The ARMA and everyone else.

[Francisco Uribe]

Stephen,
My question was extremely specific, and the answer extremely misguiding (as I complained all along for allthe questions I posed and answers received.) I specifically asked about the governing body that tested and granted.

Nonetheless, it would be natural to assume that a maestro title was the product of trial in front of a committee ... don't you think? Otherwise what is the value of such "title"?
That is the way it was, and still is. I allow myself to cite Sean Hayes as an example of modern qualification process.
http://www.northwestacademyofarms.com/aboutteacher.htm
http://www.fencingmastersprogram.com/

Maestro Hayes' examination for Master At Arms was advertised and open to the public, and conducted by an international board of 6 fencing masters representing the United States, France, and Italy. The examination included oral and practical components: intense questioning on the smallest aspects of classical Italian fencing theory; the candidate required to teach group lessons, individual lessons, take individual lessons; and finally to teach any actions or combination of several actions in any weapons desired by the board to a fellow candidate.

The difference is somewhat.... remarkable.


I do have an interrogant for you...
If the persons in question are not able to fend this thing for themselves.. why do bother to try your hand at it yourself?
Can you provide any sustancial evidence that they cannot?
Or will you just go around in circles, chasing your own tail, in a futile rethoric exercise?
The attitudes of McDonald and Sinclair are shameful and should not be tolerated.
If these characters are gonna go around lying, they should not be surprised to be called liars.
If they are not, they should provide evidence to support their claims.
Something they have not done in all these years past.

Matt, with his refreshing last statement, has summed one of many strong arguments against these self-aknowledged maestros.
Self-delusion does not make reality.

[Stephen Kilbane]

My question was extremely specific, and the answer extremely misguiding

I don't disagree. That, in itself, doesn't imply intention to misguide, though.

Nonetheless, it would be natural to assume that a maestro title was the product of trial in front of a committee ... don't you think?

Personally, I have no opinion either way. Your assumptions are your own.

If the persons in question are not able to fend this thing for themselves.. why do bother to try your hand at it yourself?

I'm not. I'm pointing out where there's miscommunication (in the charitable cases) and self-congratulatory assumptions (in the less charitable cases), and noting that differences of opinion are not lies. I'm not defending anyone's position.

(I do the same thing all day at work; people get wound up arguing, and I point out that they're confusing issues, making unwarranted and incorrect assumptions about the responses they're receiving.)

Can you provide any sustancial evidence that they cannot?

Of what? You're asking questions, I'm clarifying answers. In terms of evidence, you've been asked to provide some (by myself and Mr. Flieger).

Let's run back through this thread, shall we (from memory)?

It starts with the post about Martinez's document, followed by various assumptions that, because Martinez uses "Maestro", it follows that he must be either a liar, self-delusional, or some idiot who thinks that because he's studied modern (or classical) fencing, he can know something about earlier fencing. Not like the wise ARMA fellows, who, y'know, read treatises.

In steps Macdonald, to (ineffectually) defend Martinez, since Macdonald knows that Martinez bases his earlier weapons systems on reading treatises and interpreting them.

Much mud-slinging follows, demanding information about Macdonald's title, and about IMAF. Further assumptions made: that Macdonald is a student of Sinclair; that Macdonald hasn't studied treatises; that Macdonald, fundamentally, doesn't know anything about historical fencing. Macdonald isn't particularly clear in his responses.

Loriega comes up. More assumptions: that IMAF granted "maestro" to Loriega; that IMAF (and therefore Macdonald) knew of the controversy in advance, and supported it.

I clarify much of the confusion over Macdonald.

Sinclair turns up. The whole thing starts up all over again.

Fundamentally, this comes down to you don't like this use of 'maestro' (collective 'you'). That's fine - you don't have to like it. It's still an opinion, not a rule or law. It doesn't make Macdonald a liar, however much you claim it does, nor does it mean he's committing fraud. It doesn't change the situation that Macdonald has spent many years researching and studying these Arts, and that he's a highly effective teacher of them. I could care less about the Maestro debate - what's important to me is that Macdonald's instruction works for me.

Matt, with his refreshing last statement, has summed one of many strong arguments against these self-aknowledged maestros.
Self-delusion does not make reality.

Jolly good. If that's how you all feel, then that leaves you with only a few choices:
- Abandon the use of 'Scholar' and 'Provost' within ARMA;
- or furnish concrete proof that the persons involved in granting such titles are qualified to do so, by lineage through similarly qualified persons back to Rennaissance times, if not Medieval;
- or decide that it's ARMA's perogative to choose and grant its own titles, whether they have historical usage or not, and that similar perogative extends to other organisations;
- or accept that you're being hypocritical.

steve

[Matt Rovaris]

Stephen Kilbane, your last post proves that you are bigger simpleton than you give yourself credit for.

