Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Definition of a master Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 
Author Message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Fri 27 Jul, 2007 6:08 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jean Henri Chandler wrote:
Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
Then he brought him to a mercers shop, and said to the mercer: "Let me see your best silken points." The mercer then did presently show him some of seven groats a dozen. Then he paid fourteen groats for two dozen, and said to the master of defence: "There is one dozen for you, and one dozen for me."


Those were delightful anecdotes mr Curtis, but I didn't understand the end of this first one... .what did he do? What are silken points? I don't get it. I thought they were going to fight....


J


Well, now that I think of it, I probably quoted two sentences too many.
View user's profile Send private message
Bob Burns




Location: South Indianapolis IN
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 112 books

Posts: 1,019

PostPosted: Mon 30 Jul, 2007 2:17 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Having studied karate at a few schools through the years, then recently earning a black belt in karate in Oct. 2004, the difference between a 1st degree black belt such as myself and a "master" 5th degree and higher, 4th degree and higher in some systems. The difference between someone of my rank and a master is night and day! There is just no comparison! I've studied under masters, attended seminars under grand masters.
A master has developed expertise of form that is 1st nature to him or her, as well as timing, commanding distance, etc. Though swordsmanship is a completely different art, I would think these same basic principles would apply.
I have all his books, and by comparing them with what I have personally witnessed by masters of karate, I would without any doubt in my mind consider Christian Henry Tobler a master of the German Longsword!

Sincerely!

Bob
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
David Schenck




Location: New Jersey
Joined: 25 Oct 2007

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Tue 29 Jan, 2008 11:06 pm    Post subject: Master         Reply with quote

I, unlike many others in this day and age, do believe that it is fairly possible to become a master of defence in the idea of becoming wisened in the art of defending oneself with a weapon. Arguements against this idea come from the fact that we are recreating this art and science in a time period much later than when it was commonly practised. To most this would make reasonable sense, however if one puts oneself into the shoes of when sword or rapier combat was being practised and devised then our out look and their out look are the same. We are both trying to reach a pinnacle to which we can defend ourselves with the same weapon.

Now I know certain techniques have not survived the passage of time however they can be remade and there's no possibility that everyone's style will be exactly the same so one must ask in this day and age how can we decide who is a master? Historically as you can all see DeGrassi, Cappo Ferro, Fabris, Marrozzo, etc., all had different style's and techniques. Do we know which is better? Certainly not. Infact I love the amount of fencing manuals we have because they allow us all guidelines on how to become comfortable in the way we fight. So simply no true person can master this art and science like another because the differences are natural and respectable.

However It is possible to decide how to classify a master. A master of Defence in my opinion knows the art and science of his work and can pass it on to the vast majority of others. Now a moster really is a rank above other ranks however we take master in its idea of mastery when really no on can obtain omnipotent knowledge of everything to do with the weapon. Truly a master is really one who is qualifiably skillful with the art and science and able to pass it on. For above all else the historical masters were teachers. The solution to the question of a master is to give it a time and watch and reinvent the art and we will be able to decide our own "masters".
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Anders Backlund




Location: Sweden
Joined: 24 Oct 2007

Posts: 629

PostPosted: Wed 30 Jan, 2008 4:08 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Obviously, there are varied opinions on what constitutes mastery. I suppose it depends on whether one views it as a degree of skill, a formal title, a teaching position or what have you.

To me, personally, the term mastery means to have actually mastered an artform. A master swordsman, for example, should know all techniques of his* weapon by heart, have trained his body and mind perform them without fail, as well as used them to best other seasoned swordsmen. He doesn't need to be invincible -because when it comes right down to it, no one is- and he doesn't need to be the absolute best or even one of the absolute best. But he should still be a recognized authority in the field.

In the same way, I perceive a master swordsmith as someone who is skilled at all techniques available and has an intimate knowledge of what a sword is and how it performs, and who can be depended on to produce a fine, reliable and beautiful sword according to specific parameters,

*Or her, of course, in the case of a mistress.

The sword is an ode to the strife of mankind.

"This doesn't look easy... but I bet it is!"
-Homer Simpson.
View user's profile Send private message
Dale A. Taylor




Location: Grand Haven, MI
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Reading list: 4 books

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed 30 Jan, 2008 9:59 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

As I read through this thread, I couldn't help but be struck by a thought. (Hey! It could happen! Razz ) More than once we have seen Fiore's quote regarding the masters of his day. If Fiore, Liechtenaur, Talhoffer, Ringneck, and all the others we eaccept as "Masters" were alive at one time with access to discussion forums such as this, would they be having the very same argument?

