Titles In The Arts

[stickarts]

Same here..I met Bill "Superfoot" Wallace at a seminar..I addressed him as Grandmaster Wallace and asked if he would pose for a picture..He corrected me by saying "Please,call me Bill"..That speaks volumes on the kind of man he is..

Superfoot is awesome isn't he!! What a talent and personality!One thing to keep in mind is that meeting someone at a seminar is a different situation than trying to run a school day in and day out with 120 + students!When i do seminars i am pretty relaxed too.Working with students every day requires a bit more organization and structure.I am definately not for trying to force anyone to use titles. It is just kind of an unspoken rule within the school and we certainly never ask anyone to use the titles outside of the school.Superfoots kicks still are amazing!!

 

[Cruentus]

I think that the use of titles can be a slippery slope to a lot of things that inhibit the learning process, among other things, in my opinion. I also think the use of such things are in conflict with the message and goals of my training company.

I have used titles before, and they have been legitimate. I have high enough rank in the martial arts where I fit the criteria of “master” and “Guro” within area schools and affiliates (5th degree black belt in one style, other degrees and certificates in others). I was advised to do some different things to diversify myself when I first founded my training company, so I used “master of defense” for a short while (I think that lasted about a month or 2). Although my “titles” had legitimacy, it did not feel comfortable at all because I was philosophically in conflict over them. I just couldn’t take it seriously.

The reason for my philosophical conflict was because as a training model I believe that everyone who walks in the door has an individual identity, with individual experiences – and each individual law abiding citizen has equal rights to self-defense. Anyone can hurt another or be hurt by another, regardless of skill or rank and title for that matter. True, there are various skill levels when it comes to fighting, but I don’t think that these should be arbitrarily determined by a belt or by a title within a school or community. Without the use of such things, people are then required to take people on their individual merits and skills. If it is a lesson or instruction, you take the instruction on its own merits, not because “grandmaster said…”. Within a school, if one person doesn’t know something, they can learn it from someone who does – and ego’s that would get in the way of this process are left at the door.

The basic idea is that through my company I want to help people better themselves as individuals rather than create an environment where people work towards some sort of collective ideal (black belt, or sensei, or guro, and so on). I want to help people continue to develop their own identities through a quality training process, rather then trying to plug people in to a collective identity; in such environments people tend to base their identities on a martial art style (I’m a Tea Kwon Doist) or club or organization (I’m with the IMAF) or iconic individual (I train with Hongkongphooey, or in “Hongkong Phooey Karate”). If I want people to be themselves, creating a collective environment as is done in the martial arts seems to conflict with my goals and training model. The use of a title is ESPECIALLY in conflict with our model, because it places a person up as an “iconic individual” of which everyone within that training circle is supposed to model after. I want people to recognize my company as a provider of quality training, and I want people to benefit as individuals through our methods. I feel the use of a titles especially could conflict with these goals.

As to how this applies on the training floor, the best example of what I am talking about that people might recognize is the boxing gym or wrestling club model. You might call the coaches or trainers “coach,” but that is as far as it goes. Everyone is then taken on individual merits and skills, and because you put these skills to the test in the ring or on the mat, there is no need to arbitrarily determine these skills through the use of titles and rank. Everyone just trains and gets better while helping each other get better.

Now, even though my training company isn’t geared towards competition, we test our skills every day we train in some type of results based fashion. It becomes a contest of bettering ourselves rather then trying to see who is better then each other. And, ultimately what will matter are our results on the streets or in the field if we ever get into a confrontation and have to use our lifesaving skills. So, in our environment, similar to the boxing gym, there is no need to arbitrarily determine skill level through rank and title. With our particular model those things would get in the way of the developmental process.

Now, that all said, I am describing what works best for me and my company, and what coincides best with our goals and methods. I know that many people are happy with the martial arts rank/title structure, and derive benefits from that structure. I am not going to say that rank and titles are evil and that others shouldn’t have them. I am merely describing why I don’t follow those conventions. Ultimately, people will have to discover what works best for them.

