GrandMaster Steve? Who qualifies as an authentic Grandmaster?

[isshinryuronin]

Note: There is a very relevant question for you TDK historians towards the end.

I don't have any problem with the titles, "Master/Grand Master" per say. I do have a problem with how many came to get those titles, or their 8th and 9th degrees.

Prior to WWll, there were few, if any, Okinawan pretenders to the throne. Two reasons for this. One, high ranks were given out by committee composed of the mutually acknowledged current masters, spanning different styles, so there was no favoritism. Most of these guys knew each other, and their skill, well, or had trained under the same instructors. Ranks were not for sale. These guys were hard core in their training and would not give high rank or title to some mediocre wanna-be.

Two, if anyone tried to promote himself or pass himself off as a "Master," he would have been called out by one of the real deals and had his butt kicked. Most of the Masters of this time were bad a**, no doubt about it. Serious challenge matches were not unheard of.

With the post WWll development of different styles, and a little later, different organizations within those styles, rank/title awards became de-centralized, each subgroup having their own authority, for the most part. In Okinawa, and Japan as well I imagine, there was still some quasi government oversight and the ever present peer pressure. Okinawa is not a big place and reputation meant a lot.

By the late 1960's, the USA had an explosion of masters and very high dans. Too big a country and too many cowboys wanting to be top dog and "master" of their own little fiefdom. Peer pressure disappeared. Also, the great majority of senior American black belts had no idea of the vast amount of skills and knowledge that was held back from them. Many really thought they were close to "master" level, when in reality, they were just advanced beginners, experts only in the basics.

The other factor was business and marketing. In the highly commercialized period of American karate in the 1970's, such titles were a draw for prospective students. I know that in TKD, Master title comes at 5th degree. Most (all I know of) Okinawan and Japanese styles don't use that title until 8th degree (maybe 7th these days) , which Korean styles use for Grand Master. That last title rarely exists in the Okin/Jap arts. So there is some title variation.

Now, I would like to know if TDK in Korea/USA had those Master degree benchmarks pre 1970. The reason I ask is, if there was a Korean 5th degree and an Okinawan 6th degree, the TDK guy could "legally" call himself a Master, while the Okinawan guy could not. This would give the TDK school a competitive business advantage, an incentive to one style having a lower benchmark for a lofty title.

It was said that Korea made a concerted effort to "invade" the American market and spread their business model around that time. I make no value judgement here. I'm just wondering (exploring an hypothesis) if this idea is a possibility.

 

[Urban Trekker]

Now, I would like to know if TDK in Korea/USA had those Master degree benchmarks pre 1970. The reason I ask is, if there was a Korean 5th degree and an Okinawan 6th degree, the TDK guy could "legally" call himself a Master, while the Okinawan guy could not. This would give the TDK school a competitive business advantage, an incentive to one style having a lower benchmark for a lofty title.

I'm kind of confused as to how this would work. First, I'm wondering how many people who are looking to begin their martial arts journeys are really thinking that far ahead. Secondly, even if the head of a TKD dojang were to explain this to a prospective student, that prospective student would either be confused or overwhelmed. After all, the only thing that perspective student knows is "black belt."

It was said that Korea made a concerted effort to "invade" the American market and spread their business model around that time. I make no value judgement here. I'm just wondering (exploring an hypothesis) if this idea is a possibility.

I'm curious about this myself. Might be different because of the area I live in (I'm told that Newport News is the city with the highest percentage of Koreans in the US), I've noticed that all the TKD dojangs are owned by Mr. Kim, not Mr. Jones. Conversely, all the karate dojos are by Mr. Jones, not Mr. Yamamoto. So it looks like there's something to what you're saying.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm kind of confused as to how this would work. First, I'm wondering how many people who are looking to begin their martial arts journeys are really thinking that far ahead. Secondly, even if the head of a TKD dojang were to explain this to a prospective student, that prospective student would either be confused or overwhelmed. After all, the only thing that perspective student knows is "black belt."

I think his thought was that being able to refer to oneself as a "Master" (without angering the higher-ups in your own style) had more marketing cachet than not having that title, rather than students being drawn to the idea of getting their own title sooner. And it might be true, given most folks have very little knowledge with which to make a decision in choosing a school.

