Mastering An Art

[MJS]

I disagree......Mastery is, for all intense and purposes, perfection. If one believes one has mastered ANYTHING, then one is deluding oneself. One only finds when they achieve what they believe to be mastery.........that all they've done is found more levels to aspire to before they can consider any area 'mastered'.

But at that point the argument deteriorates in to semantics.

Agreed. My Arnis inst. has been training many years longer than I, spent quite a bit of time with the GM of the art, yet he openly admits to me, that he's still learning, and is still seeing things. That being said, this is why I dont look at it as mastering, but just continueing my training, and if that means one or more things, then thats fine too.

 

[MJS]

Mike I am sure you already know this but can one truely ever Master anything in today world? I ask this because as you know every Art is always changing and growing so how can one Master what is always evolving?

Of course, I'm sure there're some that dont think their art needs to evolve. However, I do agree with what you're saying though.

To me a true Master of anything is one that continues to grow and look into new ways of developing their style or job.

nice.

 

[MJS]

Honestly, I've never heard a very compelling definition of "mastering an art." I know that sounds argumentative. But seriously, does it mean that you can apply that art to resolve every situation? Surely mastery lies in application. But how many "masters" can really be said to have applied their art in so broad a range of situations?

I think the gap between application and practice is so vast in martial arts (due to the non-regrettable fact that we rarely use them in real life-or-death situations) that it's hard to gauge mastery. If someone is a chess master, for instance, then I'd expect a certain level of performance within the easily established parameters of a game of chess. Martial arts' parameters aren't nearly that easily established. I can even see the term applied to a sportive outlet for a martial art. Because, again, there are clear parameters by which to judge mastery. But the more general use of the term...

Interesting analogy with the chess masters. Heres something I was just thinking about....for the sake of discussion, if we say that mastering something means that we know all there is to know, we can learn no more, etc., then what happens when 2 chess masters sit down to play? If they know the game inside and out, is there ever a winner or does it always end in a stalemate? I would think that if it was anything other than a stalemate, then that would tell me that there's something more to learn, no?

I don't know. I used to think that the taekwondo practice of calling 4th degree BBs and above "master" was kinda ludicrous. But really, it's a specific achievement reached by specific standards. So, while I wouldn't have chosen that term myself, at least it carries a specific meaning.

Probably the #1 reason why I'm not a huge fan of titles. Sure, I use them, but I think alot of times, the title, along with the persons inflated rank, goes to their head.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I disagree......Mastery is, for all intense and purposes, perfection. If one believes one has mastered ANYTHING, then one is deluding oneself. One only finds when they achieve what they believe to be mastery.........that all they've done is found more levels to aspire to before they can consider any area 'mastered'.

But at that point the argument deteriorates in to semantics.

So the US Army is wronginusing the title Master Sergeant?

 

[Rich Parsons]

This is something that we hear all the time. Its usually asked in the form of a question, "How long does it take to master this art?" to which the answer is typically, "A lifetime." I usually hear this come up when the subject of cross training comes up. People usually say, "How can you focus on 1 or 2 more arts, when it takes so long to master your original art?"

This is an interesting question, because even after all of the time I've spent doing Kenpo, I still learn things when I work with my teachers. No, I'm not talking about a new technique or kata, but subtle things, such as a stance adjustment, body alignment, etc. One of the last times I was going thru techs., one of the other black belts that was working with us, made a slight adjustment to my body position and the tech was suddenly night and day.

So, if we look at it like that, then yes, it could take a lifetime. So, if thats the case, how could one be expected to be any good at anything else? Add in BJJ classes to your original art....how can you devote the time?

For myself, I view it like this: I'm in no rush to master anything. IMHO, mastering something takes time and lots of it. But each and every time you train, you're getting that much better. I added in Arnis and BJJ to my training, although I'm not as active with the BJJ currently, but I am with the Arnis. I've reached BB level in that art, and still train it. Every time I train, I am training something specific. In other words, during my lessons, I try to pick 1 or 2 things, and focus on those for the lesson, rather than flit back and forth between 10 different things.

