The ARMA and everyone else.

[Shane Smith]

Macdonald,

Please re-register with your real full name per forum rules. Thanks

[Randall Pleasant]

Dear All,
Randall Pleasant -

The fellow above says - "To the best of my knowledge, the author of the article is not respected very much within ARMA"

This may be true, but know also that ARMA is not HEMA.

Paul

Why did you make such an assumption? HEMA (well a sub-set) is the subject of study for ARMA and a number of other orgainizations, thus it is not possible for an organization to be HEMA (in the same way a biologist can never be "biology" ). In any case I take what you were trying to say is that many other people who study HEMA, including yourself, do respect the author of that article. Well all I can say is "good for you and good for them". May it bring you much enjoyment and fulfillment.

By the way, I am very open to the concept of a living tradition for rapier and longsword. Of course, that openest requires clear and verifiable proof.

[Craig Peters]

Paul,

Why do you title yourself as a "master"? What proficiency have you demonstrated with a particular weapon to give yourself this title? Who examined you, and what are their qualifiactions. Moreover, when did they demonstrate their ability to fight well?

Whatever else can be said about the issue, the spurious use of titles like "Maestro" is one thing which distinguishes ARMA from some of the other groups out there.

[s_taillebois]

Gentry,
M. Martinez's essay seems to be somewhat miswended, and perhaps an attack of sorts on organizations such as ARMA. No doubt there is an intent to imply his system (whatever it may be, that was somewhat vague amongst all the declarations) is the one people need to train with exclusively. Well, if he choses to portray himself as the secret bearer of lost martial traditions, that's his right. Or good marketing...
What specific fencing style he's advocating seems a bit hard to discern.
There are however some very vexing historical references;
1. Concerning the Conquistadors, perhaps not the most capable swordsmen in Spain. But most of these men were veterans of the wars for the Reconquista, and so had literally risen from a culture which had been immersed in war and the attendent arts. Whether they were landed nobles or from the Spanish tradition of landless cavaliers. They wouldn't have survived the Reconquista battles without being competent in the arts of the sword, and related weapons. Nor when up agaisnt such as the Aztecs.
2. About the concept that European culture has always been fascinated by Asian martial arts. Basically no. During the Baroque, and well after, the European cultures kept to their own martial traditions, simply because they were effective. The fascination with Asian martial arts is largely a cultural side effect of the 20th century world wars and mass media. Especially in regards to Japan.
3. About the concept of not learning fencing from a book, perhaps. But in the Rennaissance, once these books began to be mass printed, the fencing arts were made accessible to new classes of people. And during the late Baroque like manuals were necessary due to the early developmental stage of national armies. Not everyone who served in these armies, or in the hue and cry militias of the era, was a noble, trained from youth by a hench/marshal or such, in the edged weapons arts. Captain Coq's company would be a good example, these men were town Burghers and traders.
4. He was correct insofar as some of the nobility did not spend all that much time at war. However, even of they never went to battle, the art of the sword was an expected token of class...and as heirarchy obsessed as the late medieval/Renn/Baroque tended to be...this was a aspect of their status they would not have ignored. And they didn't, some of these men retired to monastaries , and not having taken full vows, still practiced the sword arts.

Perhaps the most useable element to his essay is where he expresses some concern about those who might bust up training partners , or brag about various injuries. But I'm not sure about why he brought this up, as very few reasonable fencers/martial students would do so anyway. Enough miswended things can happen when capable people are training/sparring without the added factor of idiocy. And perhaps he didn't mention this because the whole concept of bragging about ones injuries is immodest; because the essay on the whole is scarcely written in a voice betokening overall modesty.

[Mike Cartier]

Have you read all of Bruce Lees works? Were you not aware that he based some of his system according to fencing actions and terminology after studying and taking lessons in...European Fencing?

yes read them all and studied Bruce Lees art for many years and studied under Inosanto. I would guess i have read everything written by Bruce Lee. He didn't take much from fencing beyond the footwork and some understanding of timing. However if Bruce were to have dissected sport fencing like he did the Eastern arts of his day he would have been screeching the perills of the classical mess.

Mr. Cartier says -
"If there is a living lineage would be no need for HEMA would there?"

Or would there?

So if Mr Martinez has secret living lineage of the German school then he has done us all a striking disservice by keeping it secret as we all labour away at the manuals and he has a living lineage to instruct us from.

Again, this bloody myth that Maestro Martinez "disparages sparring/freeplay"

I beleive he wrote a whole article on the subject didn't he?

Have you ever had the balls to face this man?

