Modern "Masters"?

[Jeffrey Hull]

Here is a new editorial by John Clements

Modern "Masters"?
http://www.thearma.org/essays/ModernMasterMyth.htm

It is a concise & edifying refutation of claims to "mastery" of Medieval & Renaissance fighting skills by some modern individuals.

Enjoy

[david welch]

Fiore Dei Liberi Pisani Dossi manuscript:

that I the aforementioned Fiore have seen thousands that call themselves master that they are not of all four good scholars and of those four good scholars not one would be a good master

I've also read it translated as this, but I don't know how accurate it is:

that I the aforementioned Fiore have seen thousands that call themselves master that if all put together would only make four good scholars, and those four scholars would not make one good master.

[David Kite]

I think probably the most well thought-out and pertinent passage was this:

In the Renaissance, being a "fencing master," that is, a teacher of the Noble Science of Defence, meant more than acquiring an instructional rank. It was also more than founding or continuing a school by adding new material to an existing tradition because you had acquired the practice of a fighting system. The historical sources tell us titles were awarded for fighting—for demonstrating you could fight, not talk, not theorize, not pose and dance, not even just teach, but fight. If you could prove you knew your stuff and could hold your own against, or even best, your seniors then you obviously knew what you were doing, and knowing it you could pass it along to others you trained. The whole point was to display that your prowess in these survival skills was functionaly suited to real self-defense.

IMO, this really drives home the essay, as well as illustrates the huge gap between our ancestors and many practitioners today.

David Kite
GFS, ARMA in IN

[s_taillebois]

As is the norm for M. Clement's essays, well thought out, phrased and presented with modesty.


And just perhaps, it'll finally let the "Arma and everybody else" thread die a long overdue and dignified death.

[Scott A. Richardson]

I agree with the present state of affairs in our field in that there can be no real masters yet due to the unique limitations of our studies. Yet, shouldn't we perhaps consider making this a goal for the future? After all, a combat art in which there are no masters and states there can never be masters seems somehow to lack veracity or legitamacy. Certainly there are indivuals -- Mr. Clements among them -- who have attained the skill of master in everything but title. Perhaps there should be some guild-like system, similar to the system by which Renaissance craftsmen presented themselves for rating and evaluation, to eventually attain the mark of master.

I suggest this with all due respect and awareness that at this time those who claim to be "masters" of EMA have simply awared themselves that title, but I strongly believe this should be something to be considered for the future. We struggle to legitamize ourselves as a combat art and have the same level of respect as practioners of AMAs, yet in this regard I fear we have hamstrung ourselves to ever being considered as equal worth.

Just a suggestion.

[Jeffrey Hull]

I think that you have a good point.

There would still be the problem that most likely, neither any future "master" of the resurrected arts of European fencing, nor any of his students, shall be likely to have occasion to ever have their fighting skills tested and confirmed in armed combat to the death with spears, swords, daggers via dueling or warfare.

The reasons for the unlikelihood of all that in the future hardly needs elaboration (modern warfare with everything from gunpowder to atomic weaponry; dueling is now illegal in most all the World, especially the Euro-American areas; etc.).

However, we could still test achievement at martial arts, including at our beloved Kunst des Fechtens, by prize-playing and so forth. I think that would be more reasonable than the hokey mutual-reciprocation, the self-serving declaration, the cross-disciplinary equivocation / conflation of titles of "mastery" that too many hucksters, liars and phonies so annoyingly insist to be legitimate in these our modern times.

The subject is interesting to think about.

[Scott A. Richardson]

Jeffery, you raise an excellent point regarding the lack of real-life combat experience using these techniques, as Mr. Clements does in his article. This is, clearly, an issue in our field of combat arts, one with no real solution (unless one wants to travel through Southeast Asia where laws regarding personal combat are less strict and challenge various masters to duels. A good plot for a book, perhaps, but impractical at best in reality!)