One thing are private titles given only within an organisation, as an internal acknowledgment of proficiency, like provost or freescholar.

Quite another are titles to be recognized universally, as the title maestro d'armi, especially when this is bandied about and advertised as professional credentials.

Add to this that someone offers a lineage as proof that he's a maestro, then retracts the lineage when interrogated, but not the title. This, dear, uninformed, naive Mr. Kilbane, is being a liar, not having a simple difference of opinion.

Maestro d'armi is a professional title in the discipline of fencing, I know it, you know it and the chaps here who call themselves by that title know it, since they are clinging to it for dear life, in spite of overwhelming and widely-known evidence that they have zero, zip, zilch, nada, nichts claim to it legitimately. For someone to cling to the title without supplying proof is fraudulent, at least down here in the real world, Mr. Kilbane.

In case you are too slow to understand the implication, let me supply it for you: this is a title that, for it to mean anything, can only be earned the established way. If not, it's as good as Monopoly money. And if you use Monopoly money while playing Monopoly with your friends, you are perfectly within your rights, but the moment you try to fool a car-dealer into accepting it, you become guilty of deliberate fraud. Do you understand this, or is it too much information to for you to process, Mr. Kilbane?

There's nothing more amusing than a group of clowns flailing about the field in their big red shoes, moving the goal-post and frantically trying to salvage the little that is left of their reputation while calling others hypocrites in a laughable attempt to go down swinging. ARMA: this is your competition.

[AlexCSmith]

I'm new here but I beg you all to bring an end to this nonsense.

It's disgusting to me that this (somewhat more politely worded than normal) flame war has ten times as many posts and 100 times as many views as any of the scholarly discussions on this forum.

This sort of thing belongs more appropriatly on sherdog or some other brawlers forum than here.

The time has come to lay down your keyboards gentlemen or failing that it's time for the moderators to step on this thread.

[Matt Rovaris]

Mr. Smith, it's all too easy and cost-free for a newcomer to step in and make himself appear honourable by issuing blanket statements and essentially telling us all to shut up, including ARMA's director, while failing to discern how, by whose actions and on what specific points we had the admittedly long disagreement about the important issue of credenials.

While "scholarly" discussions certainly have a place in a high quality martial arts forum such as this, so do questions about the legitimacy of those who confer titles upon themselves, and then use them to browbeat others later.

Not all "brawls" as you call them are for nought. And not all arguments are "flame wars" just because they take place online. Being hypocritical and pretending to get along so that we don't have to argue is much sillier and much more childish than talking about our differences, although temperatures may rise while doing so. If you can't take the heat, don't participate.

[Mike Cartier]

I am a moderator and I wholeheartedly agree what a huge waste of time this thread is. If you wish to call yourself Master or Maestro or Fechtmeister, or grandmaster or supermaster or whatever so be it.

But when you use it to make yourself out to be something you are not then don't cry foul when the world calls you on it. Its a shameful insult to everyone working hard on HEMA, including these people who like to claim these titles, who i am sure many of are very worthy HEMA students, but they undermine and belittle the subject by claiming these titles and projecting them to the world. They undermine and belittle it much like many of the people and groups who have acted together in the past to make so many people in Western culture think of our own cultural martial arts as worthless or non existent.

If this doesn't not make you angry then maybe you are not into HEMA for a serious reason and maybe its just some passing hobby, serious study requires serious considerations however and this sort fo thing is bad for HEMA and makes a mockery of alot of hard work.

As far as I am concerned if you use any of the master terms oustide of your clsssical fencing world you are implying something that is not fact.
Likewise if i had a master rank in some Kung fu and refered to myself constantly as Master Mike in the HEMA world you would think i was a master in HEMA. Its a waste of energy and time but we are only answering the use of these titles, we are not the ones claiming the titles. Clearly the blame for the waste of energy and time is on those making the claiming which we neiter require nor condone.


Whythen is it soooo important to call yourself a Master or Maestro or Fechtmeister?

[Matt Rovaris]

As far as I am concerned if you use any of the master terms oustide of your clsssical fencing world you are implying something that is not fact.

Well stated, Mr. Cartier.

And when like Mr. Sinclair here you're not even a classical fencing master but still claim the title, you are doubly guilty of implying something that is not the fact.