Thats kind of borderline bad behaviour on this forum Mr Mcdonald, lets not get snippy here. Noone has forced Mr martinez to call himself a Maestro or to make a claim of having a secert German living lineage. I would expect anyone in the HEMA community to question such a claim quite extensivly.

As one who claims to be "trained in a living lineage of JKD through the Inosanto system", are you aware that both Maestro Martinez and Dan Inosanto have in the past directly traded lessons and expertise from each other?

A simple fact laid before you. Take what you will from it.

Its a claim i can easily prove which is precicly what we are requiring of Mr Martinez and his claims. I have met Guro Inosanto on at least 5 occassions at seminars and so forth. He is not only possibly the most knowledgeable man in martial arts but also the nicest guy in martial arts.
Thats what he does is learn from people, lets not make too much of that though. This does not mean that Bruce Lee recognizes Mr Martinez's Maestro lineage, in fact Bruce Lee detested the use of the word master in the world of martial arts.

[JeffGentry]

Gentry,
M. Martinez's essay seems to be somewhat miswended, and perhaps an attack of sorts on organizations such as ARMA. No doubt there is an intent to imply his system (whatever it may be, that was somewhat vague amongst all the declarations) is the one people need to train with exclusively. Well, if he choses to portray himself as the secret bearer of lost martial traditions, that's his right. Or good marketing...
What specific fencing style he's advocating seems a bit hard to discern.
There are however some very vexing historical references;
1. Concerning the Conquistadors, perhaps not the most capable swordsmen in Spain. But most of these men were veterans of the wars for the Reconquista, and so had literally risen from a culture which had been immersed in war and the attendent arts. Whether they were landed nobles or from the Spanish tradition of landless cavaliers. They wouldn't have survived the Reconquista battles without being competent in the arts of the sword, and related weapons. Nor when up agaisnt such as the Aztecs.
2. About the concept that European culture has always been fascinated by Asian martial arts. Basically no. During the Baroque, and well after, the European cultures kept to their own martial traditions, simply because they were effective. The fascination with Asian martial arts is largely a cultural side effect of the 20th century world wars and mass media. Especially in regards to Japan.
3. About the concept of not learning fencing from a book, perhaps. But in the Rennaissance, once these books began to be mass printed, the fencing arts were made accessible to new classes of people. And during the late Baroque like manuals were necessary due to the early developmental stage of national armies. Not everyone who served in these armies, or in the hue and cry militias of the era, was a noble, trained from youth by a hench/marshal or such, in the edged weapons arts. Captain Coq's company would be a good example, these men were town Burghers and traders.
4. He was correct insofar as some of the nobility did not spend all that much time at war. However, even of they never went to battle, the art of the sword was an expected token of class...and as heirarchy obsessed as the late medieval/Renn/Baroque tended to be...this was a aspect of their status they would not have ignored. And they didn't, some of these men retired to monastaries , and not having taken full vows, still practiced the sword arts.

Perhaps the most useable element to his essay is where he expresses some concern about those who might bust up training partners , or brag about various injuries. But I'm not sure about why he brought this up, as very few reasonable fencers/martial students would do so anyway. Enough miswended things can happen when capable people are training/sparring without the added factor of idiocy. And perhaps he didn't mention this because the whole concept of bragging about ones injuries is immodest; because the essay on the whole is scarcely written in a voice betokening overall modesty.

Holy cow

how did my name get in this?

I have made no post before this one, not saying i agree with the article(I do not, I think Martinez need's to lay the glass pipe aside).


Jeff

[Paul Macdonald]

Mr. Anderson,

I do concede that you had not in fact stated there were "no" living lineages etc.

This was simply an oversight on your particular meaning from my side to which I freely admit.

Regarding your point about re-creating longsword and such weapons, I believe that most of the HEMA World today is engaged in doing so from treatise sources, but the fact remains that the principles of the Art of Defence have never left us and are still the subject of study, practice and didactical dissemination by fencing masters today.

Mr. Pleasant,

I was of course referring to the rest of the World engaged in study and practice of HEMA.
Much of that have in fact met with Maestro Martinez and at least followed classes before judging the man, thus they tend to hold more accurate opinions and knowledge about himself and his abilities as a professional fencing master.

Mr. Peters,

I do not "title myself" but do hold such qualification. That is Master-at-Arms, or Maestro, which is an accurate and granted title indicative of my chosen profession in Life - Teacher.
This is not proudly paraded or flaunted. You may note that I sign simply with my name.

As for my proficiency in teaching or ability, if you doubt it, test it.

A man may be measured and known not by his claims or titles, but by his proficiency and abilities. A wise man knows this of any other before judging him.

