Modern "Masters"?

[david welch]

I would have thought, and I will admit I might be wrong, that the very idea of worrying about being a "master" would be ludicrous until we have enough documents transcribed, translated, and interpreted correctly.

How can anybody be a master at this art, when we don't really even understand the scope of the art? I'll be happy if I am wrong about this... I have a lot of questions I would like a solid answer about, instead of just speculation and best guesses.

[Shane Smith]

I would have thought, and I will admit I might be wrong, that the very idea of worrying about being a "master" would be ludicrous until we have enough documents transcribed, translated, and interpreted correctly.

How can anybody be a master at this art, when we don't really even understand the scope of the art?

Agreed. No-one is qualified as a Master of medieval swordplay in our age because with new discoveries seemingly being made everyday that change our way of seeing and understanding these arts, there is no infallible yardstick to measure Mastery against. Absent a through working knowledge of the Art to be mastered as a whole, we are simply not qualifed to be anything other than Scholars and Instructors of our modern interpretations.

Perhaps those who would claim to be "masters" now are content to close their eyes and stop looking for new discoveries? That's the only rationale that would allow for claims of mastery at this time. It's hard to be a Master of anything when you're no less a student than those around you.

We don't know enough right now to say with assured certainty that "this is how they did it". We can only say that based on our research and hands-on freeplay in earnest, our interpretations are martially effective and in accordance with the source-texts. Perhaps one can claim to have mastered their own interpretation, but that would be silly as any thinking man can see...

[Nigel Plum]

I think it depends very much on which definition of master / maestro you choose.

Master of a school, ie owner / cheif instructor. Clearly there are quite a number of these

Master as a qualification, having attained a level of expertese equivalent to a masters degree or a master craftsman. Potentially there are several of these. However agreeing a formula or criteria by which such a person is universlly recognised is just about imposible.

Master, as in one who has has "mastered" the art. I don't believe this to be possible.

For what it's worth, I beleive it's a matter of politeness to call people by what they prefer*. I have no problem with addressing Mo McDonald or Mo Martinez as such. It's no skin off my nose.

*unless they're claiming academic or professional qualifications to which they aren't entitled or it long winded & silly. Anyone asking me to refer to them as "Grand Kleagle" is likely to have it abbreviated to something a little more blunt.

[Jaron Bernstein]

"Master as a qualification, having attained a level of expertese equivalent to a masters degree or a master craftsman. Potentially there are several of these. However agreeing a formula or criteria by which such a person is universlly recognised is just about imposible."

I think the best standard would be in the context of which refer to a Ringeck, an Ott or a Fiore would be the context in which they lived. That was a world where there was society wide practice of these arts in peace and war and they were at the apex of the skill pyramid for that time. Think of it as your very best footballers, as a result of kids all over the UK playing football, joining teams, the country watching the games,......all to produce a fairly small number of really great soccer players. Without the base, you don't get that

[Nigel Plum]

"Master as a qualification, having attained a level of expertese equivalent to a masters degree or a master craftsman. Potentially there are several of these. However agreeing a formula or criteria by which such a person is universlly recognised is just about imposible."

I think the best standard would be in the context of which refer to a Ringeck, an Ott or a Fiore would be the context in which they lived. That was a world where there was society wide practice of these arts in peace and war and they were at the apex of the skill pyramid for that time. Think of it as your very best footballers, as a result of kids all over the UK playing football, joining teams, the country watching the games,......all to produce a fairly small number of really great soccer players. Without the base, you don't get that

Yes but that's difficult to quantify. But I'm not convinced it has to that exacting. In medieval terms, a master was someone, who as part of the guild system (whether it was shoemaking or any other trade) had worked their way up from apprentice through various stages, until they were acknowleged by their fellow guild members, as having reached a level of skill where they could trade indepentantly & train their own apprentices.

Our problem is that we have no established HEMA guilds. And no real way of establishing them, even if such a thing were desirable, which I'm far from convinced that it is.

I think in the C21st we get too wrapped in the idea of inscrutable masters in flowing robes with long beards. It's one of the many reasons that I would never desire the title for myself.

[Robert Kingsley]

Interesting article, with which I fully agree. One thing though:

On the "Expert Consultants" page of the ARMA website it describes Peter Fuller as a Master Armorer and Paul Champaign as a master swordsmith- in the same sentence as he is described as rediscovering techniques.

Seems the word is infectious

[AlexCSmith]

A person, even today, can easily prove their mastery of crafting armor or weapons. All you have to do construct a suit of armor or a sword that can then be compared to surviveing examples of real weapons. Actually aquiring the skills is difficult but the test is easy.