But on the other hand, surely few of the modern recognized masters of Asian martial arts have actually used their skills in drop-down, knock-out fights in which their were no rules. These guys have worked hard, studied under masters, and been tested to achieve their rank. Now of course the argument can be made that, tracing the teaching back far enough, a master actually did use these techniques in combat and that is passed on to the student, but that's a little different from a modern master who has used his skills to save his own neck.

At any rate, I believe some mechanism should be devised that allows the self-taught student to struggle their way to a rank of master. Those of you who have been doing this for years and can defend themselves blindfolded deserve that recognition, and the art deserves to be represented by those who can truly claim to be masters.

[Paul Macdonald]

Dear All,

Following Mr. Clement`s article and the praise given its content by various group members, I am now somewhat confused by the sudden ideas that appear to rail completely against the articles main argument.

It suggests that "It immensely foolish for anyone now to claim to be "master" of historical teachings." and that "Time has severed the links."

Why then does this same group now consider that not only a WMA Masters programme is achievable, but that practicing martial artists today might possibly ever achieve the supposed near-legendary calibre required to claim such title?

I ask this quite openly, as it appears as these suggestions are in clear contradiction to the strong opinions of the essay, and both emanating from ideas within the same group.

I would also like to add something to the point about students having a "lack of real-life combat experience using these techniques."
Unfortunately, several of my students have in the past found themselves in undesirable live situations, facing sharp weapons where they have had no choice but to defend themselves and overcome their opponents.

I am glad for them to say that in each case they applied their martial training effectively enough to do so in life threatening situations.

Masters never trained their students historically to go out there and find fights so that they could test their abilities. The application of your skills with sharps against another was an absolute last resort. If you found yourself in an undesirable situation and had no choice, then you used what you were taught.
Whatever your opinions on masters, the unfortunate testing ground of live encounter still exists today.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

[Scott A. Richardson]

Contradiction is the very essense of democracy. Even an excellent idea needs to be examined from different angles and opposing views considered. Should the minority opinion fail to prove convinving -- as my opinion may be -- then the idea as proposed stands all the stronger.

Please understand I say this with all due respect both to yourself and to the orginal ideas espoused by Mr. Clements. I merely wanted to propose an alternative view for consideration.

[Will Adamson]

Contradiction is the very essense of democracy.

No it isn't.

[Gianluca Zanini]

Here is a new editorial by John Clements

Modern "Masters"?
http://www.thearma.org/essays/ModernMasterMyth.htm

It is a concise & edifying refutation of claims to "mastery" of Medieval & Renaissance fighting skills by some modern individuals.

Enjoy

Hello Jeffrey,

I found this article enough interesting to make a translation as to share it with the italian speaking people.
In my opinion it is a himn to the seriousness and a good service to the WMA community.
Therefore I post it here, just in case someone likes to share it in somewhere.

E' un evidente dato storico che oggi non esiste nessun "Maestro", ne è mai esisitito per diversi secoli, delle arti da combattimento medioevali e rinascimentali.

Nemmeno esiste ad oggi nessuna tradizione o lignaggio per trasmissione diretta di alcuna scuola di autenticche arti da combattimento medioevali o rinascimentali.

Questo tipo di insegnamenti marziali o competenze schermistiche si sono ristrette e specializzate durante i secoli, evolvendosi per soddisfare le specifiche esigenze in un contesto militare e di conservazione della vita. Come risultato, la sapienza e l'esperienza relativa a metodi e armamenti più antichi è scemata, atrfizzandosi, ed è stata di conseguenza abbandonata.

Nessun settore della scherma moderna europea custodisce o preserva alcun curriculum di Scherma Medioevale o Rinascimentale e non rappresenta, ne tantomeno può pretendere, alcuna autorità su questa ricerca. Lo stile moderno della scherma( con fioretto, spada, sciabola e bastone) ha rinunciato secoli fa all'istruzione e alla pratica degli aspetti determinanti e cruciali del comattimento in gioco stretto medioevale e rinascimentale: lotta, maneggi a due mani, uso di armi doppie, armi in asta, daga, l'uso di scudi e armature, combattimento contro avversari multipli, prese e disarmi, etc.