That aside, here's my .02$. I have only recently begun my study of HEMA. I have no affiliation to any organization, school, or philosophy. I have no skill with a blade. I'm the guy in his basement trying to fumble his way through the most basic techniques with a cheap waster and a book. All I want is someone who can tell me definitively how the fundamentals should be performed. Yet I find long ( and sometimes acrimonious) debates over these very same fundamentals. If the community as a whole can't agree on things as basic as how to preform a Krumphau, How can anyone claim to be a master?

I don't care if an "master" has wielded steel in earnest against a foe on the battlefield. I just want to know that the basics he's teaching me are with out a doubt true to what the past masters meant. And I just don't think we're there yet.
View user's profile Send private message
Jared Smith




Location: Tennessee
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,532

PostPosted: Wed 30 Jan, 2008 7:29 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I am not sure how it may fit in here, but I think the ability to improvise (suddenly realize, invent, and do something never before done if effective and appropriate for the situation) may be part of the qualities of a master. Not in any martial art, but in basic engineering or craftsmanship in fabricating things I have seen a few competent, intuitively guided, and intelligent individuals manage to quickly accomplish difficult tasks with minimal tools and gadgets, under very difficult circumstances.

Ideally, I would think a master fencer might grasp an improvised sword and some very poor quality armour, but, still manage a "new or antiquated technique" based on the circumstances with miraculous victory against a "skilled opponent" having superior equipment.

I guess what this boils down to is that perfecting drills for preconceived situations does not mean that one will be capable of responding optimally for a new and unexpected situation. I consider the elite to be the ones who invent instinctively and do surprisingly well when all resources did not appear to be in their favor.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
View user's profile Send private message
Anders Backlund




Location: Sweden
Joined: 24 Oct 2007

Posts: 629

PostPosted: Thu 31 Jan, 2008 4:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jared Smith wrote:
I am not sure how it may fit in here, but I think the ability to improvise (suddenly realize, invent, and do something never before done if effective and appropriate for the situation) may be part of the qualities of a master. Not in any martial art, but in basic engineering or craftsmanship in fabricating things I have seen a few competent, intuitively guided, and intelligent individuals manage to quickly accomplish difficult tasks with minimal tools and gadgets, under very difficult circumstances.

Ideally, I would think a master fencer might grasp an improvised sword and some very poor quality armour, but, still manage a "new or antiquated technique" based on the circumstances with miraculous victory against a "skilled opponent" having superior equipment.

I guess what this boils down to is that perfecting drills for preconceived situations does not mean that one will be capable of responding optimally for a new and unexpected situation. I consider the elite to be the ones who invent instinctively and do surprisingly well when all resources did not appear to be in their favor.


I was going to bring up improvisation and ingenuity as possible qualities one might find in a master, but then I considered that they are qualities that not all people have. It didn't seem right to me to suggest that an exceedingly skilled swordsman couldn't be considered a master simply on account of being unimaginative and set in his ways.

If anything, I'd say a gift for improvisation and thinking outside the box is a way to transcend the limitations of 'ordinary' technical mastery.

The sword is an ode to the strife of mankind.

"This doesn't look easy... but I bet it is!"
-Homer Simpson.
View user's profile Send private message
Walter Stockwell




Location: Campbell , CA
Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Reading list: 3 books

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Thu 31 Jan, 2008 5:12 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jared Smith wrote:
I am not sure how it may fit in here, but I think the ability to improvise (suddenly realize, invent, and do something never before done if effective and appropriate for the situation) may be part of the qualities of a master. Not in any martial art, but in basic engineering or craftsmanship in fabricating things I have seen a few competent, intuitively guided, and intelligent individuals manage to quickly accomplish difficult tasks with minimal tools and gadgets, under very difficult circumstances.

Ideally, I would think a master fencer might grasp an improvised sword and some very poor quality armour, but, still manage a "new or antiquated technique" based on the circumstances with miraculous victory against a "skilled opponent" having superior equipment.

I guess what this boils down to is that perfecting drills for preconceived situations does not mean that one will be capable of responding optimally for a new and unexpected situation. I consider the elite to be the ones who invent instinctively and do surprisingly well when all resources did not appear to be in their favor.


This is a very interesting point. I once heard a Kenpo master speak. He talked about the kata we all practiced as being equivalent to letters... when you test for black belt, you are expected to show how different techniques work together to form "words". By the time you are testing for your nth degree black belt, you are defending your thesis. Happy The techniques become a language in which you can hold a conversation to carry the metaphor.

