The ARMA and everyone else.

[Ken McKenzie]

At the risk of being a little inflamatory, I feel people are geting a little too worked up about the use of the word master. I can see that this is an issue that is close to the hearts of many people here and I am probably going to be treading on a lot of toes with my thoughts but here goes:

The title of master has been used by many over the years with no ill effect. Think Talhoffer, Liechtenauer or Ott these men all used this now controversial title back in the day without bringing their arts into disrepute, so clearly there is nothing intrinsicaly wrong with the word master (or it's many variations) or it's application to certain people. It's just a word after all and words are given their power by people.

A master is just a person who is at the top level in their art whatever that may be. I'm sure some of you are disagreeing with me at this point and thinking that a master needs to be a person who has mastered every facet of their art, but if you ask any good master in any field and they will tell you thay are still learning. Even men we happily call masters like those mentioned above were only human and I'm sure their learning was a continuing process lasting a lifetime.

The problem seems to be us martial artists arguing about who is a master and who isn't and, sadly, this is a problem we are contributing to here. This is not a recent problem caused by the ongoing attempts to reconstruct historical arts, much of the writing of George Silver is similar 'you have no right to call yourself a master' stuff (and wouldn't his book be more useful if he spent more time talking tehnique and less time cautioning against italian masters of offence?). Other groups (tradsemen spring to mind) seem to be able to get along okay using this title. Have you ever seen this kind of childish argumet between carpenters, jewlers or chefs? Are they just more mature than us perhaps?

Now, to my mind at least, it is not the gratuitous and unnecesary use of such titles that bring our art into disrepute but rather this type of squabling over something so small. If you had a university degree and someone else claimed to have the same degree (but really didn't) would it offend you that much? Or would you just write them off as pathetic?

If we spent less time in petty arguments and more time in productive discussion how much more could we achieve?

[Aaron Pynenberg]

You are missing the point Ken. It is bringing confusion and skeptiscim into this effort. We have enough problems as a whole, trying to correct many years of bad publicity and pathetic displays of martial concepts.

We can not afford, nor should we be willing to put up with this kind of thing anymore...if people want to make a buck or two by calling themselves "masters" then that should just be OK with us? No sorry you are in the wrong place for that kind of acceptance.

[Francisco Uribe]

If you had a university degree and someone else claimed to have the same degree (but really didn't) would it offend you that much? Or would you just write them off as pathetic?

As one that toiled, sweated and bleed over my degrees, I would be offended.
And would also consider the guy pathetic.

If we spent less time in petty arguments and more time in productive discussion how much more could we achieve?

When a person wants to self delude themselves that is his problem, but when they try to delude others (including myself) it becomes a general problem.

I do not think there are petty arguments here.
Whoever claims the title of masters at arms has to prove it, given the extraordinary measure of such claim. Especially those who say that thay can trace a lineage.
I wish it would be so simple but is not the same as carpentry or painting or music. And even those guys can tell you under who they studied and will show you certifications if needed.

What troubles me about this maestro stuf, is why do these people fight to get our approval and aknowledgment?
Why don't they stop all this nonsense (that only damages their own reputations) by showing undenaible proof?
It should be easy enough, dont you think, Ken?

Fco.

[Jake_Norwood]

Hi Ken.

I can't say for carpenters, but jewlers and chefs definitely do this sort of thing (I've got both in the family...). Let's not even get into publishers, game designers, belly dancers, yoga teachers, and motorcycle racers...

If we use your definition,

A master is just a person who is at the top level in their art whatever that may be.

then we see that the problem is just that. Who is at the top level in this art, and who is qualified to say that another is? Honestly, we're still debating the meaning and application of fundamental movements and techniques...I don't think anyone can master something that they haven't even nailed down yet, you know?

I think that there is too much hubub over this, but a lot of it is because of the "meaning" of "master" in martial arts circles when compared to other fields. My wife is a "master" of Psychology, my father of engineering, and my mother of physical therapy. No big deal, right?