At any event, I think that what needed to be said was said, and everything else amounts to trying to win back with a shell game what one already lost by making outrageous claims.

Have a good week-end.

[Greg Coffman]

In ARMA we don't believe in beating a dead horse...

We hit it with a train. Then we run it over with a herd of buffalo. We drop it off the grand canyon just right so that it hits every raggedy rock on the way down. At some point comes the obligatory test cutting.

[Michael Eging]

Yes, sometimes people have strong opinions. I think it is okay to hold strong opinions. When we put titles and other things out in the open, then it is going to be part of the debate and dialogue.

As to the blanket statement of, well, if we shouldn't use maestro or master, then ARMA shouldn't use the titles scholar and provost, let me encourage you to go back to the earlier posts. These are given through a review process that is transparent. Scholar implies study as much as it does ability. We are going to be ever studying this Art and scholar, student, etc. is apt as part of the structure to encourage study and practice. The requirements are transparent so if someone gains such a level, you basically know what they had to do to get it.

Provost, while a historical term with martial, scholarly and religious connotations, has a transparent criteria for achievement. And it fits within the scholarly tradition which ARMA seeks to emulate. ARMA doesn't claim to be part of a lineal tradition, or that the terms seek to imply their medieval equivalent.

I guess we could start with "not so good," move on to "kinda gaining experience and knowledge," a "bit better and more knowledgeable," etc.

I agree with the whatever they want to call themselves belief. However, the title maestro or master appears to mean something different to many of us, and to be a master of a medieval or rennaissance combat system we are grasping for what makes someone a master? If they imply mastery, then we are seeking to understand. If it is like being a teacher, but with no other criteria, fine. Just tell us. More transparency in responses would be good and an understanding of the history, etc. so that I as an outsider can make an informed opinion.

I asked questions out of interest. I am interested in lineages, the historical aspects of medieval and renaissance martial arts.. So, for me the general topic was of interest, and if clarity had been provided, maybe there would have been less frustration on both sides. However, inquiry and debate is at times free wheeling and becomes uncomfortable. Nature of the beast.

As to the work Mr. MacDonald has done studying and gaining knowledge, great. If he is teaching and working well for his students, bonus. But I don't use my sport fencing ranking as a marker for my medieval martial art skill. And I spend time working through the texts, practicing, etc. as well. When we link master to anything, it implies a level of work, certification, accreditation, blood, sweat, whatever. But the metaphysical responses didn't really help me understand the application.

For those who dismiss the whole thread, use your right to select what you want to read and don't read it. There are some really interesting nuggets here that have helped me and left open addition areas for exploration - as a student.

All the best,
Mike

[Paul Macdonald]

Mr. Eging,

I choose to respond to your own last post as it refers to myself personally, and erroneously, to which I simply wish to redress.

I do not hold a sport fencing Maestro ranking. I am not a sports fencer.

I work as a professional swordmaker and fencing master and consequently, shed blood, sweat and tears on a regular basis and for my living.

I mentioned the word metaphysical once in the course of the past 17 pages (and in balance and relation to the physical). This hardly means this is all I am saying. It is but a word amongst many of equal importance.

My Best to you and your studies,

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

[Sean Hayes]

And even if their "fencing credentials" were for real, they would lack any application to the rennaisance and medieval fighting styles

Interestingly this last idea has been supported by Sean Hayes, who is a certified maestro himself. Hayes did test in frot of a committe in a public setting. jum!
I wonder if Sean Hayes still go around with this crowd and he does... why?

Hi all-

I was briefly a member of IMAF in 2002 & 2003. In August 2003 I resigned from the organization. Among the things I disagreed with were the administrative structure of the organization, with the proposed educational structure for classical and historical fencing, with the proposed structure for training new teachers of classical and historical fencing, and with the fact that I and the other "invited" members had no vote in how things were run. All decision-making was concentrated in the hands of the four founders, and I was told that this would not change. Given how many skilled researcher/practitioner/teachers there were in the organization at that time, it seemed to me a sad waste of talent. I was also displeased with the treatment of certain of the invited members by the founders, and by what I perceived as an elitist attitude towards other WMA groups and researcher-teachers. What I thought I would find when I joined and what I actually found turned out to be very different things.