 

[MadMartigan]

Now, I would like to know if TDK in Korea/USA had those Master degree benchmarks pre 1970. The reason I ask is, if there was a Korean 5th degree and an Okinawan 6th degree, the TDK guy could "legally" call himself a Master, while the Okinawan guy could not. This would give the TDK school a competitive business advantage, an incentive to one style having a lower benchmark for a lofty title.

I'm by no means a history expert in all areas of this subject. What I do know is this.
On the ITF style of the TKD house, the term Master was reserved for 7th Dan + since (at least 1972). Grand Master was reserved fot 9th Dan only (there being no 10th). To my knowledge, that is still the case within North America and internationally.

I believe Tang Soo Do (and KKW TKD) uses master at 4th Dan, GM at 7th +. Someone more well educated than I would have to answer when that became the normal process for those styles.

I too see the marketing appeal and why people (at least those whose egos lead their way) wanted to have the highest rank in their market. As a teen, I recall looking through Yellow Pages ads for martial arts schools. As someone with no knowledge of what to look for, seeing 'Great Grand Master Imperial Moff Tarkin who had a 27th Degree Black Belt with 30 confirmed kills' sounded quite impressive.

 

[Urban Trekker]

I too see the marketing appeal and why people (at least those whose egos lead their way) wanted to have the highest rank in their market. As a teen, I recall looking through Yellow Pages ads for martial arts schools. As someone with no knowledge of what to look for, seeing 'Great Grand Master Imperial Moff Tarkin who had a 27th Degree Black Belt with 30 confirmed kills' sounded quite impressive.

I can only speak for myself, but even back to my teens, I'd have found such a title to be highly cringeworthy. At the end of the day, as a new student, I'm the one paying him. In other words, I hired him to perform a service. I'll be damned if I call anyone, least of all someone whose table I'm putting food on, "master."

 

[Steve]

I can only speak for myself, but even back to my teens, I'd have found such a title to be highly cringeworthy. At the end of the day, as a new student, I'm the one paying him. In other words, I hired him to perform a service. I'll be damned if I call anyone, least of all someone whose table I'm putting food on, "master."

I think this is a great point. The martial arts instructor is being paid for a service, in much the same way that a personal trainer is paid. It's a relationship that is expected to deliver tangible results.

 

[lklawson]

I can only speak for myself, but even back to my teens, I'd have found such a title to be highly cringeworthy. At the end of the day, as a new student, I'm the one paying him. In other words, I hired him to perform a service. I'll be damned if I call anyone, least of all someone whose table I'm putting food on, "master."

That's just because you have a hangup about what "master" means. At some point my may have to stop carrying around some of that social baggage.

 

[lklawson]

I think this is a great point. The martial arts instructor is being paid for a service, in much the same way that a personal trainer is paid. It's a relationship that is expected to deliver tangible results.

Much as an Apprenticeship would?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Steve]

Much as an Apprenticeship would?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

In an apprenticeship, you're paying me. An electrician's apprentice is being paid to learn a trade, for example. I think it would be really interesting if a martial arts instructor actually brought on a student or students, and paid them to learn the style, so that they could go out and function independently.

But that said, I think if I hire a personal trainer, or pay for jazzercise... that's more analogous than learning a trade.

Edit: I am still chuckling at the visual of someone hiring a personal trainer who is running them through a circuit. "Kirk, 1 minute left! Don't stop... keep going!" "Yes, Master!" "5 more burpees, Kirk. I know it hurts!" "Yes, Master!" Adds a whole new dynamic to that relationship.

 

[Steve]

In an apprenticeship, you're paying me. An electrician's apprentice is being paid to learn a trade, for example. I think it would be really interesting if a martial arts instructor actually brought on a student or students, and paid them to learn the style, so that they could go out and function independently.

But that said, I think if I hire a personal trainer, or pay for jazzercise... that's more analogous than learning a trade.

Edit: I am still chuckling at the visual of someone hiring a personal trainer who is running them through a circuit. "Kirk, 1 minute left! Don't stop... keep going!" "Yes, Master!" "5 more burpees, Kirk. I know it hurts!" "Yes, Master!" Adds a whole new dynamic to that relationship.