But say "master" and "sword" or "kung fu" or anything of the sort and you conjur a different image--not an accredited teacher, but something with even more authority than a "master" of the arts or sciences.

So it may be a damn shame, but until "master" of martial arts means the same thing as "master" of international relations, complete with its own recognized system of more-or-less valid accreditation, I don't think that it's healthy for our budding, infant community to go running around claiming "mastery" of something that we're of intermediate skill and understanding of, at best.

I would love to know the details of Mr. Macdonald's accreditation. Namely: (1) when it was received, (2) who provided it, (3) what requirements were met to obtain it. Until Mr. McDonald sets the record straight, what I'm led to believe is: (1) recently (2) IMAF and (3) not a whole lot. I would very much like to be told otherwise, really. I also think that this is all that Francisco is asking for, though I may be wrong.

There are no masters of this art yet. Collegiate style fencing? Sure. Boxing? Sure. Wrestling? Yup. Kendo? Yeah. Welsh Shin-Kicking? Absolutely. Historical European Swordsmanship? Hell no. Not rapier, not longsword, not "the Art."

The very best of us, honestly, just suck less than the rest of us. Because compared to the men who called themselves masters in Talhoffer's day (including the crappy ones), I'm willing to bet that we don't hold up.

Likewise, if we want to follow the English system (on which our own is based), you'd need seven years as a Free Scholar and seven as a Provost before playing for Master. Does anyone here have over 14 years of study in the art as we now understand it? Not a one, since the art as we now understand it hasn't existed for more than seven, maybe (and that's pushing it). What if some university started up a Masters In Swordsmanship program? Well, I'd be a skeptic, I confess, but at least you'd have a sexy little document saying that you were a Master of Swordsmanship. Or the Art. Or whatever.

Mr. Macdonald, I'm not attacking you here. But I am saying that I see very little in the way of legitimate accrediation. Sure, we all have to start somewhere, even bodies of accreditation, but until that body and its accreditation are widely recognized it doesn't mean much, really. Will such a thing exist eventually? Maybe. Probably in our lifetimes. But I want to know how "Through the Roses" really works before then, not to mention what the definitive difference is between a sturzhau and a schiller. All we've got right now is theories, and that's not enough, in my opinion, to build a mastery on quite yet.

V/R,

Jake

[Nathan Dexter]

This is one of those situations where there are 3 kinds of people: those who hate semantics, those who love them, and those who recognize when they are needed and when they are not. This is a situation where we need to care about semantics. (I wont go into detail because everything I wouldhave said before already has, and I don't think I want to retype all of that )

[Lorraine Munoa]

I think that there is too much hubub over this, but a lot of it is because of the "meaning" of "master" in martial arts circles when compared to other fields. My wife is a "master" of Psychology, my father of engineering, and my mother of physical therapy. No big deal, right?

But say "master" and "sword" or "kung fu" or anything of the sort and you conjur a different image--not an accredited teacher, but something with even more authority than a "master" of the arts or sciences.

So it may be a damn shame, but until "master" of martial arts means the same thing as "master" of international relations, complete with its own recognized system of more-or-less valid accreditation, I don't think that it's healthy for our budding, infant community to go running around claiming "mastery" of something that we're of intermediate skill and understanding of, at best.

I would love to know the details of Mr. Macdonald's accreditation. Namely: (1) when it was received, (2) who provided it, (3) what requirements were met to obtain it. Until Mr. McDonald sets the record straight, what I'm led to believe is: (1) recently (2) IMAF and (3) not a whole lot. I would very much like to be told otherwise, really. I also think that this is all that Francisco is asking for, though I may be wrong.

There are no masters of this art yet. Collegiate style fencing? Sure. Boxing? Sure. Wrestling? Yup. Kendo? Yeah. Welsh Shin-Kicking? Absolutely. Historical European Swordsmanship? Hell no. Not rapier, not longsword, not "the Art."

The very best of us, honestly, just suck less than the rest of us. Because compared to the men who called themselves masters in Talhoffer's day (including the crappy ones), I'm willing to bet that we don't hold up.