Walter
www.stockwellknives.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Thu 31 Jan, 2008 5:30 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Anders Backlund wrote:

I was going to bring up improvisation and ingenuity as possible qualities one might find in a master, but then I considered that they are qualities that not all people have. It didn't seem right to me to suggest that an exceedingly skilled swordsman couldn't be considered a master simply on account of being unimaginative and set in his ways.

If anything, I'd say a gift for improvisation and thinking outside the box is a way to transcend the limitations of 'ordinary' technical mastery.


When having to improvise a master would apply the " Principles " behind the the master cuts, guards, windings as well as distance, timing and reading any telegraphing by his opponent to react to an unexpected situation.

Such a situation caused by an error or by an unseen before by the master attack or defence: An error because the normal technique should have worked if executed perfectly and there would have been no need for originality. An unseen before attack or defence that might be intentional ( unfamiliar style ) or just an accidental positioning where an improvised move is the solution to the problem.

This " improvised move " could be very unique and not worth much unless the same very unique situation recurred or it could be something worth adding to the style as a new riposte or attack with wider possible application, assuming it worked ! If it didn't work the master wouldn't have survived the encounter, but then maybe the opponent would be the one motivated to use the same " trick " and incorporate it in his technique.

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Pleasant




Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Joined: 24 Aug 2003

Posts: 333

PostPosted: Thu 31 Jan, 2008 8:30 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dale A. Taylor wrote:
I don't care if an "master" has wielded steel in earnest against a foe on the battlefield. I just want to know that the basics he's teaching me are with out a doubt true to what the past masters meant. And I just don't think we're there yet.


Well stated. And there's the problem, all we have today is interpretations of what the masters meant. In my opinion the interpretations of John Clements and other ARMA schoalrs are a generation ahead of the other interpretations that I have seen, yet they are still unsure of their interpretations and are constandly testing them and revising them. As you say, nobody is there yet. We are far far from there.


For those who insist that "master" means only "teacher" I would point them to the following thread here on myArmoury. Did this happen because someone just wanted to be called "teacher"? Clearly not. We all know that "master" means a lot more, so let's stop the BSing about it.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...oger+siggs

Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Thu 31 Jan, 2008 10:11 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Pleasant wrote:
ans only "teacher" I would point them to the following thread here on myArmoury. Did this happen because someone just wanted to be called "teacher"? Clearly not. We all know that "master" means a lot more, so let's stop the BSing about it.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...oger+siggs

Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW


Or simply someone really good with a sword or teaching the using of swords: Usually probably both in most cases but as with many sports, as an example ( Note: Real sword fighting uses similar skills like a sport but is not a sport ): There are players who no matter how skilled are terrible teachers and some teachers ( coaches ) who don't have the physical capability to play at the highest levels but are good teachers and know what should be done even if they personally don't have the strength or speed to be the best.

If one wants to spilt hairs a master would have to be a master swordsman himself ( or herself ) if we are taking about a fighting man. Or, a master swordsman doesn't also have be a teacher but a master-teacher of the sword need not be himself be a master swordsman !?

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Jared Smith




Location: Tennessee
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,532

PostPosted: Thu 31 Jan, 2008 4:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Anders Backlund wrote:


I was going to bring up improvisation and ingenuity as possible qualities one might find in a master, but then I considered that they are qualities that not all people have. It didn't seem right to me to suggest that an exceedingly skilled swordsman couldn't be considered a master simply on account of being unimaginative and set in his ways.

If anything, I'd say a gift for improvisation and thinking outside the box is a way to transcend the limitations of 'ordinary' technical mastery.


I have similar "feelings" and misgivings about prescribing innovation as a quality that a master should have. However, I really think the majority of people could develop some innovative capabilities (responding to broken sword guard/point, compensating for unusual habits of opponents, etc.) if they practiced fencing as much as those who once made careers out of fencing once did. By late medieval era, "Master" was fairly generic as a term that was applied to someone who taught. We can examine some aspects of what was expected academically back then. http://www.chalktalkertraining.com/CCT_COM/Fi...al-Lkd.pdf

In contrast, an academic engineering / science program with a thesis option (at least those I attended) seem to require a new problem solution, or a new method in solving a problem that may have already been solved with other methods. The tools or approaches in this analysis of some new problem can be traditional and proven ones, as I think Jean argued existing master techniques could be expected to be effective almost universally. However, the student is supposed to develop a new method, or make significant progress towards solving a problem not previously solved by someone else. The vast majority of people who continue to this level of academic pursuit manage to succeed. I would not call them exceptionable in terms of qualities as far as what people who are really committed to doing something can accomplish.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Definition of a master
Page 8 of 8 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum