What makes a Master?

[skribs158 179]

I could've sworn there was a recent discussion on this topic, but the most recent version of this thread I could find was back in 2006. That thread is old enough to be an adult today. I thought I'd revive this question for current members.

What makes a Master? More specifically: what makes a good one? (Or Professor, Sensei, Sifu, Level 5 Wizard Extraordinaire, whatever it is in your art).

I know the simple answer is based on being Black Belt, or 4th or 5th degree and/or completing some class. But what does it really mean? What is it that separates the honorary title from the normal coach or instructor? What is it that separates a good honored teacher from a mediocre or a bad one?

I may or may not have an essay due in the intermediate future that's prompting this question.

 

[Kung Fu Wang159 190]

What makes a Master?

Someone can

- fight.
- teach his/her students how to fight.

These requirements eliminate those who:

- can fight, but doesn't know how to teach.
- knows how to teach but is not a fighter himself/herself.

 

[HighKick]

I could've sworn there was a recent discussion on this topic, but the most recent version of this thread I could find was back in 2006. That thread is old enough to be an adult today. I thought I'd revive this question for current members.

What makes a Master? More specifically: what makes a good one? (Or Professor, Sensei, Sifu, Level 5 Wizard Extraordinaire, whatever it is in your art).

I know the simple answer is based on being Black Belt, or 4th or 5th degree and/or completing some class. But what does it really mean? What is it that separates the honorary title from the normal coach or instructor? What is it that separates a good honored teacher from a mediocre or a bad one?

I may or may not have an essay due in the intermediate future that's prompting this question.

For me, it is someone who has a deep, deep knowledge in a specific field AND enough real-world, hands-on experience to apply this knowledge in a tangible way. It is a plus if they can effectively teach their knowledge to someone else.
Not all masters teach.

Yes, I believe this takes decades for nearly everyone.

 

[mograph]

One might want to define a master in a discipline by that individual's attitude and behaviour towards the discipline under discussion.
To me, it doesn't matter how much they know, or what they've done, but how they think and act (or thought and acted if they're very old, or deceased) towards their discipline.

I would say that they show or have shown:

• character
• an ability to teach
• respect for competitors and students
• expertise

The first three are necessary, but not sufficient.
The last quality is probably what separates a master from a good teacher: degree of expertise.

Is there a hard barrier in terms of expertise? Once you get "here," you're now a master?
As we know, ask a master, and they wouldn't say they're a master, rather that their teacher was a master.

So I'd be careful to avoid saying that there's any such thing as an objective level called "master."
Rather, that one approaches mastery of that art. If they fit the categories above, they are approaching mastery.

But sure, in some cases, we can use the word as shorthand, as in "Yo-Yo Ma is a master of the cello."
I just don't think that we need to use the title "Master" as much as we do.

That's my opinion, of course.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Someone can

- fight.
- teach his/her students how to fight.

These requirements eliminate those who:

- can fight, but doesn't know how to teach.
- knows how to teach but is not a fighter himself/herself.

I like the description, but I place those qualifications as a good instructor/teacher. In our organization that is 3rd dan.

As I understand it, a master is a teacher of teachers, so IMHO, it is slightly more nuanced in both fighting skills and teaching skills, with arguably more emphasis on the latter. I think this is what Mograph was getting at as well; expertise, experience, etc.

 

[windwalker099159 8]

But what does it really mean?

What makes a master.

An individual who has attained a high level of skill and knowledge in their field, formally acknowledged as such by their peers.
A master chef is recognized by other master chefs, not just food enthusiasts.

 

[Sammy Naur]

Master is one of those titles that can mean something real, or total nonsense. In martial arts there really are more fake masters than real ones imho.

To keepit real, it takes about 12,000 hours of training to become a master electrician, not including time "in belt" as a journeyman. This usually takes at least 7 years or more.
Even then, from a layman point of view, most people would consider even a skilled journeyman to be a master in the literal sense. Master electricians are typically supervisors, business owners, large scale project overseers, etc.

As a core grappling and boxing guy, doing Asian arts like Judo...there's typically no use of the term at all, unless the subject is very old and had it a long time.

I think the trouble with the term today especially in martial arts, is anyone can call themselves one, or grandmaster which is even worse. And then get a lot of people to nod and agree.

This is why I prefer titles like "coach" or "instructor". Master is a little creepy.

 

[Buka32 1]

Masters come in all sorts of greatness.

 

[Buka32 1]

I didn’t mean do derail the thread with humor.

I believe a Master of the arts should be as well versed and knowledgeable as any in his art. Obviously. And as has been said here a Master should be able to teach other high ranking people in his art.

I’ve also noticed the Masters I’ve been around tend to have a certain gravitas to them. They also have a great amount of patience. They set an example.

 

[isshinryuronin49 49]

A master thoroughly knows his art inside and out - knows and understands all its components, be able to arrange them, deconstruct them and re-assemble them in a multitude of incarnations. He executes technique and projects gravitas without effort.

Well, that reduces the number of so-called "masters" by 90%. As it should be. True masters are few and far between. They will never obtain perfection. But they are atop the mountain where it can be seen lurking on the distant horizon.

 

[Kung Fu Wang159 190]

A master thoroughly knows his art inside and out ...

There are 2 different kind of masters, someone who can do

1. everything good.
2. at least 1 thing better than everybody else on this planet.