As for Andrea Lupo "Sinclair" 's credentials, I am aware of many of the unsubstantiated statements that he has made over time. I find it as strange as anyone else, because I can't think of anything legitimate that would warrant the constantly-changing stories and the secrecy. As for the things he has taught as being authentic 16th century Italian sword and 17th & 18th century Italian rapier, but that somehow seem to be completely different to Achille Marozzo, Ridolfo Capoferro, Salvator Fabris, Rosaroll Scorza and Pietro Grisetti and others - well, I haven't read every word of every treatise out there. It is certainly possible that he has found some sources that are utterly at variance with the rest of the history of Italian fencing.

As I noted in my introduction to The Art of Dueling, many have talked about "living tradition" without being very specific about what it means. Lineage is important: it is part of a foundation of traditions, skills and philosophies from which the teacher develops his own traditions, skills and philosophies. But fencing has changed over time, and there are limits to what can be learned simply by being one in a line of several fencing masters. I can trace my lineage back to Tommaso Bosco e Fucile, who was a master in 18th century Naples, but I have no clear idea of precisely what he taught. I know generally what was being taught at that time because there are surviving books and I can teach much of it to a high level, but what Maestro Bosco e Fucile personally passed on to his own students eludes me. Given enough research time and surviving documentation (slim hope there) I might discover it, but it's not dependent on my having been in his "line". The only reason I know something about the material he might have taught is because I researched it, and there's much more research to be done. My training as a classical fencing master in the style of the 19th century Italian Scuola Magistrale certainly gives me some excellent tools with which to work, but it's not the only avenue of approach, nor should it be.

There is actually some applicability of classical Italian fencing to Italian Renaissance fencing styles - the theory is pretty similar. But the difference in weapon weights means that they will be wielded in different manners - the lighter weapon of the later era allow much more in terms of feints, actions on the blade, and compound riposting actions, just as a start. But to say that the weapons are fenced in the same manner is ludicrous.

Gianluca-
I saw the YouTube videos of us sparring recently - thanks for posting them! That was a great time, training, fencing, drinking, unfortunate balcony incident and all - I hope we can do it all again very soon!

Sean Hayes

[Michael Eging]

Mr. Eging,

I choose to respond to your own last post as it refers to myself personally, and erroneously, to which I simply wish to redress.

I do not hold a sport fencing Maestro ranking. I am not a sports fencer.

I work as a professional swordmaker and fencing master and consequently, shed blood, sweat and tears on a regular basis and for my living.

I mentioned the word metaphysical once in the course of the past 17 pages (and in balance and relation to the physical). This hardly means this is all I am saying. It is but a word amongst many of equal importance.

My Best to you and your studies,

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

Actually, Mr. MacDonald, I was not erroneous as I was not referring to you. I was referring to myself (though I am no master in sport fencing I spent considerable time in that world competitively). I was making a comparison to the extension of titles, etc. that were referred to earlier in the postings (ie. a master in classical fencing thus titles extend to the whole Art - I am paraphrasing). And actually, you referred to the Art a few times as something all encompassing and esoteric that connects through the human experience. That is where I first commented because I was confused at the point you were making. And I am not sure how important that point was in the context of the whole.

My whole point was that my sport fencing experience, cannot qualify me for mastery of medieval or renaissance martial arts. And classical fencing mastery cannot be expanded to include the same. I believe you at one point said as much as well, but yet you use the term to include your medieval and renaissance work as well? I realize that we have different view points of the word "master" or "maestro" as that has become very apparent. But I think you can see why we have such difficulty with it. Go back a few posts to Jaron's and others who are trying to explore the gap in knowledge and actual martial experience with this form of the Art, if you will - or even my earlier posts. That is why we question the term and ask for clarity. Again, I acknowledge we have a different view of this. All I was seeking, and you avoided, was clarity.

Thanks for the wishes in my studies. I wish you the same.

All the best,
Mike

[Paul Macdonald]

Mr. Eging,

My apologies for then assuming that your inferrence was dirrected at myself.

There having been so many allegations, accusations and inferrences cast here towards myself and others along these lines, it was difficult to determine if your words may have been otherwise.

My thanks for your civil clarification.

I can only agree of course, that the sport and the martial Art are two different Worlds entirely and incomparable.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

[Gianluca Zanini]

Hi all-

I was briefly a member of IMAF in 2002 & 2003. In August 2003 I resigned from the organization. Among the things I disagreed with were the administrative structure of the organization, with the proposed educational structure for classical and historical fencing, with the proposed structure for training new teachers of classical and historical fencing, and with the fact that I and the other "invited" members had no vote in how things were run. All decision-making was concentrated in the hands of the four founders, and I was told that this would not change. Given how many skilled researcher/practitioner/teachers there were in the organization at that time, it seemed to me a sad waste of talent. I was also displeased with the treatment of certain of the invited members by the founders, and by what I perceived as an elitist attitude towards other WMA groups and researcher-teachers. What I thought I would find when I joined and what I actually found turned out to be very different things.