You know, thinking about this, I wonder if it's viable... if I hire you as an apprentice, take over responsibility for your training and pay you a fair wage for your time, I could then fire you. I could also teach you the business elements and instructorship elements of the style. In other words, as you learn the style, you would be required to take on more responsibility. I would be getting value from you, and the relationship wouldn't be me providing a service to you; rather, it would be you are my employee. I don't know if it would work or not, but it's an interesting thought.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I think this is a great point. The martial arts instructor is being paid for a service, in much the same way that a personal trainer is paid. It's a relationship that is expected to deliver tangible results.

It takes a few months to become a personal trainer. A martial art master may have studied 30-40 years to earn his title. There may be a monetary business consideration with mutual obligation, true, but the traditional master-student relationship can go much deeper.

I'm the one paying him. In other words, I hired him to perform a service. I'll be damned if I call anyone, least of all someone whose table I'm putting food on, "master."

Do you have a problem calling someone you hired to replace your shoulder joint, "Doctor"? As Iklawson led up to, the "master" in the MA context is a title of earned respect, referring to a level of skill and knowledge, perhaps even wisdom, NOT someone who "owns" you or tries to control your life.

 

[lklawson]

In an apprenticeship, you're paying me. An electrician's apprentice is being paid to learn a trade, for example. I think it would be really interesting if a martial arts instructor actually brought on a student or students, and paid them to learn the style, so that they could go out and function independently.

But that said, I think if I hire a personal trainer, or pay for jazzercise... that's more analogous than learning a trade.

Edit: I am still chuckling at the visual of someone hiring a personal trainer who is running them through a circuit. "Kirk, 1 minute left! Don't stop... keep going!" "Yes, Master!" "5 more burpees, Kirk. I know it hurts!" "Yes, Master!" Adds a whole new dynamic to that relationship.

Personally, I don't get "paid" per se for teaching. I teach Judo at the Y (last session) and I don't get paid for that, though my membership is comped. The students pay the Y but I don't get any money for it. When I end up going to the New Carlisle club, it's a "no mat fees" club and I won't get paid there either. When I teach Western arts, I don't ask for any money outside of club "dues" to help buy equipment.

I've done a few seminars that paid me a small percentage of the take but, honestly, that's pretty rare (and pretty small money too).

I've paid for martial arts instruction and I've gotten it for free too. I've never been too worried about whether or not I make money from it. Someone wants to learn from me, most of the time, I'm happy to teach. In JMA I've never asked to be called anything other than Sensei and even that feels a little odd but, out of respect for the art, I try to maintain that tradition. In WMA, I've never been asked to be called much of anything at all. "Instructor," "Teacher," "Study Leader" or something similar. I don't have a Coaching Certificate or I might have considered that. I certainly don't have a Maestro's certificate and I won't claim anything close to it, both out of honesty and out of respect for my friends in Fencing.

To a large degree, I find all this angst over whether or not to call someone "master" to be somewhat amusing, perplexing, and, frankly, over-thinking. If the person knows shiz that you really want to learn, then call 'em whatever the heck he wants you to or you don't get to learn it from them.

If I call someone "master," I already know what my social and moral limits are on that term. Same with bowing or any of the various salutes. I can acknowledge skill and honor them without thinking that by doing so they have some sort of lien on running my life. And if they think they do, they're in for a rude surprise (and I can tell you this as a fact from direct personal experience).

In the end, what does "master" mean? Pretty much anything that a given group/club/authorizing&certifying-body decides. You know, same as "black belt." What's it mean to me? Pretty much nothing. ...or rather, whatever I feel like it should mean in the given context. And I'll call them their titles in a given context. So when I took seminar classes from Maestro Ramon Martinez and Maestro Jeannette Acosta-Martinez, while in class, I referred to them as "Maestro." After class when were were sitting around, swapping stories, drinking, and eating chocolate, I called him "Ramon" and her "Jeannette." And they called me "Kirk."

I'm really struggling to figure out why it's a big deal to most people.