Likewise, if we want to follow the English system (on which our own is based), you'd need seven years as a Free Scholar and seven as a Provost before playing for Master. Does anyone here have over 14 years of study in the art as we now understand it? Not a one, since the art as we now understand it hasn't existed for more than seven, maybe (and that's pushing it). What if some university started up a Masters In Swordsmanship program? Well, I'd be a skeptic, I confess, but at least you'd have a sexy little document saying that you were a Master of Swordsmanship. Or the Art. Or whatever.

Mr. Macdonald, I'm not attacking you here. But I am saying that I see very little in the way of legitimate accrediation. Sure, we all have to start somewhere, even bodies of accreditation, but until that body and its accreditation are widely recognized it doesn't mean much, really. Will such a thing exist eventually? Maybe. Probably in our lifetimes. But I want to know how "Through the Roses" really works before then, not to mention what the definitive difference is between a sturzhau and a schiller. All we've got right now is theories, and that's not enough, in my opinion, to build a mastery on quite yet.

V/R,

Jake

As a forum lurker I've been reading this thread, watching some very heated words get exchanged and the edges of tempers getting frayed on all sides.
At the ever present risk of being pounced with sharp retaliations, I have the irrepressable urge to throw in my two cents. Furthermore, from this point on I will abandon the Professional Collegiate Dialect and speak plainly.

I agree with Jake.
I think the problem here is obvious. "Master" means different things to different peer groups. Mr. Macdonald is, as far as I can see by at least his obvious passion for the subject, considered a legitimate Master of what it is he does. That's wonderful, for them and him. I have great respect for anybody who works hard enough to be accomplished at anything worth doing.
Take that rank and hard earned title anywhere else and of course people will question it. Unlike a college degree, which is (relatively) standardized in achievement and proficiency levels, the word "master" has had so many requirements attached to it.
A Master of one way, style or school may not be a Master of another, or even if he or she is they may not be seen as one because of problems defining the pesky little word.

The other problem we've got here is that there are cultural differences. I don't just mean This Side and That Side of the Pond, I mean in one way of thinking and another. The Germans were very frank and blunt in what writing I've read. Americans tend to be the same way. We have this attitude of Put Up or Shut Up that is entrenched firmly in ARMA's ideals.
We do that because for us, it works. We do need to be careful to be polite and professional. We are not very good at that.

We're trying to ask that people who want to hold their works up to compare notes with ours or anyone else's please submit to good old fashioned trial by combat, the way it's been done for ages: By the action is the word verified, or in other words, Prove it and there will be no room for doubt.

[Ken McKenzie]

It just seems to me that us saying that you can't call yourself a master unless you have a lineage going back to the fifteenth century will encourage some to folk to fraudulently do just that. After all who doesn't want to be a master? We call modern reproduction weapons by their historical names because they are the words that best describe them in spite of the fact that they are not identical to histoical originals. Why not apply the same rule to modern reprodution practitioners?

[Shane Smith]

It just seems to me that us saying that you can't call yourself a master unless you have a lineage going back to the fifteenth century will encourage some to folk to fraudulently do just that. After all who doesn't want to be a master? We call modern reproduction weapons by their historical names because they are the words that best describe them in spite of the fact that they are not identical to histoical originals. Why not apply the same rule to modern reprodution practitioners?

We most-properly call modern reproduction swords "reproductions" and the decent ones are made off of direct measurements taken from originals that still exist to be touched and seen-they are tangible, objective items...and the repro's still fall short in handling and feel in most cases. Find me a Master of medieval and renaissance fencing still in existance that we can interact directly with and pattern directly from and I'll concede your argument.

Also, if denying recognition and sanction to a man who claims a title he is not worthy of just makes him want to use that title more, isnt that rather more indicative of a problem he has within himself as opposed to one inherent in those who call him on his falsity?

[Jake_Norwood]

It just seems to me that us saying that you can't call yourself a master unless you have a lineage going back to the fifteenth century will encourage some to folk to fraudulently do just that. After all who doesn't want to be a master? We call modern reproduction weapons by their historical names because they are the words that best describe them in spite of the fact that they are not identical to histoical originals. Why not apply the same rule to modern reprodution practitioners?