As for Andrea Lupo "Sinclair" 's credentials, I am aware of many of the unsubstantiated statements that he has made over time. I find it as strange as anyone else, because I can't think of anything legitimate that would warrant the constantly-changing stories and the secrecy. As for the things he has taught as being authentic 16th century Italian sword and 17th & 18th century Italian rapier, but that somehow seem to be completely different to Achille Marozzo, Ridolfo Capoferro, Salvator Fabris, Rosaroll Scorza and Pietro Grisetti and others - well, I haven't read every word of every treatise out there. It is certainly possible that he has found some sources that are utterly at variance with the rest of the history of Italian fencing.

As I noted in my introduction to The Art of Dueling, many have talked about "living tradition" without being very specific about what it means. Lineage is important: it is part of a foundation of traditions, skills and philosophies from which the teacher develops his own traditions, skills and philosophies. But fencing has changed over time, and there are limits to what can be learned simply by being one in a line of several fencing masters. I can trace my lineage back to Tommaso Bosco e Fucile, who was a master in 18th century Naples, but I have no clear idea of precisely what he taught. I know generally what was being taught at that time because there are surviving books and I can teach much of it to a high level, but what Maestro Bosco e Fucile personally passed on to his own students eludes me. Given enough research time and surviving documentation (slim hope there) I might discover it, but it's not dependent on my having been in his "line". The only reason I know something about the material he might have taught is because I researched it, and there's much more research to be done. My training as a classical fencing master in the style of the 19th century Italian Scuola Magistrale certainly gives me some excellent tools with which to work, but it's not the only avenue of approach, nor should it be.

There is actually some applicability of classical Italian fencing to Italian Renaissance fencing styles - the theory is pretty similar. But the difference in weapon weights means that they will be wielded in different manners - the lighter weapon of the later era allow much more in terms of feints, actions on the blade, and compound riposting actions, just as a start. But to say that the weapons are fenced in the same manner is ludicrous.

Gianluca-
I saw the YouTube videos of us sparring recently - thanks for posting them! That was a great time, training, fencing, drinking, unfortunate balcony incident and all - I hope we can do it all again very soon!

Sean Hayes

Ciao Sean, ops...pardon, Maestro Hayes!
Good to hear you!

Gianluca
PS great time yes! seems ages ago!
Glad you like the bout clip!
Pardon for the vanity of scoring one botta each.
Action will tell who's who.
Gosh my dirty lounge's perpetuating on the tube for the eternity!

[Brian Hunt]

Hi all-

I was briefly a member of IMAF in 2002 & 2003. In August 2003 I resigned from the organization. Among the things I disagreed with were the administrative structure of the organization, with the proposed educational structure for classical and historical fencing, with the proposed structure for training new teachers of classical and historical fencing, and with the fact that I and the other "invited" members had no vote in how things were run. All decision-making was concentrated in the hands of the four founders, and I was told that this would not change. Given how many skilled researcher/practitioner/teachers there were in the organization at that time, it seemed to me a sad waste of talent. I was also displeased with the treatment of certain of the invited members by the founders, and by what I perceived as an elitist attitude towards other WMA groups and researcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hi Sean,

it is nice to have you sound in with your experiences and your opinions on such a hotly debated topic. Especially where your fencing lineage has been used as an example of how people should show their credentials when they have them (such as yourself) or claim to have them. I find your experiences about teaching 18th century fencing to be particularly interesting. You are discussing teaching stuff in your fencing line and saying that you have to refer to books in order to round out your knowledge, but you further say that you can only teach most of it at a high level and not all of it. I would argue that this is probably the case for most of the best teachers out there teaching any form of historical fencing from the 18th century or before.

I also find your personal experiences with IMAF and Lupo Sinclair to be of strong interest since you have been on the inside of this organization where as most of us in this thread have pretty much been on the outside.

I also find the amount of rigorous testing you had to go through to gain your diploma as a certified Meastro to be highly enlightening when compared to claims I have seen by some of how they obtained this title. (for anyone itching to take offense at this sentance please take it as a general statement and not a pointed barb directly aimed at any one individual)

Thanks for a refreshing post in a nightmare of a thread.

Brian Hunt
GFS

Post Script: I can't believe the type of mess that got started by one question asking for peoples opinions about one article written by one man.

http://www.paulushectormair.com