La conoscenza di queste abilità è rimasta al di fuori degli insegnamenti della scherma moderna e i loro docenti non sono ne gli eredi ne i depositari di questi costumi ormai scomparsi. L'attualità di questi fatti fu già riconosciuta da rispettabili schermidori durante la metà dell'800. Nessuno oggi in virtù di alcun titolo o credenziali in nessuno stile della spada moderna- dai maestri d'arme di scherma classica o olimpica fino a quelli di scherma teatrale-ha ottenuto una genuina competenza e abilità nel combattimento medioevale e rinascimentale o una relativa perizia tecniche.

Tantomeno sono qualificati in questa area di specializzazione a conferire e attribuire competenze al di fuori delle loro occupazioni basate sulla pratica sportiva e dimostrativa.

Nessuno ai nostri giorni è stato addestrato nell'Art da nessun Maestro di Scrimia del passato, o nemmeno da quelli che erano indirettamente addestrati da uno di loro. Essi non sono più esistiti per secoli. Il tempo ha tagliato ogni collegamento.

Nessuno di loro oggi non ha neanche l'esperienza personale per combattere ardentemente per la propria vita contro chi cerca di ucciderli con armi medioevali o rinascimentali, figuriamoci adoperare questi arcaici ammaestramenti con autentica violenza. Qualsiasi rivendicazione di trasmissione diretta "ininterrotta" o di una genuina tradizione sono irrilevanti se al momento nessuna efficacia nel combattimento si può dimostrare venir acquisita come un "risultato diretto" di alcuni insegnamenti veicolati attraverso qualche custodita educazione all' addestramento. (E' anche meno rilevante quando altri lavorando direttamente dalla ricostruzione dell'insegnamento dalle fonti, possono prontamente dimostrare applicazioni più competenti, figuriamoci paragonare interpretazioni marziali più concrete rispetto a chi asserisce senza prove privilegi in qualche conoscenza speciale

Esiste un totale assenza di qualsiasi tradizione trasmessa, o lignaggio di insegnamenti ininterrotti, o autorità storiche accreditate della pratica dell'autentiche arti marziali rinascimentali. Questa verità riconosciuta è stata ritenuta indiscussa dagli storici da generazioni. Questo fatto è la vera ragione per cui l'Arte doveva essere ricostruita e risuscitata attraverso lo studio delle fonti letterarie in prima istanza. La situazione odierna, combinata con la disponibilità oggi di materiale sugli studi storici, è anche la ragione di come oggi è virtualmente così facile per chiunque studiare l'argomento e asserire qualche "competenza", o anche rivendicare, in maniera imbarazzante, di essere un "maestro" di queste arti da combattimento estinte. Uno parte dello studio ed esplorazione seri di questi diversi sistemi di combattimento del periodo medioevo-rinascimentale, consiste proprio nell'educare gli appassionati alla realtà di questo stato di cose.

Essere un "maestro di scherma" nel rinascimento, cioè un docente della Nobile Arte dello Schermo, significava molto più dell'acquisizione di gradi tecnici. Era anche molto di più del semplice fondare e continuare una scuola incorporando nuovo materiale ad una tradizione già esistente solo perchè che qualcuno aveva acquisito la pratica di un sistema di combattimento. Le fonti storiche ci raccontano che i titoli venivano conferiti per il combattimento, dimostrare che si sapeva combattere, non chiacchere, teorie, ne pose e ne balletti, e nemmeno solo insegnare, ma combattere. Se potevi provare che tu conoscevi le tue cose a che eri a livello ti tutti gli altri, o anche il migliore, contro i tuoi più avanzati allora tu sapevi ovviamente cosa stavi facendo, e sapendolo potevi trasmetterlo a quelli che stavi addestrando.

L'elemento determinante era dimostrare che la capacità acquisita in queste abilità da sopravvivenza era funzionale ed adatta ad una reale difesa personale. Sebbene esistessero certamente scuole migliori di altre, era difficile immaginare che nel Rinascimento fosse conferito a qualcuno che il grado di "Maestro" che non era in qualche misura un "Combattente magistrale" (i due titoli non sono sempre sinonimi al giorno d'oggi nelle moderne scuole di arti marziali famose, sebbene il titolo in sè sembrerebbe implicarlo ed è accettato che altri lo deducano prontamente).