I want to gain mastery of the art, but I'm not interested in a title...especially one that isn't legit or recognized. Right now it seems pompous enough to simply call myself a "swordsman."

Likewise, we don't require a lineage to call yourself master--we require recognized mastery. This is the thing that we're just not buying into at this point.

Jake

[Allen Johnson]

Whenever I talk to people about the subject of "master" I simply state that you can not be a "master" of a killing art without ever killing (or being in a serious fight were death or serious injury is a possibility).

[Paul Macdonald]

Mr. Uribe,

With regard to your repeated question, I had thought the fact this information is freely available online to anyone who conducts a cursory search to be enough, but obviously not.
I had further imagined that the fact an ARMA member had posted and drawn attention to that very imformation during the course of this thread enough, but still no.
I had even thought that drawing your own attention to this fact might be enough for you to actually have a look, but it seems that you have considered it more sporting to once again take pot-shots in my general direction.

If nothing more in the World will satisfy your curiosity than to hear it from my own construct of words, then the source of my qualification is in a single word - FISAS.

I can only hope that this might satisfy your knowledge as to where exactly my credential has originated, but I fear it may never be enough.

Dear All,

For many on this thread, it appears to matter not from where I have gained my qualification, as the very legitimacy of this has become the subject of fierce debate here.
"Fencing masters cannot exist", is the cry!

If that is your battle cry, then you deny the working knowledge of all fencing masters, in all history.

It is not a neccessity for any great musician or composer today to be directly related by blood or academic lineage to the great musical artists of history. Such is the very same with the fencing master.

The argument presented here becomes even more riduculous in notion when all that what is being called for is a "living lineage" to only that limited number of masters that managed to publish their works!
What limited sources are these for any "proof" of knowledge or ability today?

Yes, academically, it is all we have, but this is not everything.

To suggest otherwise is to grant legitimacy of knowledge and authority as a fencing master just because you have written some words and found an obliging publisher. There is much more to the Art than this.

To equate authorship with knowledge and authoratative ability is a misguided notion.

Can we really believe everything we read in black and white? Even the bible and other religious texts are the subject of fierce debate, as real knowledge and understanding can only be gained by way of personal experience, not in simply interpreting words.

I can only hope that each man whose eyes read these words might be man enough to at least consider them for himself and relate them to his own proofs and Truths, rather than snapping back with the unguided savagings of pack mentality.

And before the pack turns, know that I am not simply saying, "all treatises are irrelevant/no good" or anything like that. Take words in context to know their real meaning, not for your own ends with pre-judged animosity.

I am also not saying and have never suggested that "fencing masters alone know fencing", otherwise, why would they then impart this knowledge to their students?

I am also not saying that "fencing masters are the bearers of secret knowledge" as the deeper levels of fencing can be revealed and known by other ways and paths in Life and study.

And with regard to deeper or esoteric knowledge, to mention it on this forum is clearly enough. There are clearly those who immediately equate this with some form of "bullshit magic", perpetuated by those who simply wish to confuse/fool gullible minds into gracing their ego with unthinking worship of their amazing and otherworldy knowledge and powers.
I think that is bullshit too, and don`t stand for it likewise.

But I will say that any man who imagines the World and all sources of learning to be physical alone, does not know the half of it.

Not that there is ever any obligation to study it, to know it, to learn from it, even to believe in it. We can live happy lives still without it and I can wish no greater than that to you all, whatever your beliefs.

For anyone who believes the notion that fencing is only and all about hitting and winning, and nothing more, then good luck to you, for that is all you shall know from it.

There are also those who get a little more from study, practice and imparting the Art. That we along the way learn more about our own selves, our minds, our bodies and our emotional elements, those same elements of our opponent, and more importantly, of the ability to best meet, balance and control these.

Such learning is there for all who wish to know and learn from it. We get what we ask for in Fence as in Life.