As to how I address others; in the past it was always very confusing to me how to handle this in the martial arts world. When I would have an exchange with someone, I would always expect that people would call me by my 1st name, and if they don’t then I usually ask them too. I often make the mistake of thinking that people have my same values and standards. My mistake in the past was that I would always assume that they thought the same way I did. So, after an exchange when they used my 1st name (as I wanted it) I would then use their 1st name, figuring that we are all adults here. Most people were comfortable with this, however this came back to bite me once when a “prominent instructor” (who was probably feeling insecure about his genitalia that day) decided to hammer me. One of his issues was that “you think your me and so-and-so’s equal and you use such disrespect…” yada, yada. By me having addressed this individual on a 1st name basis, as he did me, I was seen as disrespectful because he is so much “higher” then me, apparently.

Anyway, my point is that the whole thing can be quite silly. I now try to treat these issues as professionally as I can, where the protocol when communicating with someone personally is to call them by formal social titles such as “Mr.” or “Mrs.” This can be very difficult because I am very used to simply using peoples 1st names; but anymore I try not too unless given permission. I don’t deal with people’s titles much anymore (Sensei, Grandmaster, etc.) and I just stick to formal social address. If I know the person, then I of course will tend to call them what they want to be called, whether a formal title or name or whatever.

Well, the issue of “title” can be an interesting and surprisingly touchy subject for many people. This is how I have seen it best to handle these issues at this point.

Paul Janulis

 

[Xue Sheng]

As a bit of a side note on this.

In the North of China the Term Grand Master tends to be more infamous than famous.

If a guy shows up, claims to know all and insists that he is a master and demands the respect he deserves. Or is a major show off in order to impress others. He can be called a Grand Master, and that is not a good thing in Beijing.

 

[beau_safken]

Just a show of respect is in order as those people are giving a part of their lives to help you keep yours.

Guru, or Sir always worked for us. The most respected title of Uncle was used all the time for our founder.

 

[Bigshadow]

We don't use titles (only on the website for prospects). No "Sensei", no "Shihan", no "master", etc. Just Soke or Grandmaster, and he is in Japan.

We might bow in before we get started, but it isn't all the time. We laugh and joke while we train. We show respect to our instructors by trying our best to do what they demonstrate, accepting their positive critism of what we are doing wrong and humbly recognizing any words of encouragement. There are more things, but I cannot think of them now.

No pompous titles here.

 

[Xue Sheng]

And I should have added I tend to call martial arts trachers Sifu.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

The worst is the instructor that insists on being addressed as Sensei/Sir/etc outside the dojo. That's the height of arrogance, IMO.

Not so sure I agree with this one. I gladly, glibly force all of my myriad of students to call me "God" outside the dojo.

Well. OK. So I don't have a dojo, or a gaggle of students at this point. But if I did, then by Me, I'd make them call me God. Not because I'm arrogant, but just because I could.

Rapidly decaying after watching the Japanese Girls video 10 times in a row,

Dave

 

[IcemanSK]

The mention of Bill Wallace got me thinking about titles. There are a lot of great fighters from the 70's & 80's who achieved all of their recognition by simply their names, & no titles. What if, after they retired from fighting, they rose up to the ranks of master, grandmaster, shihan, etc....Would they be allowed to have that respect by the MA public? Could Troy Dorsey, Jean Yves Theriault, or Rick Roufus "get away with" being refered to as Master Dorsey or Shihan Roufus without being called a "sell out" or "too big for himself?"

What do you think?

 

[terryl965]

You know title are nice to have when you are dead, but when you are alive it is nice that people just remember that you are still alive.
Terry

 

[stickarts]

As a bit of a side note on this.

In the North of China the Term Grand Master tends to be more infamous than famous.

If a guy shows up, claims to know all and insists that he is a master and demands the respect he deserves. Or is a major show off in order to impress others. He can be called a Grand Master, and that is not a good thing in Beijing.

That is interesting!

I think the problem lies in calling oneself a master. Mastery is recognized by teachers students and peers. I think trying to convince others that you are a master shows that one isn't a master!

