffer, namely power and balance. And if those 8 punches are sloppy taps, well...

There is truth in this. At least for the kicking. But I'm not going to do 100 kicks on one leg in a fight- but it will give me superb balance skills. There is a technique I practiced in Chung Do Kwan which has no defensive or offensive application, but is a technique. One is in a back stance, jumps, tucks their legs, and rotates completely 360 degrees. It won't save your life, but it will teach you how to say jump, and tuck. Not every thing one does, is going to be for direct reasons. I'm not learning how to kick like that because it's cool- I want to learn so I can maximize my flexibility, my balance, and never have to lower my leg unless actually forced to. Because 5/6 times the person im sparring is bigger and taller. Im more flexible and faster, so I do what I can.

Oh, BTW...what does any of this have to do with my OP? Are you saying that when someone can do that, they should be considered a master?

Because in our training it is good to have goals, both short term and long. The goal that during this week's sparring class, if my ridge-hand strike isn't very good, im going to work on it and get it down. I might get hit, but I'm going to focus on improving that technique. It's also good to have goals which just aren't doable- at least from the point of view then. When I conditioned with makiwaras, my goal was to eventually have the strength to strike concrete the same as it. As for punching, you'd be surprised how little the speed actually comes from your physical abilities. It's almost entirely mental, and based upon the technique. Hence why I can do 7 punches in one second; you just need to find what works for you to do the same, if it is something you are interested in.

To me, 100 kicks per legs is unnecessary, and a retardedly high amount. Unnecessarily. But what does that mean for my balance, which will be force to rise to the occasion? When we reach our goals, we must never become complacent, and instead seek to continue adding onto them, improving. To grow is to life, while to die is to never change. Bruce Lee once told a beloved student who complained that their workout might kill him at the rate they were going, and with a short response bruce replied, "Then die."

It shocked the man so much he not only completed their exercises, but did so with a determination borne from anger at what his teacher and friend had said. Later after training and they were showering up, he approached bruce and told him that what bruce had said to him had hurt him. Bruce apologized for hurting his feelings, but explained that theory on life and death. That while we might hit peaks and plateaus, we should never stay there. If our killing kills us, so be it, we gave it all we had. Given Bruce died not from his training but an accidental self-poisoning, the man really lived by that creed. If you can run a mile, start working toward two. There's no one else to beat, and no way to lose. When I compete against myself I find myself both the winner and loser, every time.

Goals are relevant, because when we step through the door, first we want to be like the black belts. Once there, if not already, we hunger to become teachers. And once teachers... well, a true martial artist is no longer hungry. They don't push to gain ranks, their teachers begin to approach them with the idea to advance. I used to think I wanted to be a master, but now I've come to realize that was something I had just made up in my head. It's impossible to be a master, to finish your training completely, ever, which is what many look at masters as being. But it is possible, when asked, to assist others.

 

[MJS]

Are you like your teacher at all?

While there are some things that they do, that I try to emulate, no, I'm not a clone of them.

There is truth in this. At least for the kicking. But I'm not going to do 100 kicks on one leg in a fight- but it will give me superb balance skills. There is a technique I practiced in Chung Do Kwan which has no defensive or offensive application, but is a technique. One is in a back stance, jumps, tucks their legs, and rotates completely 360 degrees. It won't save your life, but it will teach you how to say jump, and tuck. Not every thing one does, is going to be for direct reasons. I'm not learning how to kick like that because it's cool- I want to learn so I can maximize my flexibility, my balance, and never have to lower my leg unless actually forced to. Because 5/6 times the person im sparring is bigger and taller. Im more flexible and faster, so I do what I can.

Sigh...I hate to answer this, because we're getting off topic here. Besides, I've given my thoughts on this, in another thread.

Because in our training it is good to have goals, both short term and long. The goal that during this week's sparring class, if my ridge-hand strike isn't very good, im going to work on it and get it down. I might get hit, but I'm going to focus on improving that technique. It's also good to have goals which just aren't doable- at least from the point of view then. When I conditioned with makiwaras, my goal was to eventually have the strength to strike concrete the same as it. As for punching, you'd be surprised how little the speed actually comes from your physical abilities. It's almost entirely mental, and based upon the technique. Hence why I can do 7 punches in one second; you just need to find what works for you to do the same, if it is something you are interested in.

To me, 100 kicks per legs is unnecessary, and a retardedly high amount. Unnecessarily. But what does that mean for my balance, which will be force to rise to the occasion? When we reach our goals, we must never become complacent, and instead seek to continue adding onto them, improving. To grow is to life, while to die is to never change. Bruce Lee once told a beloved student who complained that their workout might kill him at the rate they were going, and with a short response bruce replied, "Then die."