I wish you all the very best in both, and that you all are happy enough where you are right now, and moreso in future.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

[Paul Macdonald]

Mr. Johnson,

A point often raised, to which I might mention Domenico Angelo as only one example of many European fencing masters, recognised and reknowned as one of the very greatest and skilled of his day, yet never had cause to pierce or drop a man in his long and successful Life.

It is the real test and ultimate mark for a fencer to settle dispute without the need for bloodshed, for then he might mark his victory by strength and swiftness of mind, not blade.

If given no other choice but to defend his Life and skin by steel, of course he should have the neccessary requirements to do so, but again I say, that it has never been a requirement of fencing masters to establish or maintain a professional kill tally.
The qualification is in the Art of Defence, not offence.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

[Sam Nankivell]

Mr. Uribe,

With regard to your repeated question, I had thought the fact this information is freely available online to anyone who conducts a cursory search to be enough, but obviously not.
I had further imagined that the fact an ARMA member had posted and drawn attention to that very imformation during the course of this thread enough, but still no.
I had even thought that drawing your own attention to this fact might be enough for you to actually have a look, but it seems that you have considered it more sporting to once again take pot-shots in my general direction.

If nothing more in the World will satisfy your curiosity than to hear it from my own construct of words, then the source of my qualification is in a single word - FISAS.

I can only hope that this might satisfy your knowledge as to where exactly my credential has originated, but I fear it may never be enough.

Dear All,

For many on this thread, it appears to matter not from where I have gained my qualification, as the very legitimacy of this has become the subject of fierce debate here.
"Fencing masters cannot exist", is the cry!

If that is your battle cry, then you deny the working knowledge of all fencing masters, in all history.

It is not a neccessity for any great musician or composer today to be directly related by blood or academic lineage to the great musical artists of history. Such is the very same with the fencing master.

The argument presented here becomes even more riduculous in notion when all that what is being called for is a "living lineage" to only that limited number of masters that managed to publish their works!
What limited sources are these for any "proof" of knowledge or ability today?

Yes, academically, it is all we have, but this is not everything.

To suggest otherwise is to grant legitimacy of knowledge and authority as a fencing master just because you have written some words and found an obliging publisher. There is much more to the Art than this.

To equate authorship with knowledge and authoratative ability is a misguided notion.

Can we really believe everything we read in black and white? Even the bible and other religious texts are the subject of fierce debate, as real knowledge and understanding can only be gained by way of personal experience, not in simply interpreting words.

I can only hope that each man whose eyes read these words might be man enough to at least consider them for himself and relate them to his own proofs and Truths, rather than snapping back with the unguided savagings of pack mentality.

And before the pack turns, know that I am not simply saying, "all treatises are irrelevant/no good" or anything like that. Take words in context to know their real meaning, not for your own ends with pre-judged animosity.

I am also not saying and have never suggested that "fencing masters alone know fencing", otherwise, why would they then impart this knowledge to their students?

I am also not saying that "fencing masters are the bearers of secret knowledge" as the deeper levels of fencing can be revealed and known by other ways and paths in Life and study.

And with regard to deeper or esoteric knowledge, to mention it on this forum is clearly enough. There are clearly those who immediately equate this with some form of "bullshit magic", perpetuated by those who simply wish to confuse/fool gullible minds into gracing their ego with unthinking worship of their amazing and otherworldy knowledge and powers.
I think that is bullshit too, and don`t stand for it likewise.

But I will say that any man who imagines the World and all sources of learning to be physical alone, does not know the half of it.

Not that there is ever any obligation to study it, to know it, to learn from it, even to believe in it. We can live happy lives still without it and I can wish no greater than that to you all, whatever your beliefs.

For anyone who believes the notion that fencing is only and all about hitting and winning, and nothing more, then good luck to you, for that is all you shall know from it.

There are also those who get a little more from study, practice and imparting the Art. That we along the way learn more about our own selves, our minds, our bodies and our emotional elements, those same elements of our opponent, and more importantly, of the ability to best meet, balance and control these.