I do hold a title but make no claims, and can only leave it to others to pass judgement on my professional proficiency and abilities either knowingly or unknowingly.

If you are interested enough to form an educated opinion of my teaching and martial abilities, you are welcome to meet with me in Edinburgh at my Academy or at any workshops I may be teaching.


Mr. Cartier,

My words and tone are not intended to be "snippy", but simply open and direct.

I seek not to cause offence but simply question what I believe to be uneducated guesses and ill-judged opinions about a fencing master I personally know and respect and also I now find myself pressed to defend and clarify my own professional credentials and reputation.

You have claimed that No-one has forced Mr. Martinez to call himself a Maestro. The same may be said of myself.

That is because such title and professional qualifications have been personally granted and awarded after years of study, research and practice for a Lifetime of service and dedication towards the Art.
In short, that title is Earned.

I have long imagined (vainly perhaps) that most of the historical fencing "community" might at least appreciate the simplicity of what the title of fencing master actually means.
Teacher.

We teach. The Art.

No mystification here, no secrets held, no esoteric rituals, no hidden motives, no commercial concerns. For a fencing master, as for any serious students, the Art is enough.

To those who have addressed concern as to my full name being shown on the forums, this has not been any attempt to "mask my identity" in any way, but simply following the fact that I sign my name as Macdonald and by this single name am I usually addressed and known.
If this small matter is enough to cause further concern and distress on this forum, I shall be happy to ammend it.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

[s_taillebois]

M. Gentry. 'Gentry' in this case was meant in a general sense for all those posting on this topic. Not a specific reference to your name, however if it offended apologies for such...

Will have to come up with another equivalent...brethren perhaps.

On other matters, strange that a certain aspect of secondary machismo has intruded into the conversation. The issue of whether or not one has the anatomy (of a type not particularly relevent in this particular situation) to confront M. Martinez , seems a bit strange. Perhaps that's where the trouble arises when the status of 'master' is implied. Exalted status often brings on over reactions that may not be warranted.
Anyway, one of the aspects historically expected from learning the art of the sword, was restraint in conduct. "Learn the art that dignifies you" by Liechtenauer, for example, carries more than one meaning.

[Shane Smith]

To those who have addressed concern as to my full name being shown on the forums, this has not been any attempt to "mask my identity" in any way, but simply following the fact that I sign my name as Macdonald and by this single name am I usually addressed and known.
If this small matter is enough to cause further concern and distress on this forum, I shall be happy to ammend it.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

As requested by me once already, please refrain from posting again until it is ammended per forum rules which are clearly stated here;
http://www.thearma.org/forum/index.htm

Any further post will be deleted if our commonly held rules are not abided by.

Beyond that on the topic of the thread; I will only say that I teach and demonstrate RMA/HEMA and have done so for remuneration.Even though my skills are dimished of late through injury, I'm still more efficient/effective than most people I cross swords with by a goodly margin. That makes me a professional and competent Swordsman I suppose, but to me, to claim to be a Master of ancient methods based on that is pretentious.

Now if I were a master of sport fencing and made no claims beyond that, that would be fair and just perhaps. As it is, I am a papered Instructor in AMA but I seldom mention it because it is not relevant to my pursuit of early Historical European methods. In the same way, it seems sport fencing and the like and any Title held therein is likewise of no bearing to the study of the early methods such as longsword and the like.

Those are my sincere and non-malicious thoughts on the matter. Best regards.

[Matt Bryant]

If you don't mind my curiosity Mr. MacDonald: who entitled you master, and in what specific type of fencing? Also, I believe there is a distinction between Teacher and Master. A Teacher teaches the subject, a Master has mastered the subject. I am qualified to teach neophytes, but I am not called a Master.

[Shane Smith]

As a note to all. Keep the debate scholarly, factual and on-topic. Gratuitous attacks and baseless charges from any side of this or any other debate will not not tolerated by me on a holiday weekend

[Matthew_Anderson]

Macdonald:

"Regarding your point about re-creating longsword and such weapons, I believe that most of the HEMA World today is engaged in doing so from treatise sources, but the fact remains that the principles of the Art of Defence have never left us and are still the subject of study, practice and didactical dissemination by fencing masters today".