 

[Rich Parsons]

Pretty much every art out there has a formal way to address people. GrandMaster, Master, Professor, Senior Master, Sensei, and Sifu are just a few. Personally, I see nothing wrong with addressing someone like this, during a training session. Its always nice to show some respect to those that have been in the arts for a long period of time.

However, one thing that I've noticed lately, and something that concerns me, is when I see people use those titles as a means of expecting or demanding respect or when people think that just because they have those titles, that it should automatically be assumed that their skill level is above and beyond everyone else.

As I said in the beginning, I have no problem with someone using this title, but personally, what is going to impress me most, moreso than the title, but the skill that they have. Someone could have the title Supreme Ultra GrandMaster Soke, but if they don't understand the material, can't make it work, can't teach it, etc., then what good is the title? IMHO, the only purpose it would serve would be to pad someones ego.

I'm just curious as to what others think about the use of titles.

Mike

If my students insist upon some form of honorfication infront of my name, I tell them to call me Uncle Rich, other wise just Rich will do fine.

On the matts or in someone's school Ihave no problem using the title for their art.

 

[Brandon Fisher]

You can see those who do not understand the title they have. Some titles are just bogus and are nothing but ego trips.
Sensei
Shihan
Renshi
Kyoshi
Hanshi
Those titles are the ones I feel have some meaning.

 

[terryl965]

You can see those who do not understand the title they have. Some titles are just bogus and are nothing but ego trips.
Sensei
Shihan
Renshi
Kyoshi
Hanshi
Those titles are the ones I feel have some meaning.

So Brandon do you feel those TKD practitioners do not deserve there title or do some of them?
Terry

 

[pstarr]

Nothing wrong with "sensei" which means roughly, "one who has gone before." The same is true of "sifu" (although the meaning is a little different). Both terms are simply respectful forms of referring to a teacher.

On the other hand, I have trouble with titles such as Grandmaster - and nowadays we even have "Great Grandmasters" (whatever that is)...and other such rubbish.

One idiot referred to himself as "kancho" which one of my students who resides in Japan found especially funny since "kancho" can mean "enema." :lol: Guess it shows where this guy's head is...

Another teacher refers to himself as "Soke" and pronounces it "soak." He's all wet. :jaws:

 

[Brandon Fisher]

So Brandon do you feel those TKD practitioners do not deserve there title or do some of them?
Terry

Terry,
I do feel there are TKD practioners that deserve their titles. I have seen plenty who do but as someone already pointed out there are some ridiculous titles popping up also.

Just to clarify my point more. The titles great grandmaster, patriarch, grand patriarch, soke and many variations of, and professor have gotten way out of hand I think.

 

[Cruentus]

See...and this is what I mean about titles in general being a slippery slope to a lot of things that could get in the way of learning and productivity.

We end up getting into verifying what is "acceptable" and what is not. And by who's standards?

There is no worldwide governing body, so there is no real standard with this sort of thing - other then personal perceptions and misconceptions of course.

Guro (often pronounced "Guru" ) is a perfectly simple and acceptable title in Filipino arts meaning "teacher," but if I used the term in the tactical community (for example) consisting of mainly americans, they would think of the religious connotions of "guru," and I would be seen as a weirdo or kook if I went by the title.

How about "master"? This is a common term in TKD, yet certain people at my old TKD/boxing/kickboxing school who were biblical literalists were offended by the title because of the bible passage "...there is only one master...". They would not respect the title by anyone who used it, including masters from Korea who legitimately had rights to it.

How about "Grandmaster"? In some cultures, only heirs to styles can use the title. In Filipino and the old European cultures, Grandmaster can be fairly common, as it was customary to open your own school with your own version of the arts with the title if you had something to offer.

The list goes on of example after example.

And who is "deserving" of the title? Now we get into scrutinizing credentials and verifying claims, all things that are very arbritrary because standards and terms will vary per culture, per art, and even per school.

