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

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".

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.

As I read through this thread, I couldn't help but be struck by a thought. (Hey! It could happen! :p ) 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.

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.