It shocked the man so much he not only completed their exercises, but did so with a determination borne from anger at what his teacher and friend had said. Later after training and they were showering up, he approached bruce and told him that what bruce had said to him had hurt him. Bruce apologized for hurting his feelings, but explained that theory on life and death. That while we might hit peaks and plateaus, we should never stay there. If our killing kills us, so be it, we gave it all we had. Given Bruce died not from his training but an accidental self-poisoning, the man really lived by that creed. If you can run a mile, start working toward two. There's no one else to beat, and no way to lose. When I compete against myself I find myself both the winner and loser, every time.

Goals are relevant, because when we step through the door, first we want to be like the black belts. Once there, if not already, we hunger to become teachers. And once teachers... well, a true martial artist is no longer hungry. They don't push to gain ranks, their teachers begin to approach them with the idea to advance. I used to think I wanted to be a master, but now I've come to realize that was something I had just made up in my head. It's impossible to be a master, to finish your training completely, ever, which is what many look at masters as being. But it is possible, when asked, to assist others.

So, in your opinion, this is answering the following:

What defines a Master?

When would it be safe to say that one has Mastered an art?

Is there a certain age in which one should call themselves a Master?

 

[tshadowchaser]

who or what is a master to me? That is a good guestion and one that I do not usualy think about. I know one when I see one and I know who is not when I watch them or talk to them.

The people I call a master all have been in the arts a long time. They are humble and pass there knowledge on freely( with one exception he charges for everything). They have gone through the training and know their art, the history of the art, and experenced much in their years of training. Others outside of their art know the person to be knowledgeable and have called them master out of respect to that knowledge and their years of traning. They have students who have students that pass on the knowledge. Not one of them refers to themslef as master (with the exception of the person previously mentioned).
Many of those that I would call master still strive to gain more knowledge of their art and of other arts. They are always learning.
To say exactly what or who is a master is something I can not put into words. All I can say is there are many who deserve the title and many many who do not

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

What defines a Master?

Within the martial arts, one who is both proficient in the full range of the technical material and who is qualified (by whatever standard the individual's seniors and/or org, if any, set forth) to teach that art to students.

When would it be safe to say that one has Mastered an art?

As a whole?

With the caveat that we should always be striving to continue to learn and improve regardless of our level, when they have attained both proficiency in the technical material and have a deep understanding of the non-technical, and can teach others. Mastering the art as a whole is where I see a 'teacher of teachers' sort of level.

Is there a certain age in which one should call themselves a Master?

Whatever age one is when they meet the above requirements along with any requirements that one might have to meet in order to be able to operate their own studio. Or whatever age or over that has been established by any organization that the individual is a member of.

 

[puunui]

Ironically the letters aren't really interchangeable (outside of casual speech) in Kenpo/Kempo. Some lineages have chosen the N, others have chosen the M, one very notable practitioner chose to change the spelling of his line later in his career...and all are mighty particular about which spelling is used.

Irregardless of the way it is spelled in english, kenpo or kempo, it should be pronounced as kempo. Having said that, I have heard kenpo practitioners pronounce it as kenpo.

 

[puunui]

Me: Bruce Lee says that all questions must fall before a student calls himself a master. Another way is when your teacher calls you one, sort of like the saying you are not a man until your father calls you a man.

I liked that a lot, thank you.

I read that Bruce Lee quote a very long time ago in the Tao of Jeet Kune Do, and one of the reasons why I participate in these types of forums is so I can see if I can answer all of the questions. Writing posts forces me to justify my thoughts, philosophy and outlook. It also clarifies my thinking on many issues. I don't want to be the guy who writes "It's like that because my teacher told me that" without looking into it myself.

 

[Zenjael]

While there are some things that they do, that I try to emulate, no, I'm not a clone of them.

This is a good thing. I have always tried to achieve the degree of skill my teachers have had, not to be them.

So, in your opinion, this is answering the following:

What defines a Master?

Someone who has learned every technique in the art, how it is to be applied, to what, and when. They must be able to add new techniques to their system, if it something encouraged, and should be able to transfer what they have learned to do, to another. The definition for master varies; I call few master, though I call many skilled. A standard one teacher I liked particularly employed is that he would only promote someone to 4th dan when they could teach as he could. to put it simply, when he looked at you, he wanted to see the same depth of quality, in you, that he had. And he knew he had it. He is one of the few people I can honestly say not only was skilled at the art, but contributed more to it than it did to him. That's a hard claim, and it's one his own master said to him, trained by Jhoon Rhee.

When would it be safe to say that one has Mastered an art?

Never. The feeling of mastery is one also of complacency. Even at 80 I will consider myself a novice, I just might be less so than those I am working with.

Is there a certain age in which one should call themselves a Master?

No. I do not believe anyone should self-appoint themselves a master. Others might call them so, but even if they fit the definition others might be using, no one should call or refer to themself as a master. The farthest I would go is to consider myself experienced. For me the scale goes initiate->Knowledgeable-Learned/Experienced->Teacher->Master->Grandmaster->Founder of art (if they exist, and are still alive).

