Modern "Masters"?

[Jeffrey Hull]

...And if some others of us are honest, then we would insist we learn these martial arts in order to learn how to fight, not for "recreation".

If the past companies, guilds, and orders of fencing did not value prizing and bouting as accurate tests of fighting ability, hence mastery, then why did they even bother to hold such events?

It is pointless to insist that proving ability by bouting or prizing does not demonstrate mastery of a martial art. Fighters as diverse as William the Marshal, Fiore Dei Liberi, Miyamoto Musashi, Dan Gable and Rocky Marciano all proved mastery at their respective martial arts by combatting other men in some manner or other. They are acclaimed as good at what they did because apparently they showed that they could do what they did.

[Mike Cartier]

If we treat this as a pleasant recreational activity then the interpretations will be useless and so far off mark as to be a pointless exercise is fencing theory.

We are already at a severe disadvantage by not having the same motivation as our ancestors who lived and died by the sword, if we train weakly or without martial intent then we are not really trying to recreate a martial art and we will miss much of whats given in the manuals.

This is precisly why ARMA is so awesome, we take this more seriously than anyone else does. This is not a pleasant recreational activity, this is martial arts and we give 100% and that 100% is really required to get the most out of the source materials and too make us skilled fighers.

[Will Adamson]

I don't know...I kind of find getting to fight in a relatively safe manner to be rather pleasant.

[Eric Dohner]

From my extremely limited vantage point (I have not yet even attended a 1.0 seminar due to location, time, and money constraints, so keep that in mind), it seems to me that one of the factors in this problem is thus:

People like to have titles. It's as simple as that. We are all students of the sword, and while certain titles may be appropriate to distinguish between students with different seniority and skill (skill within our paradigm, that is), in the end, they don't actually mean anything and we shouldn't be worrying about this so much.

The problem with this is twofold: Not only do people like to have titles, they want to learn from people who have titles. I.e., they want to "study under Master so-and-so." This seems to me like simple, unfortunate supply and demand. But it would seem, from some of the true masters quoted (Fiore's saying about the thousand so-called masters in particular), that this has been a problem for a thousand years, and probably will never be completely resolved.

[Michael Navas]

I believe the definition of master should hold some significance here. ARMA members seem to be extremely sore about some people claiming to me masters in a historical sense, but that shouldn't preclude ARMA use of the title completely IMO.

If criteria are set for proving skill for the Free Scholar and Provost titles, then certainly there is no problem awarding the very best at fulfilling these criteria with a master title. Not a historical one, but a "I am the best among our fold at achieving the criteria we so far have set for ourselves" -kind of master.

One could argue that giving someone such a title would bring unwanted implications, but there is no rule that you can't clarify that you are simply the best so far in the evolution of ARMA. If I needed someone to travel back in time to engage in a sword duel with a master of that time, the ARMA tops would be high on my list. Not because I think they wouldn't have gotten their a**es handed to them, but because I cannot think of anyone better in this day and age, at least not following the known historical criteria for mastery.

By assigning Fiori and the lot the title of master, we are implying that they were the universally greatest masters throughout history. And since we obviously aren't, then we must recognize that the individual level of mastery differs from time period to time period, meaning that the best in the field today can be called master by grace of simply being better than anyone else according to the known criteria. Master is a title, awarded by people, to people. ARMA can hold themselves to long-dead standards in terms of what mastery means, but there is no reason to avoid the term completely.

[Bill Welch]

I think it would be far better for these people to have some humility and not blow smoke up peoples butts, and stop pretending to be something they are not.

The big proplem with these "masters" is not the definition of the word. The problem with these "Masters" is that they want to be self important and be "Big chief" when they should be student just like everybody else. They can not admit to themselves or anybody else that they have a lot to learn, just like everybody else.

All the so called "Masters", "Master at Arms", or "big Chief Monkey Fighter" or what ever they call themselves, That have this mysterious living lineage, can not trace it back farther than the Pretend Rapier combat of just the last century or so. Then they title each other "Master" to suck people in and take their money, and claim to know how to fight as "Master at Arms" (and henceLong sword, pole-arm, Dagger, Wrestling, etc) when they should be claiming to be able to teach only Rapier, or Side sword, or whatever.

But when questioned they claim that because they are "Masters" and have read the same texts that everyone here studies then the are suddenly "Masters at Arms" and qualified to teach everything.

[Shane Smith]

Perhaps there are no modern masters, but there can be master teachers. And that - especially at this early stage - is what we owe to the art to try and develop.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time in all sincerity, but I'm not following the reasoning. How can one man be a masterful teacher of an art or science he has not mastered yet himself? Doesn't that make him no more than a student with a talent for teaching?

