How was the term "Master" bestowed in RMA?

[Jonathan_Kaplan]

So I was reading an article about traditional martial arts, and apparently, in some older asian styles of martial arts, the term "master" was given to the particular leader of a school only after 40 years of training in the art, and only then by the person's peers.

So... in Renaissance Europe, how was the term "Master" bestowed to the masters of defense? Was it something similar, like the 40 year thing? If so, will ARMA ever (sometime in the future, I guess, after someone has been doing it for 40 years or whatever), ever have the title "master"? Or is that not going to happen? Are there previous discussions about this somewhere that I am missing? Thanks!

[Randall Pleasant]

Not going to happen, all of the masters died over three hundred years ago. A few people have tried to call themselves master but no one takes them serious. As might be expected, these self-proclaimed masters are some of the worst martal artists you'll ever see - that is if you even consider them martial artists.

[CalebChow]

I like how you put "only" after 40 years.

[Jonathan_Kaplan]

I like how you put "only" after 40 years.

Well people ARE living longer these days! Especially if they engage in vigorous athletic activity! And the idea of being called a master is that your peers give you the ranking, no one gives it to themselves. That's why I brought it up, which is totally different from someone giving themselves the title.

I mean, in 40 years... hrm. Let me give an example. *checks* John Clements started studying historic fencing in 1980. If ARMA is around in 2020, would you guys then feel it was appropriate to hold a serious vote on whether or not to call him a Master?

Though that IS a secondary question to... how did original masters get the title?

[CalebChow]

Two criteria for "master" I think (purely speculation):

Either:
1) Other masters call you masters, via lineage of tradition.
2) You prove yourself beyond any doubt that you are a master. This kind of person would be the "master" that authenticates criteria number 1.

The catch about number 2 is that for martial arts in particular, proving yourself requires actual experience.
It doesn't count whether you've studied it for 40 years or whether your peers (who are not masters) think you're awesome; unless you have a proven record of actually using skills in numerous (as in, decades worth) of real situations, we cannot say for sure.

Asian martial arts maintain a lineage to some degree, with the original masters that have proven themselves on the field of battle authenticating other masters. Even if our members in ARMA can kick some of their tails, that doesn't make us a "master."

With our art not having any such lineage, the only way I think an ARMA member or whatever to legitimately attain an official title of "master" would be to have a person basically live exactly as the ancient masters did:

Real combat, real life-death situations, fighting, and winning. For decades.

With sword being militarily obsolete, I don't think we'll ever see any legitimate "master" of your art unless something crazy happens to worldwide society.

[Jonathan_Kaplan]

Two criteria for "master" I think (purely speculation):

Either:
1) Other masters call you masters, via lineage of tradition.
2) You prove yourself beyond any doubt that you are a master. This kind of person would be the "master" that authenticates criteria number 1.

The catch about number 2 is that for martial arts in particular, proving yourself requires actual experience.
It doesn't count whether you've studied it for 40 years or whether your peers (who are not masters) think you're awesome; unless you have a proven record of actually using skills in numerous (as in, decades worth) of real situations, we cannot say for sure.

Asian martial arts maintain a lineage to some degree, with the original masters that have proven themselves on the field of battle authenticating other masters. Even if our members in ARMA can kick some of their tails, that doesn't make us a "master."

With our art not having any such lineage, the only way I think an ARMA member or whatever to legitimately attain an official title of "master" would be to have a person basically live exactly as the ancient masters did:

Real combat, real life-death situations, fighting, and winning. For decades.

With sword being militarily obsolete, I don't think we'll ever see any legitimate "master" of your art unless something crazy happens to worldwide society.

Well there are people that do real life and death situations for decades... it just tends to be with knives or guns, mostly. Hmm. Should we have some term that identifies "X number of years of vigorous study" when the potential number of years starts to get up there?

[Mark Driggs]

The problem I have noticed people have in understanding the term Master is that they are conflating two separate titles. Part of that stems from the overlapping usage in so many professions over so many countries: magister, meister, maitre, maestro, etc... Some people think that their narrow and incomplete tradition automatically translates to unrelated systems. Or that practicing theory ad infinitem justifies mastery.

It is really presumptuous to assume the title Master when the best practitioners out there are barely even at a Provost level yet. Maybe 2020 would be a good time to revisit the subject.

[Randall Pleasant]

... John Clements started studying historic fencing in 1980. If ARMA is around in 2020, would you guys then feel it was appropriate to hold a serious vote on whether or not to call him a Master?

I don't speak for John Clements but as someone who has known him for almost 10 years I think I can safely say that John has too much honor and self-respect to ever use that title.
John simply calls himself a student of the arts.