Which master do you want to learn from? IMO,

- 1 doesn't exist because our lifetime is too short to master everything. A Taiji master may not know how to do a "flying side kick".
- 2 is what we all want to learn from. So, when you want to learn from a master, what's his "door guarding skill" that you want to learn from him?

 

[windwalker099159 8]

When I have met those I felt where true masters.

a true master helps the student discover the master within.
They guide, not to impose their own image, but to awaken the student’s potential.

Like a potter shaping clay, they reveal what is already there, helping the student realize their true form through practice, patience, and understanding. The master provides the tools, but it is the student’s journey to uncover their own mastery.

 

[skribs158 179]

I didn’t mean do derail the thread with humor.

I believe a Master of the arts should be as well versed and knowledgeable as any in his art. Obviously. And as has been said here a Master should be able to teach other high ranking people in his art.

I’ve also noticed the Masters I’ve been around tend to have a certain gravitas to them. They also have a great amount of patience. They set an example.

Patience is such an underrated trait.

 

[Kung Fu Wang159 190]

Master is someone he always turns his back on you so you will never see his face.

When someone says, "I'm the only person in this universe who can hold the moon and pick up the stars." You know he is the master.

 

[Haruhiko]

I could've sworn there was a recent discussion on this topic, but the most recent version of this thread I could find was back in 2006. That thread is old enough to be an adult today. I thought I'd revive this question for current members.

What makes a Master? More specifically: what makes a good one? (Or Professor, Sensei, Sifu, Level 5 Wizard Extraordinaire, whatever it is in your art).

I know the simple answer is based on being Black Belt, or 4th or 5th degree and/or completing some class. But what does it really mean? What is it that separates the honorary title from the normal coach or instructor? What is it that separates a good honored teacher from a mediocre or a bad one?

I may or may not have an essay due in the intermediate future that's prompting this question.

Now this is in my wheelhouse!

1. Bloom’s Mastery Learning

Bloom, B.S. (1968) ‘Learning for mastery’, Evaluation Comment, 1(2), pp. 1-12.

Bloom, B.S. (1984) ‘The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring’, Educational Researcher, 13(6), pp. 4-16.

2. Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

3. Bruner’s Scaffolding Theory

Bruner, J.S. (1966) Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

4. Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition

Dreyfus, H.L. and Dreyfus, S.E. (1980) ‘A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in directed skill acquisition’, Operations Research Center Report No. ORC 80-2. University of California, Berkeley.

5. Schön’s Reflective Practitioner

Schön, D.A. (1983) The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

6. Mezirow’s Transformative Learning Theory

Mezirow, J. (1991) Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

7. Collins et al. on Cognitive Apprenticeship

Collins, A., Brown, J.S. and Holum, A. (1991) ‘Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible’, American Educator, 15(3), pp. 6-11.

8. Ericsson’s Deliberate Practice and Mastery

Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T. and Tesch-Römer, C. (1993) ‘The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance’, Psychological Review, 100(3), pp. 363-406.

For metanalyses, look up either Patrick Griffin or Hattie (can't remember which) - the publications use scale efficacy to measure a number of things that are most impactful on a learner.

For mastery, Bloom would be most appropriate. Mastery essentially means to know all, adapt all, transform all, and have the aforementioned qualities recognised.

Any good Master (capitalised) will admit that they've mastered nothing. It's just a title.

 

[Hyoho]

I could've sworn there was a recent discussion on this topic, but the most recent version of this thread I could find was back in 2006. That thread is old enough to be an adult today. I thought I'd revive this question for current members.

What makes a Master? More specifically: what makes a good one? (Or Professor, Sensei, Sifu, Level 5 Wizard Extraordinaire, whatever it is in your art).

I know the simple answer is based on being Black Belt, or 4th or 5th degree and/or completing some class. But what does it really mean? What is it that separates the honorary title from the normal coach or instructor? What is it that separates a good honored teacher from a mediocre or a bad one?

I may or may not have an essay due in the intermediate future that's prompting this question.

Well to answer as someone who actually holds that honorific? Nothing it's just a title. You will spend all your life trying to master something but will never actually attain that level. As a 12th generation head the very words written on my certification state: "You have worked very hard and your progress is outstanding in the art of the XXXXXXX school. We herewith present certification. To be continued with more practice and achieve a higher level.

 

[Haruhiko]

Well to answer as someone who actually holds that honorific? Nothing it's just a title. You will spend all your life trying to master something but will never actually attain that level. As a 12th generation head the very words written on my certification state: "You have worked very hard and your progress is outstanding in the art of the XXXXXXX school. We herewith present certification. To be continued with more practice and achieve a higher level.

You show up at just the right times, Hyoho.

@skribs - Hyoho is correct about the title. Much like the title in education, having a Masters doesn't and shouldn't indicate any level of complete attainment.

For maths geeks, where M = mastery, it could be formulated as:

 

[drop bear]

I always thought it was the head of a style.

 

[Hyoho]

I always thought it was the head of a style.

Yes and more to point you have to train/teach someone to take over from you hoping you have handed on all the knowledge and attitudes you have. And to my regret I have seen schools where there is no one that is qualified enough to take over. So someone become head by default.

 

[Badhabits]

So what does everyone think about people with relatively little time in an art or who are of a relatively young age, but are considered masters by their peers. Reading and researching karate, youll find examples of this from "the olden days". Arikaki died in his twenties- Funakoshi considered him a master. Youll also find examples of so and so was a master of X art, that person then trained B art under so and so and after four years mastered that art.......