Così possiamo chiederci chi oggi è qualificato per dichiarare qualcuno "maestro" dell'Arte? Come si dimostra la "maestria" di abilità se nessuno ai nostri giorni interessato allo studio può convenire su ciò che constituisce l'abilità in prima istanza? Questa è una questione che vale la pena di essere ponderata se noi siamo per evitare quel travisamento che limita questo argomento di acquisire la sua dovuta credibilità e legittimità, o anche permettere di migliorare i suoi standard di pratica.

E' immensamente stupido per chiunque dichiarare oggi di essere un "maestro" di insegnamenti storici "che anche i migliori exploratori oggi stanno ancora lottando per ricostruire e ri-apprendere". Considerando l'odierna immaturità dell'argomento sulla pratica della scherma medioevale e rinascimentale, ogni appassionato dovrebbe essere molto più preoccupato di essere considerato un buon studioso dell'arte piuttosto che chiamare se stesso "maestro" di quella.

Non vale la pena chiamarsi Maestro di Schermo, se non si può difendersi con tutte le armi...
e chi non si sa difendere non può insegnare ad altri a difendere loro stessi, e nemmeno degno di essere chiamato Maestro di Schermo.

Swetnam 1617




regards

Gianluca

[Jeffrey Hull]

Following Mr. Clement`s article and the praise given its content by various group members, I am now somewhat confused by the sudden ideas that appear to rail completely against the articles main argument.

It suggests that "It immensely foolish for anyone now to claim to be "master" of historical teachings." and that "Time has severed the links."

Why then does this same group now consider that not only a WMA Masters programme is achievable, but that practicing martial artists today might possibly ever achieve the supposed near-legendary calibre required to claim such title?

I for one never, ever said any such thing, and you know it. You are trying conflation here. To quote my previous statement, which you should read more carefully:

However, we could still test achievement at martial arts, including at our beloved Kunst des Fechtens, by prize-playing and so forth. I think that would be more reasonable than the hokey mutual-reciprocation, the self-serving declaration, the cross-disciplinary equivocation / conflation of titles of "mastery" that too many hucksters, liars and phonies so annoyingly insist to be legitimate in these our modern times.

Prize-playing to determine achievment and ability, which ARMA indeed does to determine senior scholars, is not the same as deciding -- in these our modern times without the storm and strife of war and duel with swords to ever truly test anybody mortally -- who deserves to be called a "master".

[Jeffrey Hull]

I found this article enough interesting to make a translation as to share it with the italian speaking people.
In my opinion it is a himn to the seriousness and a good service to the WMA community.
Therefore I post it here, just in case someone likes to share it in somewhere.

E' un evidente dato storico che oggi non esiste nessun "Maestro", ne è mai esisitito per diversi secoli, delle arti da combattimento medioevali e rinascimentali...etc.

Gianluca

That was nice of you to put the time and energy into doing the translation.

[Jaron Bernstein]

"I would also like to add something to the point about students having a "lack of real-life combat experience using these techniques."
"Unfortunately, several of my students have in the past found themselves in undesirable live situations, facing sharp weapons where they have had no choice but to defend themselves and overcome their opponents.

I am glad for them to say that in each case they applied their martial training effectively enough to do so in life threatening situations.

Masters never trained their students historically to go out there and find fights so that they could test their abilities. The application of your skills with sharps against another was an absolute last resort. If you found yourself in an undesirable situation and had no choice, then you used what you were taught.
Whatever your opinions on masters, the unfortunate testing ground of live encounter still exists today."