Looking at this another way, if it supposedly takes a lifetime to learn an art, then technically, it could take a lifetime to master one particular part of an art. Kata...to really get good at kata, and I dont just mean being able to perform with power, but to really understand it, well, as I said, that could take quite some time. But we still devote time to not only learning the kata, but also the stances, the self defense techniques, the punches, kicks, blocks, etc. So really, IMO, its not going to be that much different, if 1 or 2 more arts were added in. Sure, there will be a slight difference because now you're devoting time to 2-3 things, rather than 1, but I think you can see the point I'm trying to make.

So, what are your thoughts on mastering an art? Do you feel that one has to stay devoted to one thing and one thing only, or is it possible to train at least 1 other thing, train on a regular basis, and always strive to get better?

A couple of comments:

1) There was a guy who trained with us and got tired of the promotion rate. (* It was too slow for him. *) He left and went to another club and got rank quicker. About a year later he quit and moved to another art. I saw him a couple of years later and he was working on his third art. He asked me what I was training in and I told him. His reply was, "I mastered that so long ago, why havn't you? You need to move on and train in something else."

I personally thought he was wrong and that I still had (have) stuff to learn.

2) I have seen comments about Master's here, and to me it sounds like the layman's belief in Black Belt. It is perfection. It is the end all.

I do not think blackbelt nor Master is the end all. I think a good Master will still look to learn and teach and adjust with the times and new questions.

Just the title alone does not restrict anyone. If a person was going to be restricted by a title then there was a good chance they would have been restricted with the title black belt. Of course there are always exceptions.


3) Ranks and Titles in General
I have some. I still train and try to learn and take things apart to better understand them.

But if someone has a title or rank it does not upset me, as thier title or rank has no bearing upon my training and or my ego. Everyone could be grand masters and I would still be fine with that and still train and still work and still investigate.

I do agree that if a title or word is overused then looses some value for not being rare, but I have the same arguement for grading on a curve. If everyone scores 100 and a couple score 99 do they still not deserve an A? Or should the get a failure for being the lowest score? It just does not make sense to me.

I prefer to be called Rich. I still get on the floor and train. Some people have asked me if this does not make me a student of the person teaching. Yes and no. I could be a student at that moment as they are teaching and I am their to learn, but I am not a STUDENT of theirs or their art. I am honest, and tell people what training if any I have had with people.

But that is me and others do nto see it the same way, but that is what makes us individuals. Right?



Thanks

 

[MJS]

A couple of comments:

1) There was a guy who trained with us and got tired of the promotion rate. (* It was too slow for him. *) He left and went to another club and got rank quicker. About a year later he quit and moved to another art. I saw him a couple of years later and he was working on his third art. He asked me what I was training in and I told him. His reply was, "I mastered that so long ago, why havn't you? You need to move on and train in something else."

I personally thought he was wrong and that I still had (have) stuff to learn.

2) I have seen comments about Master's here, and to me it sounds like the layman's belief in Black Belt. It is perfection. It is the end all.

I do not think blackbelt nor Master is the end all. I think a good Master will still look to learn and teach and adjust with the times and new questions.

Just the title alone does not restrict anyone. If a person was going to be restricted by a title then there was a good chance they would have been restricted with the title black belt. Of course there are always exceptions.


3) Ranks and Titles in General
I have some. I still train and try to learn and take things apart to better understand them.

But if someone has a title or rank it does not upset me, as thier title or rank has no bearing upon my training and or my ego. Everyone could be grand masters and I would still be fine with that and still train and still work and still investigate.

I do agree that if a title or word is overused then looses some value for not being rare, but I have the same arguement for grading on a curve. If everyone scores 100 and a couple score 99 do they still not deserve an A? Or should the get a failure for being the lowest score? It just does not make sense to me.