Proving mastery of fighting with those weapons requires fighting with them "for keeps". The fact that this is illegal is only one of the many reason it isn't feasable to do it. There just isn't any way for a modern fighter to satisfy the requirement maintained by the fechtmeisters of old to aquire the title of master. In fact it's unlikely the majority of those who carried the title in those days were truly qualified to do so.

I suppose testing mastery of Kampfringen would be somewhat safer but likely no less illegal(no fighting organization I can think of sanctions the flying shin to the crotch).

[Robert Kingsley]

Ah, gotcha.

[Gianluca Zanini]

Proving mastery of fighting with those weapons requires fighting with them "for keeps".

Since my english cannot help me here, could you please explain what "fighting for keeps" means and where this expression comes from?

thanks

Gianluca Zanini

[Richard Gaskill]

Gianluca;

It means fighting until one of you is dead, or incapacitated. Dead is more likely, but some people are sensitive to such things.

There are many different colloquial expressions in English for such "winner take all" situations. An example would be in the game of marbles where you can play "keepers" or "for keeps" meaning that you don't have to give back the marbles you have won at the end of the game.

I hope this helps.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Right -- like RG explained, usually mortal and deadly, at least serious.

You can think of it like "fighting for (who gets to) keep (his own life)".

[Gianluca Zanini]

Gianluca;

It means fighting until one of you is dead, or incapacitated. Dead is more likely, but some people are sensitive to such things.

There are many different colloquial expressions in English for such "winner take all" situations. An example would be in the game of marbles where you can play "keepers" or "for keeps" meaning that you don't have to give back the marbles you have won at the end of the game.

I hope this helps.

Right -- like RG explained, usually mortal and deadly, at least serious.

You can think of it like "fighting for (who gets to) keep (his own life)".

Yes I see now.
for Keep="conservazione della vita".

thanks

[Ciaran Daly]

Hi guys. I'm new here, and barely beginning in WMA, but not new to martial arts.

I would just like to say that the preoccupation with this title business, and the assumption that one would need to prove things by fighting someone else with a sword in order for it to have any value, seem a bit self-defeating to me. The best teachers I have had in martial arts were not the best fighters.

Upthread I saw the sports and feeder pool analogy. It's a worthwhile one. To extend it: who would you rather have in your corner in a boxing match, Mike Tyson or Freddie Roach? Emmanuel Stewart or Jermayne Taylor? The truly great fighters often have little to teach the vast majority of us precisely because they are truly great.

Now pretending to an expertise you don't have is another matter and a shameful business, and I've seen firsthand the damage that does (and Lord knows I don't want to continue the megathread on the subject). But a preoccupation with bouting or fighting as the ultimate test of your worthiness as a teacher seems to me to be a silly holdover from a more brutal age.

[terry brown]

Hi guys. I'm new here, and barely beginning in WMA, but not new to martial arts.

But a preoccupation with bouting or fighting as the ultimate test of your worthiness as a teacher seems to me to be a silly holdover from a more brutal age.

>
Hi Ciaran,
>
I perfectly understand your logic and reasons for saying the above but fighting, or more accurately bouting was indeed one of the main ways
for students to be ranked in the English system and, I believe in other systems in Europe.
>
To progress through the ranks students had to play a 'prize', during these prizes they had to fight a number of senior students. The inference being that the prizor wasn't expected necessarily to win his bouts, only that he display his understanding of the things he had been taught. This applied all the way up to the highest rank of maister. Of course there were doubtless other criteria that had to be met but it does show that bouting was an important element of advancement.
>
Best wishes,
Terry

[Ciaran Daly]

Hi guys. I'm new here, and barely beginning in WMA, but not new to martial arts.

But a preoccupation with bouting or fighting as the ultimate test of your worthiness as a teacher seems to me to be a silly holdover from a more brutal age.

>
Hi Ciaran,
>
I perfectly understand your logic and reasons for saying the above but fighting, or more accurately bouting was indeed one of the main ways
for students to be ranked in the English system and, I believe in other systems in Europe.
>
To progress through the ranks students had to play a 'prize', during these prizes they had to fight a number of senior students. The inference being that the prizor wasn't expected necessarily to win his bouts, only that he display his understanding of the things he had been taught. This applied all the way up to the highest rank of maister. Of course there were doubtless other criteria that had to be met but it does show that bouting was an important element of advancement.
>
Best wishes,
Terry

Thanks for the clarification Terry. I was aware of the historical focus on bouting, but not that one wasn't necessarily expected to succeed. That makes a lot more sense to me.