I don't think anyone should call themself a master or grandmaster. Titles are lofty things which distract from striking, in my opine. I am happy the people who practice with me call me Alex, and my students instructor borschel, when I do teach. That is all I ask.




I read that Bruce Lee quote a very long time ago in the Tao of Jeet Kune Do, and one of the reasons why I participate in these types of forums is so I can see if I can answer all of the questions. Writing posts forces me to justify my thoughts, philosophy and outlook. It also clarifies my thinking on many issues. I don't want to be the guy who writes "It's like that because my teacher told me that" without looking into it myself.[/QUOTE]

 

[pgsmith]

... and one of the reasons why I participate in these types of forums is so I can see if I can answer all of the questions.

Answering all of the questions is simple. Being able to answer credibly and understandably, that is the hard part.

 

[K-man]

Aikido as O-sensei does it, is actual Aikido, or whatever he wanted to call it (I've read before he changed the name multiple times) yet what he did is much different from even the style his own descendants use. He invented the style, and they ran with it, evolving it. The very fact is became so diverse so quickly gives great evidence of it actually being invented by O-sensei, rather than it originating from a predeveloped art. I've heard it argued it inspired by bagua, and though I agree with the theory, I think it less that aikido came from it, but took the idea of circular movement, and instead of deflecting strikes, used the circular theory to control them instead. In essence, another case where the japanese take something good, and make it a lot better. Sorry if that came off racist.

Alex, I can't let you post such crap with refuting it. Ueshiba did not 'invent' aikido and it did originate from a predeveloped art. It has absolutely nothing to do with Bagua. I don't know where you get these ideas. Look up any reference. Ueshiba was a fully trained exponent of Daito Ryu. He was taught by Takeda Sokaku and received his teaching certificate from him. He modified this style to develop Aikido. The differences in Aikido taught are because different students left to teach at various times and taught the style they had learned. The earlier styles are much harder than those that evolved after the war.

To K-man, I consider myself like Bruce Lee, though not him. Is it wrong to admire another for their abilities and insight, and while not mirroring them, attempt to achieve in your own way as they have. When I can kick with 100 different kicks per legs without having to drop the leg, and when I get over 8 punches in a second I will consider such things like that. But they are merely personal goals. There are certain techniques I employ which Bruce Lee favored, and like it or not, through the Chung Do Kwan school I trained with, I am a descendant in the sense of martial arts from the great figure. But I am not as good as him, and I also think the fact he had image to uphold for the sake of how he lived has caused us to overhype and exagerrate his abilities. They were great, but they were not legendary.

I train Goju karate as developed by Chojun Miyagi. I must say I can't compare myself to him at all. I strive to learn the things he passed down but his knowledge and understanding would have been light years ahead of me.

The fact that you consider yourself like Bruce Lee, in a style that is not even the one you profess to be expert in, is truly amazing.

As for the evidence of shishi bagua, I've got nothing I can produce as a hard copy. When my teacher died he did not even leave me with diagrams. Just a few letters which spoke more about his life, and what he thought about me and our experiences, than what I should do to complete my training as best as able. And I'll be honest, that kind of letter isn't something I care to just post online. So if people think me a fraud, so be it.

The reason there is no hard copy is that as a recognised style it does not exist. There is a 'Shi' style Bagua but no reference anywhere to 'Shishi' Bagua. With regard to this style I'm afraid you're a legend in your own lunchbox.

I have an excellent memory, so I have not forgotten any of the techniques he has taught me. But I am still lacking form, internal mastery, and ultimately insight how to apply the more advanced techniques, and achieve them. In the years since he died, I have gained a fraction in what I would gain in a week with him. Exploring any art, I imagine, is difficult.

So, how many years did you study 'Shishi' Bagua under you late master?

I say I practice shishi bagua because though I hail from TKD and Karate, my teacher to me of Shishi has had a hugely impactful role in my life. It is out of respect for him, his ability, and that he honored me by letting me learn from him that I say I practice his style mainly. Ignoring shishi, I am far more likely to resort to TKD and Krav Maga for self-defense than I will circle walking techniques. But, I am 22, and there is plenty of time to learn given fate is kind to me.

I ask again, how long have you studied KM, what school and under who?

Alex, there is something about you posts I just can't put my finger on. I'm sure it will come to me if I keep reading.

 

[ETinCYQX]

Master here is 5th Dan. Amongst instructors it's generally first name when there's no students around. I go by "Mr." with my students although some of them are 30 years my senior. I don't attach any ego to Taekwondo, I'd go by my first name but my instructor doesn't want me to do that. His school his call, plus he's right in that I do need to expect some respect to keep my class learning, being the friend to everyone doesn't work.

I have not heard "Master" at all in my JMA experiences (Judo) and our three instructors, Shodan and two brown belts, are "Sensei" for the Shodan and first names for the brown belts. One of the Nidan who helps us out a lot refers to the brown belts as Sempai.