[Stacy Clifford]

I don't recall where the information is posted offhand, but the fighting guilds had specific tests for mastery in much the same way that trade guilds required a tradesman to produce a "masterpiece" to earn the title of master of his trade. The only general information I can give is that the masters of the nearby region would gather to test a student who had progressed through the ranks of Scholar, Provost, or whatever the local ranking structure was, and was considered ready to test for his Master rank. A significant part of the test involved fighting something like at least ten of the masters present and demonstrating prowess with a wide range of weaponry. In short it was specifically a test of skill, not a rank conferred by seniority. Of course I'm sure there was politicking and favoritism going on in fechtschule circles as much as anywhere else and probably some honorary ranks for battlefield service and such, but in general there were rules governing the ranking system.

At some point down the road when ARMA has at least several Provosts, we may at some point be able to choose to confer the rank of Master on John Clements with a reasonable degree of authority (though never the degree of men who truly fought and killed), but he and we are both a long way from that point yet.

[Gene Tausk]

So I was reading an article about traditional martial arts, and apparently, in some older asian styles of martial arts, the term "master" was given to the particular leader of a school only after 40 years of training in the art, and only then by the person's peers.

So... in Renaissance Europe, how was the term "Master" bestowed to the masters of defense? Was it something similar, like the 40 year thing? If so, will ARMA ever (sometime in the future, I guess, after someone has been doing it for 40 years or whatever), ever have the title "master"? Or is that not going to happen? Are there previous discussions about this somewhere that I am missing? Thanks!

The word "master" has many connotations in the English language which make it inappropriate for use with RMA. The only people who bestow this title upon themselves are generally people with rampaging egos who have no life and no skills. Such individuals either claim that "master" means "teacher" (which it did hundreds of years ago IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS but the language has changed and thus the argument is completely bogus. I often wonder if these same people would use other antiquated words in their vocabulary which have changed meanings over the years, such as "jerk" "niggardly" and "f***ker" with such abandon. If so, there are a couple of biker bars I know in which they can go and speak with these words in casual conversation. Unfortunately, these same individuals will be unlikely to leave said bar in the condition in which they entered if they use these words on individuals in such bar) or they claim that in languages such as Spanish, "maestro" means "teacher" and therefore "master" means teacher. The first argument, as stated, is completely misleading. The second argument also makes no sense. If "maestro" means "teacher," then call yourself a "teacher" unless you are conducting your classes entirely in Spanish. Don't pick and choose your vocabulary.

The people I know who really know their stuff in martial arts and fighting don't have egos. They prove themselves by getting out there and kicking ass. It is often the ones that refuse to fight to prove themselves that insist on being called "master." The most advanced Japanese martial arts instructors I ever met only asked to be called "Sensei" (Japanese for "teacher"), not any kind of honorific.

The older I get, the more I find that those who insist on being called "master" or some other type of flowery title are the ones that least deserve it. The people I watch out for are the ones that introduce themselves with their full names and ask to be called by their first names. When I have to fight people like this, I am always on my guard.

[Jonathan_Kaplan]

Okay, here's a related question: How many people in ARMA are Law Enforcement Officers or members of the military, where it might be somewhat reasonable that they might have to use some kind of hand to hand skills in earnest? And if that is the case, if they ever do so, would that change the language and titles that could be used with regards to them?

[Sal Bertucci]

I'm going to chime in here and say probably not. While active service in these areas will get persons accustomed to life/death situations only a very small part of the training would include skill sets used in RMA. They might therefore have the ability to be great at Ringen or Dagger work, but those are just a small part of RMA and the ARMA curricula in specific.

In short while certain profesions outside of ARMA may help one be a successful martial artist I don't believe that it would be appropriate to change "in-house" ranks for "outside performance".

Just my 2 cents. Let me know if I should clarify.

[CalebChow]

“It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles."
-Machiavelli

[Phil Valot]

I believe the title "Master" is first given to an individual in the minds of others and then discussed within a small group once the skill rises to such a level that it becomes hard to deny the fact that this individual has mastered their art. Then an opportunity will be given for this individual to officially prove what has already been proven.

[Steven Ott]

I still on occasion compete in wrestling. Some of the tournaments have a "Master Class" which is a nice way of saying old. (By the way almost there) Styles that have a master tend to be closed systems. With a tradition or code that limits the techniques in that system, and often these techniques are compiled by an individual that calls himself the founder. Since no modern man can claim foundation of any of old arts or draw direct lineage to them, master is not a term that should be used. What Arma does is almost a kind of archeology. It is also interesting to me that boxing and wrestling, probably the two most prominent western arts never bother with the term.