[Ciaran Daly]

Edit: inadvertent double post erased.

[Ciaran Daly]

Perhaps there are no modern masters, but there can be master teachers. And that - especially at this early stage - is what we owe to the art to try and develop.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time in all sincerity, but I'm not following the reasoning. How can one man be a masterful teacher of an art or science he has not mastered yet himself? Doesn't that make him no more than a student with a talent for teaching?

First of all, if Mr. Clements is to be taken at his word (and I'm inclined to agree with him), it's not possible for us to master this art in the sense that Vadi or the like did. So that leaves us all at best students with a talent for fighting, or for teaching, or if we're very lucky indeed, both.

There have been many masterful teachers of martial arts who were not themselves formidable men (they may once have been and lost ability due to age or injury, or they may not ever have been able to compete at an elite level due to a lack of underlying attributes). There is a difference between mastering a body of technique and having the underlying athletic attributes necessary to consistently apply them in a live setting. That's the distinction I'm getting at.

[Ciaran Daly]

If we treat this as a pleasant recreational activity then the interpretations will be useless and so far off mark as to be a pointless exercise is fencing theory.

We are already at a severe disadvantage by not having the same motivation as our ancestors who lived and died by the sword, if we train weakly or without martial intent then we are not really trying to recreate a martial art and we will miss much of whats given in the manuals.

This is precisly why ARMA is so awesome, we take this more seriously than anyone else does. This is not a pleasant recreational activity, this is martial arts and we give 100% and that 100% is really required to get the most out of the source materials and too make us skilled fighers.

Good for you Mike. I'm glad you approach your training with seriousness. No-one is suggesting anything so sportified. I think, if you will forgive my saying so, that you may have missed my point.

[Jeremiah Backhaus]

If we are honest, we can admit we are reconstructing a historical art for our recreation. Even those who have made this their life's work will not (one sincerely hopes) duel a man with sharps in their lifetime. In such a setting it is a mistake to overvalue ability in bouting when esteeming people in the art. That is all I am saying, despite some of the inferences drawn upthread. And I'm saying this as a guy who loves to pop in the mouthguard and go at it.

Perhaps there are no modern masters, but there can be master teachers. And that - especially at this early stage - is what we owe to the art to try and develop.

Ciaran,

I understand you are new to ARMA, but remember the Credo: Sincerity of effort, Integrity of Scholarship, Appreciation of the martial spirit, Cultivation of self-discipline. Ciaran, the term that we always apply is "with intent." The intent is not recreation, the intent is a fight. We do this with a sincere martial effort. If we do not apply ourselves in such a manner, we will continue doing windshield-washer Krumps and St. George's guard. With Intent that is how we do this.

As to the master teachers, that is all they are, masters of teaching. Note the difference. A teacher is that. a fighter is that. It is my understanding that the Masters Fiore, Liechtenauer, Ringeck, etc. Were both masters of Kunst des Fechten and teaching. It seems a true master holds a mastery of a subject and the fighting. I disagree fully with you when you say that we need to cultivate teachers, the true masters do not tell us that these are the art of teaching, these are the arts of fighting, that is what we owe them, Sincere effort, integrity of study, appreciation of the art which they have left for us, and the discipline to make ourselves as much of the fighters as they would have us to be. That is the goal that I shall pursue all of my life, with intent.

-Jeremiah B. (8 month member)

[Ciaran Daly]

...And if some others of us are honest, then we would insist we learn these martial arts in order to learn how to fight, not for "recreation".

If the past companies, guilds, and orders of fencing did not value prizing and bouting as accurate tests of fighting ability, hence mastery, then why did they even bother to hold such events?

It is pointless to insist that proving ability by bouting or prizing does not demonstrate mastery of a martial art. Fighters as diverse as William the Marshal, Fiore Dei Liberi, Miyamoto Musashi, Dan Gable and Rocky Marciano all proved mastery at their respective martial arts by combatting other men in some manner or other. They are acclaimed as good at what they did because apparently they showed that they could do what they did.

Again, no-one has said such men weren't dominant in their field. But let's take for our example Muhamad Ali. Many consider him the greatest of all time. Yet his errors of technique were numerous and easy to spot - holding the chin high, the hands too far forward (he was famously vulnerable to the hook), relying too much on the backwards lean, etc. But these errors in a man with his superb quickness and timing (not to mention heart, determination, and conditioning) were not (usually) catastrophic. However, walk into a boxing gym anywhere in the U.S. and you will see a youngster trying to box "the Ali way" and getting knocked out. What can Ali teach us as students of boxing? It turns out that to the vast majority he can teach very little except bad habits. Great fighters are too often idiosyncratic creatures with little to teach the vast majority of students.