Yes, but that's a far cry from what you seemed to be implying in your earlier post. Perhaps I misunderstood, but you seemed to be saying that in fact the older weapons were still being taught by classical fencing masters from a long lineage of masters and students until very recently and possibly still. Of course, we are all re-constructing these arts, as all those who once had real-life, self defense experience with them and taught and used them in earnest have died out. There is still some faint glimmer of the principles, techniques, and applications taught by the old masters in modern fencing, but not much. The methods, purpose, rules, weapons, and so forth have all changed too much through the centuries. And certainly, it's not necessary to have learned classical or sport fencing first in order to interpret and learn the older systems and weapons. Nor is a "lineage" really that important as these lineages have changed and adapted over the years evolving into something very different from what we see in manuscripts from the 16th c and earlier. Again, I stand ready to be proven wrong if you can point me in the direction of any evidence to the contrary.

And really, you need to re-register with your full name, this rule is strictly adhered to here with no exceptions.

[Sam Nankivell]

I think it is important to point out that the idea that many of us have about Martinez hating sparring/freeplay is quite incorrect. I have read the article, and it is not against the idea of freeplay, it is against the use of the Asian martial arts term "sparring" being used in the context of Western martial arts.

Hope this clears some things up about this myth.

Also, the link posted that led to a Swordforum discussion where Martinez himself replied showed Mr. Martinez to be quite honest and knowledgeable about what he does. He specifically says that what he knows in terms of old weaponry is just a collection of techniques taught to him by previous masters, they are not a complete system. He then goes on to say the the only living, direct lineage he knows is that of classical fencing to from the late 18th century onwards. He freely admits that he is trying to reconstruct the Spanish "Destraza" system of fencing, going on to point out how he knows a living tradition (Classical Fencing) and is knowledgeable of some reconstructions (to the point of being able to instruct in them, but not being legitimate enough to be called a master). I think that anyone who has any questions about Martinez's knowledge should consult the last page of this discussion: http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=3375&highlight=martinez

As for his opinions of how much batter Classical systems are than Renaissance and Medieval systems and thrust over cut, I am not sure. However, he seems to be quite an honest and clear-thinking person.

I think that we should try and end all of these divisions and personal vendettas within the community. These sorts of divisions are quite common within the Asian martial arts communities (due to the nationalism associated with some of the arts), but we don't have many reasons to insult each other beyond technique and sources. I understand that there are some organizations who have problems with ARMA, as does ARMA have problems with some organizations. But we should honestly try and mend these divisions and present a united community rather than continue badmouthing each other. There are greater problems we have to face, like the ignorance of the general public and the contempt of other Martial arts communities, than each other.

I might be a relatively new novice in this community, but I think that there are many vendettas from the early days that this organization --and other ones-- have to take another look at.

Please excuse me if this seems rather naieve.

[Matthew_Anderson]

Sam,

Yes it would be very nice I suppose if we could all have one big philosophical group hug, but it's not very likely. Most scholars in this subject are very passionate about what they believe, how they train, etc. and there are many different opinions out there. I myself have nothing personal against anyone in the "WMA community" but I will not compromise my core beliefs on the subject or agree with something I think is crap simply to get along or make friends. If I think you are wrong, I'll tell you so. If you convince me that I'm wrong, I'll acknowledge it, learn from it, and move on. The debate and disagreements are often how we learn and increase our knowledge.

[JeremyDillon]

First of all I'd like to echo Mr. Nankivell's sentiment on avoiding divisions in our little community. I'd also like to thank Mr. Macdonald for coming onto the forums and giving us the other side of this argument. Mr. Macdonald, the basic problem here seems to be accreditation. Now I'm not disparaging your skills in any way, I have, in fact, no evidence either way except for the obvious facts that you have the commitment to teach HEMA professionally, and the fact that you seem to be knowledgeable on the subject, and I think with that knowledge I can reasonably conclude that you aren't just full of poo and have some legitimate skill at arms. This, however, is FAR from the point. I understand that you believe that the term Maestro is simply synonymous with "teacher", but there is a real problem with this interpretation. The mere fact that you have to EXPLAIN that you are not claiming some kind of ultimate mastery of a reconstructed art should be indication enough that the term, whatever it's literal translation, takes on a different meaning in this case. In modern English, we rarely use the term "master" to mean a teacher, it is most often applied to "a person eminently skilled in something, as an occupation, art, or science" (dictionary.com). Now, you may feel perfectly justified in using this term, and you may very well feel that you have "earned" it, but believing that one has earned a PhD in anthropology doesn't mean that you can automatically refer to yourself as "Doctor". As I stated earlier, the problem here is accreditation and, since there is no central organization to the HEMA community, I'm afraid that many of us will have a hard time accepting the title "Maestro" since it appears to simply be "up for grabs" in that absolutely anyone could choose to use it. Again, these comments are not meant in any way to disparage your own skills, they simply are not the issue here.