I prefer to be called Rich. I still get on the floor and train. Some people have asked me if this does not make me a student of the person teaching. Yes and no. I could be a student at that moment as they are teaching and I am their to learn, but I am not a STUDENT of theirs or their art. I am honest, and tell people what training if any I have had with people.

But that is me and others do nto see it the same way, but that is what makes us individuals. Right?



Thanks

1) Those types 'think' that they know everything because they 'think' they can perform it, but in reality, they pretty much suck and still need lots of work, but aren't humble enough to admit it.

2) Agreed. Those people think that BB is the end, when IMO, its just the beginning.

3) I have some too. But likewise, I prefer to be called Mike. Like I said, I dont have an issue with the titles, its the people who let their ego get more inflated, along with their inflated rank, that ruffle my feathers on that subject.

 

[just2kicku]

So your feelings are that just 1 art should be focused on?

I think it should be one at a time. I personally have gotten things mixed up trying to do two things at once.

I don't think one can ever "master" an art, even in a lifetime. No one lives, breathes, eats and sleeps MA anymore. Like I said, even Sijo said he was no master, we all think he is, but he didn't.

maybe if we grew up in a temple and trained 8-10 hours a day, we might come close. but I think good and proficient is what we'll be.

In your opinion, is this a good or bad thing?

I honestly don't think it's good or bad. We take from an art what works for us and work on it. But I think that mastering an art would to master everything in that art.

Although it's just my opinion

, and my opinion won't even get you a cup of coffee.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Agreed. My Arnis inst. has been training many years longer than I, spent quite a bit of time with the GM of the art, yet he openly admits to me, that he's still learning, and is still seeing things. That being said, this is why I dont look at it as mastering, but just continueing my training, and if that means one or more things, then thats fine too.

Exactly! It's a journey, not a destination.

 

[sgtmac_46]

So the US Army is wronginusing the title Master Sergeant?

I know you're joking, but the use of the word 'Master' is different in that context.......as in he is 'YOUR master' in the sense or ordering and controlling others.

 

[sgtmac_46]

“Even with complete and thorough study there is always the possibility of being defeated and although one may be expert in a particular form, mastery is something a man never stops seeking to attain.” -Miyamoto Musashi

 

[ap Oweyn]

Interesting analogy with the chess masters. Heres something I was just thinking about....for the sake of discussion, if we say that mastering something means that we know all there is to know, we can learn no more, etc., then what happens when 2 chess masters sit down to play? If they know the game inside and out, is there ever a winner or does it always end in a stalemate? I would think that if it was anything other than a stalemate, then that would tell me that there's something more to learn, no?

Not necessarily. Performance isn't solely the product of knowledge. Lots of things affect performance. Nerves, lack of sleep, overtraining, other things on their mind, injury...

I wouldn't necessarily assume that there was something else he could have known that would have changed the outcome. I would first default to the idea that he didn't implement what he knew as well as he could have. What we know is like having a pegboard full of tools in your garage. But having the tools is no guarantee. Sometimes you build a brilliant new chair. Sometimes you hit your thumb with the hammer. Most of the time, you do something in between.

Besides, "all there is to know" is such an abstract concept. Because it covers not only technique (i.e., "I know every technique ever conveyed through my system") but also a perfect sense of timing, angles, etc. And I think that's too abstract to be useful. Not only because you can always tweak some small variable of your performance, but because your capabilities change. I watch video from my arnis black belt test in 1994, and I groan inwardly at how... basic my sense of tactics was. But I'd be lying if I said that I was in better shape now than I was then. Meaning that I was more physically prepared back then and more mentally prepared now. So that parts of my performance were better then and parts are better now.

So am I more or less skilled? Am I closer or further away from mastery?

It's a scale without any really meaningful markers on it. Which is fine. It just means that "mastery" is utterly subjective. Which, I believe, is both accurate and perfectly fine. I'm not wild about the terms. I think "teacher" (in whatever language is applicable) is plenty honourific in and of itself. But I'll respect other people's and other institutions' wishes in how they express the same concept.