That said, I do enjoy the debate. Keeps the mind sharp.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

You know, thinking about this, I wonder if it's viable... if I hire you as an apprentice, take over responsibility for your training and pay you a fair wage for your time, I could then fire you. I could also teach you the business elements and instructorship elements of the style. In other words, as you learn the style, you would be required to take on more responsibility. I would be getting value from you, and the relationship wouldn't be me providing a service to you; rather, it would be you are my employee. I don't know if it would work or not, but it's an interesting thought.

In old-style apprenticeships, your father would leave you with me. You'd live with me and I'd give you food, lodging, and train you in whatever skill it was that I was a Master of. You wouldn't get paid anything if I didn't feel like it. I'm teaching you a professional skill; that's your pay. You'd do whatever I told you until you got to the point of being a Journeyman when I'd sort of release you into the wild. You'd still be under my direction but you'd be mostly independent. Eventually, you'd submit a Master Work and be graded for mastery in the art. Some people believe that's what the Staircase of Loretto was.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Steve]

It takes a few months to become a personal trainer. A martial art master may have studied 30-40 years to earn his title. There may be a monetary business consideration with mutual obligation, true, but the traditional master-student relationship can go much deeper.

I have a handy man I've worked with for 15 years now. I consider him to be more than a hired hand at this point. But I wouldn't call him master.

Do you have a problem calling someone you hired to replace your shoulder joint, "Doctor"? As Iklawson led up to, the "master" in the MA context is a title of earned respect, referring to a level of skill and knowledge, perhaps even wisdom, NOT someone who "owns" you or tries to control your life.

There is a very clear and obvious difference between someone who has earned an honorific through earning an accredited degree and any martial arts instructor. For that matter, there is a clear and obvious difference between a "master electrician" or "master carpenter" and a martial artist. Very different.

 

[Steve]

In old-style apprenticeships, your father would leave you with me. You'd live with me and I'd give you food, lodging, and train you in whatever skill it was that I was a Master of. You wouldn't get paid anything if I didn't feel like it. I'm teaching you a professional skill; that's your pay. You'd do whatever I told you until you got to the point of being a Journeyman when I'd sort of release you into the wild. You'd still be under my direction but you'd be mostly independent. Eventually, you'd submit a Master Work and be graded for mastery in the art. Some people believe that's what the Staircase of Loretto was.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

yeah, and I've heard about some situations akin to that even today... though I think they are rare and I've only ever heard about them in Japanese traditional arts like Aikido. I've never heard of any MA relationship like that in the USA, though.

One could say that Sumo is like that even now, where the upper level guys who get paid basically fund the training for the lower level guys who do not get paid.

 

[Steve]

Personally, I don't get "paid" per se for teaching. I teach Judo at the Y (last session) and I don't get paid for that, though my membership is comped. The students pay the Y but I don't get any money for it. When I end up going to the New Carlisle club, it's a "no mat fees" club and I won't get paid there either. When I teach Western arts, I don't ask for any money outside of club "dues" to help buy equipment.

I've done a few seminars that paid me a small percentage of the take but, honestly, that's pretty rare (and pretty small money too).

I've paid for martial arts instruction and I've gotten it for free too. I've never been too worried about whether or not I make money from it. Someone wants to learn from me, most of the time, I'm happy to teach. In JMA I've never asked to be called anything other than Sensei and even that feels a little odd but, out of respect for the art, I try to maintain that tradition. In WMA, I've never been asked to be called much of anything at all. "Instructor," "Teacher," "Study Leader" or something similar. I don't have a Coaching Certificate or I might have considered that. I certainly don't have a Maestro's certificate and I won't claim anything close to it, both out of honesty and out of respect for my friends in Fencing.

To a large degree, I find all this angst over whether or not to call someone "master" to be somewhat amusing, perplexing, and, frankly, over-thinking. If the person knows shiz that you really want to learn, then call 'em whatever the heck he wants you to or you don't get to learn it from them.

If I call someone "master," I already know what my social and moral limits are on that term. Same with bowing or any of the various salutes. I can acknowledge skill and honor them without thinking that by doing so they have some sort of lien on running my life. And if they think they do, they're in for a rude surprise (and I can tell you this as a fact from direct personal experience).