Good post. I would first state that the historical masters did indeed prepare their students to go out and seek fights in the context of military or feudal service. Also, a number of the masters had used their arts in battle. I believe Fiore references having fought 5 duels

Secondly, the environment that produced what I would consider to be a master skill level of these arts is in our world analagous to soccer (or football if your prefer ) and computer programming. We have many footballers and computer programmers of great skill because they exist in a world where those arts are in wide currency. Thus you have a vast feeder pool to produce a David Beckham or a Pele. Without that feeder pool, you might get footballers, but not at that level. The "feeder pool" that existed to produce a Ringeck, Fiore or Meyer has long dried up. You do have some historical fencers (why else are we here?) today, but not masters of historical fencing.

This bears on the unfortunate live encounters your students have had. They did indeed emerge safely, which says that the HF skills, luck, the situation, their training and natural attributes all conspired in some combination to help them emerge unscathed. Live encounters exist today, but it takes more than just that to pruduce a master, even it does yield a fighter able to defend themselves today. It takes a social/cultural framework in addition.

In current martial arts usage I would point to something like maybe "master" level in those specific arts among the very top levels today in MMA, Judo or Muay Thai. I say this because for every Chuck Liddel, Jigoro Kano or the grand champion of the Lumphini Stadium, you have thousands of people who watch, support and train in those arts. If your pond is small (as WMA is), your fish aren't going to be of "master" size, even if they do swim and have gills.

[Michael Eging]

"I would also like to add something to the point about students having a "lack of real-life combat experience using these techniques."
"Unfortunately, several of my students have in the past found themselves in undesirable live situations, facing sharp weapons where they have had no choice but to defend themselves and overcome their opponents.

I am glad for them to say that in each case they applied their martial training effectively enough to do so in life threatening situations.

Masters never trained their students historically to go out there and find fights so that they could test their abilities. The application of your skills with sharps against another was an absolute last resort. If you found yourself in an undesirable situation and had no choice, then you used what you were taught.
Whatever your opinions on masters, the unfortunate testing ground of live encounter still exists today."

Good post. I would first state that the historical masters did indeed prepare their students to go out and seek fights in the context of military or feudal service. Also, a number of the masters had used their arts in battle. I believe Fiore references having fought 5 duels

Secondly, the environment that produced what I would consider to be a master skill level of these arts is in our world analagous to soccer (or football if your prefer ) and computer programming. We have many footballers and computer programmers of great skill because they exist in a world where those arts are in wide currency. Thus you have a vast feeder pool to produce a David Beckham or a Pele. Without that feeder pool, you might get footballers, but not at that level. The "feeder pool" that existed to produce a Ringeck, Fiore or Meyer has long dried up. You do have some historical fencers (why else are we here?) today, but not masters of historical fencing.

This bears on the unfortunate live encounters your students have had. They did indeed emerge safely, which says that the HF skills, luck, the situation, their training and natural attributes all conspired in some combination to help them emerge unscathed. Live encounters exist today, but it takes more than just that to pruduce a master, even it does yield a fighter able to defend themselves today. It takes a social/cultural framework in addition.

In current martial arts usage I would point to something like maybe "master" level in those specific arts among the very top levels today in MMA, Judo or Muay Thai. I say this because for every Chuck Liddel, Jigoro Kano or the grand champion of the Lumphini Stadium, you have thousands of people who watch, support and train in those arts. If your pond is small (as WMA is), your fish aren't going to be of "master" size, even if they do swim and have gills.

To pick up on Jaron's point, Fiore notes that he was sought out for the very purpose of teaching the martial art to be used in conflict. Whether war, judicial combat, etc., Fiore noted that there was an expectation that the martial art would be used in conflict. He also noted, as did Mr. MacDonald, that his students were all pleased that they had been taught. The regions in Northern Italy and Germany where Fiore and other masters taught were indeed "feeder pools" of those who had martial/other conflict experience and Fiore notes he sought them out to learn from them.

Jaron makes a good point that for every Fiore, there were likely hundreds or thousands with experience with the weapons who influenced what the masters passed on to us. I think that at best, we can become proficient with our "recreation" of the Renaissance Martial Arts, but to be a master at the level of the historical masters (in both knowledge and applied ability) is very unlikely.

Again, for what it is worth, just my two cents...