If one has a preconcieved notion regarding such nonsense, one could lose a great learning opportunity (or involve themselves in counterproductive debates) because one doesn't respect the title someone has, maybe thinking "Guro" is cheesy but "sensei" is not. Or thinking that an american is weird because they are called "sifu." Or maybe really taking everything an instructor says as gospel for no other good reason then that they use the term "soke."

It's all a bunch of B.S., really when you think about it. I think it is really important to take people on individual merits, rather then assuming things because of a title someone uses (or doesn't use).

Paul

 

[MJS]

See...and this is what I mean about titles in general being a slippery slope to a lot of things that could get in the way of learning and productivity.

We end up getting into verifying what is "acceptable" and what is not. And by who's standards?

There is no worldwide governing body, so there is no real standard with this sort of thing - other then personal perceptions and misconceptions of course.

Yes, you bring up some great points Paul. Considering every art is going to run differently, getting a title may come at different times. Someone in org. "A" may get a title at 3rd degree black where in org. "B" they'll get it at 5th. It really can be a mess though, considering how some people are.

Like I said earlier and this is just my personal view on it. If someone wants to use it, thats fine, but I want to see their skill match the title. If anything, outside of the school, I'd call the person Mr., Mrs., etc. rather than GrandMaster (insert name). Like I said, I'm more concerned with the things I listed in my earlier posts than a long drawn out title.

Mike

 

[Drac]

Superfoot is awesome isn't he!! What a talent and personality

Yes he is..At a banquet I attended they sat him( Superfoot) at the head table next to Carlson Gracie Jr..As GM Pellegrini was giving the welcome speech there was considerable talking from the end of the table where these 2 were sitting..When GM finally turned around and asked what was going on Carlson said in his broken English "He touching me".."Oh you are SUCH a liar" was Wallace's response..This debate continued on throughout the night...

keep in mind is that meeting someone at a seminar is a different.When i do seminars i am pretty relaxed too

True..I usually address all instructors by the title that appeared on the flyer unless otherwise advised by them.

Superfoots kicks still are amazing!!

Yes they are...

 

[Bigshadow]

As I said in the beginning, I have no problem with someone using this title, but personally, what is going to impress me most, moreso than the title, but the skill that they have.

I agree 100%. Skill and movement speaks for itself. Then at some point, there is more to it than just skill and movment. This is something I have just recently realized. There is also the embodiment of the path. Living the way. The spirit is also refined and honed through training and sometimes this is also recognized along with the skill. Just imagine if it were just skill (techniques and movements only) to get a rank, how perfect can perfect get (not that I am)? There has to be more. There is certainly more that makes a person than just the movements they can make and the techniques they can embody. There is character, spirit, etc that makes the person whole. If only one part of these things continually grow and get better (the physical aspects of the training) and nothing else, then that person becomes very unbalanced.

Just some of my rambling thoughts about rank/title and it's coorelation to skill. Skill is important, but there is more, always more.

These thoughts follow after I was recently being given the next higher rank totally unexpectedly (although I have improved since my last rank, but I didn't think THAT MUCH). When in private conversation with my instructor I expressed that I didn't feel like I had improved skill wise this much since my last rank, he replied "You deserve it, it isn't just about skill improvement (which I have PLENTY to improve on). It is more than that.

 

[Grenadier]

Just because someone has a particular title, does not forbid someone from calling him by a "lesser" title.

For example, if I meet Shihan Jones (fictitious name, just an example), but call him Sensei Jones instead, it shouldn't be offensive, since he's still a sensei to the other sensei; he just happens to be THEIR sensei as well.

If I'm speaking to the founder of a style, and call him "Shihan" instead of "Soke," there should be no offense taken, since the Soke of a style is still a Shihan, in that he's still the teacher of other teachers; he just happens to be THE teacher of the teachers as well.

Now, that being said, I'll try to address others according to titles (Hanshi, Kyoshi, Renshi, etc), even if they're outside the styles in which I have trained, but if someone wants to be addressed by some rather exaggerated title, I'll simply default to either Shihan or Sensei, accordingly.