In the end, what does "master" mean? Pretty much anything that a given group/club/authorizing&certifying-body decides. You know, same as "black belt." What's it mean to me? Pretty much nothing. ...or rather, whatever I feel like it should mean in the given context. And I'll call them their titles in a given context. So when I took seminar classes from Maestro Ramon Martinez and Maestro Jeannette Acosta-Martinez, while in class, I referred to them as "Maestro." After class when were were sitting around, swapping stories, drinking, and eating chocolate, I called him "Ramon" and her "Jeannette." And they called me "Kirk."

I'm really struggling to figure out why it's a big deal to most people.

That said, I do enjoy the debate. Keeps the mind sharp.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

To be clear, I'm not hung up on it at all. It's a title like any other. The relational dynamic that it hints at, though, is very dysfunctional to me, and leads to all kinds of misunderstandings. Things like switching schools becomes a big deal. If I want to switch from LA Fitness to Planet Fitness, there is nothing to it. No hard feelings on anyone's part. But shoot, try switching from one MA school to another... particularly within the same MA style, and now we can see the issues with the mindset that underlies this "master" business.

 

[lklawson]

There is a very clear and obvious difference between someone who has earned an honorific through earning an accredited degree and any martial arts instructor. For that matter, there is a clear and obvious difference between a "master electrician" or "master carpenter" and a martial artist. Very different.

I will point out again that in Fencing the title "Maestro" is particularly common. I know several who are quite proud of earning the title; it required a great deal of dedication, hard work, and years of their lives. Or are you feeling like arguing that Fencing isn't a martial art?

I've also heard the term used to refer to orchestral directors but I don't know if that is common, certified, or some sort of honorific pleasantry.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Steve]

I will point out again that in Fencing the title "Maestro" is particularly common. I know several who are quite proud of earning the title; it required a great deal of dedication, hard work, and years of their lives. Or are you feeling like arguing that Fencing isn't a martial art?

I've also heard the term used to refer to orchestral directors but I don't know if that is common, certified, or some sort of honorific pleasantry.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Meastro is French. That's very different.

Seriously, though, as I just said, it's not the word itself, but the dysfunctional relationship it might hint at. If you're at a school, paying for lessons, and are concerned about switching to another school, or even just quitting the school, and it's weird... that's a red flag. Whether you call the instructor coach, sensei, master, or whatever, that's a bad dynamic. And, it seems that where this dynamic tends to exist are in schools that emphasize these types of un-accredited honorifics.

Also, doctors, lawyers, Certified Forensic Accountants, ABO certified opticians, and so on... those are honorifics that reflect some very specific credentials that are regulated and accredited. They just simply aren't the same thing... at all... as calling John Smith the dojo owner, "Master Smith."

One of the good things about international competition is that there are generally associated national and international governing bodies. Olympic sports including fencing, judo, TKD, and wrestling, have well structured credentialing, and a lot of international calibration. Point being that "martial arts" is a diverse situation. You're trying to paint with a broad brush by avoiding the issue at hand by pointing out that it isn't universal. As I said earlier, I'm not personally hung up on the terms themselves, but am more interested in the nature of the relationship it connotes.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You know, thinking about this, I wonder if it's viable... if I hire you as an apprentice, take over responsibility for your training and pay you a fair wage for your time, I could then fire you. I could also teach you the business elements and instructorship elements of the style. In other words, as you learn the style, you would be required to take on more responsibility. I would be getting value from you, and the relationship wouldn't be me providing a service to you; rather, it would be you are my employee. I don't know if it would work or not, but it's an interesting thought.

It might work, where a student comes in expecting to make a career of teaching. Of course, there would have to be some reasonable expectation of success in that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

To be clear, I'm not hung up on it at all. It's a title like any other. The relational dynamic that it hints at, though, is very dysfunctional to me, and leads to all kinds of misunderstandings. Things like switching schools becomes a big deal. If I want to switch from LA Fitness to Planet Fitness, there is nothing to it. No hard feelings on anyone's part. But shoot, try switching from one MA school to another... particularly within the same MA style, and now we can see the issues with the mindset that underlies this "master" business.

I think a fitness gym is less personal (at the staff level) than most people’s MA training location becomes after a year or so. Maybe it’s more like changing doctors - the change implies something about the relationship and/or interaction of the doctor (or staff) and patient.