Such learning is there for all who wish to know and learn from it. We get what we ask for in Fence as in Life.

I wish you all the very best in both, and that you all are happy enough where you are right now, and moreso in future.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

Mr. Macdonald:

Unfortunately, if someone has a living lineage to a Master that only they know about, then it is quite hard to actually verify whether they are lying or not. The only other way to know is by testing them through combat (which is impossible to do over the internet), and even then, one could just be a very good fencer without being a master. It is not that we equate authorship with ability, it's just that we have NO other way of knowing besides written works since a) all these masters are long dead and b) to our knowledge, no direct lineage (and therefore no information) exists from these masters except through their works. Not to mention the fact that defining the term "master" is very hard in itself, which is why the ARMA doesn't use it or recognize it in terms of Renaissance and Medieval Martial Arts.

Also, most people do not simply read treatises in "black-and-white", which is why there is so much debate about certain aspects of European martial arts, since everyone reads the treatises differently (not to mention that different treatises are still subject to their author's opinion -cough George Silver cough-).

As for the philosophical aspects of fencing, I actually don't have much problem discussing them, in fact, I am a major fan of philosophy in general. It isn't that ARMA is unconcerned with anything deeper (heck, we have an article all about Talhoffer's causes for fighting, a deeply philosophical subject), it's just that we are concerned first and foremost with the practical side of these Arts, as would most practitioners be back during the Renaissance or Middle Ages (especially those practicing the more military arts). Although I would like to note that the primary goal of any martial art is to a) protect yourself and b) to do damage to your opponent, after all they are "martial" arts.

There are also those who get a little more from study, practice and imparting the Art. That we along the way learn more about our own selves, our minds, our bodies and our emotional elements, those same elements of our opponent, and more importantly, of the ability to best meet, balance and control these.

However, what you say is indeed right. All these things come as a side effect while studying any martial art. It's just that, again, ARMA is primarily concerned with practicality. It's not that I (or probably many ARMA members) disrespect you for your interest in such philosophical aspects, it's just that this organization was not really founded to address such things.

Also, I would like to apologize if I happened to take your "metaphysics" comment out of context earlier.

[Francisco Uribe]

Mr. Uribe,

With regard to your repeated question, I had thought the fact this information is freely available online to anyone who conducts a cursory search to be enough, but obviously not.
I had further imagined that the fact an ARMA member had posted and drawn attention to that very imformation during the course of this thread enough, but still no.
I had even thought that drawing your own attention to this fact might be enough for you to actually have a look, but it seems that you have considered it more sporting to once again take pot-shots in my general direction.

If nothing more in the World will satisfy your curiosity than to hear it from my own construct of words, then the source of my qualification is in a single word - FISAS.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

Thanks you for finally answering my question. I hope it was not that painful to write those 5 letters. For somebody that fancies himself as a teacher you do have very unproper methods of relaying information.
Leaving sacarsm aside now...

After going over the FISAS website, al lot of questions popped-up.
I wonder if you will be so gracious to answer them directly this time.

Why were you granted a master certification after only four years if the FISAS website says 7 years are reuired?
Where and how can one access the written material produced as a byproduct of your master level dissertation?

How come FISAS certifies medieval and rennaissance fighting weapons/systems, if by their own website their lineage is only traced to 18th century? Were can be this lineage documentation be accessed?

Why is that anybody that has looked for the sustance of such claims has never been able to find proof? Why is that the purporters of such claims (like you) are to able to produce real evidence that will sustain these assertions.

Again, I would appreciate that you would use all of your pedagogic powers and explain these things to me as I was a 4 year-old (since seems evident to you that my understanding does not allow me to dig out information that is in the open).
I guess a good teacher would be happy to teach... I know I am.

Truly yours.

Francisco Uribe

[Nathaniel Bacon]

Paul, you should move to the States... you would make an amazing politician. I came to ARMA because their philosophy was not flowery speech or fancy titles but the utilitarian study of RMA. I don’t see how this approach does anything but give legitimacy to ‘the art’?