I am somewhat surprised that by making the somewhat elementary point that overvaluing (notice I did not say valuing) success in bouting can be destructive to one's progress in any art, I have caused a minor hue and cry.

[Ciaran Daly]

If we are honest, we can admit we are reconstructing a historical art for our recreation. Even those who have made this their life's work will not (one sincerely hopes) duel a man with sharps in their lifetime. In such a setting it is a mistake to overvalue ability in bouting when esteeming people in the art. That is all I am saying, despite some of the inferences drawn upthread. And I'm saying this as a guy who loves to pop in the mouthguard and go at it.

Perhaps there are no modern masters, but there can be master teachers. And that - especially at this early stage - is what we owe to the art to try and develop.

Ciaran,

I understand you are new to ARMA, but remember the Credo: Sincerity of effort, Integrity of Scholarship, Appreciation of the martial spirit, Cultivation of self-discipline. Ciaran, the term that we always apply is "with intent." The intent is not recreation, the intent is a fight. We do this with a sincere martial effort. If we do not apply ourselves in such a manner, we will continue doing windshield-washer Krumps and St. George's guard. With Intent that is how we do this.

As to the master teachers, that is all they are, masters of teaching. Note the difference. A teacher is that. a fighter is that. It is my understanding that the Masters Fiore, Liechtenauer, Ringeck, etc. Were both masters of Kunst des Fechten and teaching. It seems a true master holds a mastery of a subject and the fighting. I disagree fully with you when you say that we need to cultivate teachers, the true masters do not tell us that these are the art of teaching, these are the arts of fighting, that is what we owe them, Sincere effort, integrity of study, appreciation of the art which they have left for us, and the discipline to make ourselves as much of the fighters as they would have us to be. That is the goal that I shall pursue all of my life, with intent.

-Jeremiah B. (8 month member)

You are misunderstanding me. Admitting that one is a recreational martial artist does no preclude practicing with intent.

But consider a moment: if we were really preparing to fight in life or death, we wouldn't be using swords now would we? We'd be at the shooting range, learning with SWAT teams, practicing with handguns, roomsweeper shotguns, perhaps knives and the like. After all, unless your home is being invaded or there is a serious problem at the Renaissance Festival, your sword will not likely be at hand (and if it is may well not be the most effective weapon you could choose). Admitting the quaintness of our pursuits is a good guard against pomposity and taking ourselves a little too seriously. But take heart: as I said it in no way precludes bouting with intent, martial spirit, or whatever you would like to call it.

[Jeremiah Backhaus]

You are misunderstanding me. Admitting that one is a recreational martial artist does no preclude practicing with intent.

But consider a moment: if we were really preparing to fight in life or death, we wouldn't be using swords now would we? We'd be at the shooting range, learning with SWAT teams, practicing with handguns, roomsweeper shotguns, perhaps knives and the like. After all, unless your home is being invaded or there is a serious problem at the Renaissance Festival, your sword will not likely be at hand (and if it is may well not be the most effective weapon you could choose). Admitting the quaintness of our pursuits is a good guard against pomposity and taking ourselves a little too seriously. But take heart: as I said it in no way precludes bouting with intent, martial spirit, or whatever you would like to call it.

Ok, I think I understand what you are saying about recreational martial arts. However, I think you would need to broaden your statement, being, anyone who doesn't make their living by the martial art a recreational martial artist.
But I think you too misunderstand. We are not just learning swordfighting. We are learning fighting, and we use swords. Fights are a real life situation. So, it is a preparatory art. I realize that having a sword at hand is unlikely for most people, but the anatomy of a fight transferes, as to the lines of attack, the segno will work as well. These things transcend the sword. Treating this training with intent prevents us from training flippantly.
Some of us do train with SWAT team members who have, in fact, used techniques learned in ARMA in the field. So, yes, this fighting art is something most of us will not use in a life or death situation, but we may, so I would train for that, to bring an edge to training that just learning to wave a sword around will not give me.

[Ciaran Daly]

Jeremiah: as I said earlier I'm not new to martial arts, I've used escrima moves in muay thai bouts - I already know a lot of this stuff translates. And yeah I've trained with SWAT guys, military & law enforcement folks too: hang around long enough in martial arts and it's hard not to.

I'm not going to turn to the MPD entry team guy next to me in knife class and call him a "recreational martial artist" - his bad day at work might be his his last day at work, my bad day at work gets solved after a stiff drink. But for most of us, regardless of the level we are at, that's what we are.