Stuart

 

[Rich Parsons]

I know you're joking, but the use of the word 'Master' is different in that context.......as in he is 'YOUR master' in the sense or ordering and controlling others.

Then playing devil's advocate, could not one argue that a master is a rank not an end all. A master in a martial arts would tell black belts and instructors and colored belt students what to do?

 

[Rich Parsons]

“Even with complete and thorough study there is always the possibility of being defeated and although one may be expert in a particular form, mastery is something a man never stops seeking to attain.” -Miyamoto Musashi

I learned and stated this a long time ago and bring it out from time to time, "I can be hit by anyone."

 

[MJS]

Not necessarily. Performance isn't solely the product of knowledge. Lots of things affect performance. Nerves, lack of sleep, overtraining, other things on their mind, injury...

I wouldn't necessarily assume that there was something else he could have known that would have changed the outcome. I would first default to the idea that he didn't implement what he knew as well as he could have. What we know is like having a pegboard full of tools in your garage. But having the tools is no guarantee. Sometimes you build a brilliant new chair. Sometimes you hit your thumb with the hammer. Most of the time, you do something in between.

Besides, "all there is to know" is such an abstract concept. Because it covers not only technique (i.e., "I know every technique ever conveyed through my system") but also a perfect sense of timing, angles, etc. And I think that's too abstract to be useful. Not only because you can always tweak some small variable of your performance, but because your capabilities change. I watch video from my arnis black belt test in 1994, and I groan inwardly at how... basic my sense of tactics was. But I'd be lying if I said that I was in better shape now than I was then. Meaning that I was more physically prepared back then and more mentally prepared now. So that parts of my performance were better then and parts are better now.

So am I more or less skilled? Am I closer or further away from mastery?

It's a scale without any really meaningful markers on it. Which is fine. It just means that "mastery" is utterly subjective. Which, I believe, is both accurate and perfectly fine. I'm not wild about the terms. I think "teacher" (in whatever language is applicable) is plenty honourific in and of itself. But I'll respect other people's and other institutions' wishes in how they express the same concept.


Stuart

So in a nutshell, the term is subjective, and really isn't something that is a reachable goal. If that is in fact the case, then instead of saying mastering, I think the better term is just striving to keep growing and improving, because it seems as if its a never ending goal.

 

[ap Oweyn]

So in a nutshell, the term is subjective, and really isn't something that is a reachable goal. If that is in fact the case, then instead of saying mastering, I think the better term is just striving to keep growing and improving, because it seems as if its a never ending goal.

That's the right of it, to my mind.

 

[Draven]

So, what are your thoughts on mastering an art? Do you feel that one has to stay devoted to one thing and one thing only, or is it possible to train at least 1 other thing, train on a regular basis, and always strive to get better?

I was once told that mastering an art is easy its mastering yourself that hard. I think anyone can "master" something with practice and lots of it. But, when most people especially those from the budo-mindset speak of mastering the art they are speaking of mastering themselves through their art. In that respect, no art can be mastered.

Your art, is simply a set of techniques, principles and training methods. Mastering Karate, Judo, Kung-Fu or even yes BJJ is no different then mastering Chess, Golf, Tennis or Swimming. There may be more to them, but the concept is still the same. I think allot of the self-mastery stuff has been used and hidden behind the blanket term "art" to keep students in the class and not looking for a better more realistic way.

I think in 20 years of dedicated and focused training a person should be able to master many arts (least 2) on the way to mastering themselves.

 

[Telfer]

This is something that we hear all the time. Its usually asked in the form of a question, "How long does it take to master this art?" to which the answer is typically, "A lifetime."

I believe *most* fighting arts (if they can be so called) take a lifetime to deteriorate...because they are so dependent on physical fitness, which declines with age.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Then playing devil's advocate, could not one argue that a master is a rank not an end all. A master in a martial arts would tell black belts and instructors and colored belt students what to do?

One could so argue, but then one would be defeating the original argument.......as the subject is 'Mastering' an art (Mastery).......not become a 'Master' of lower ranks.........same word, different meaning.

 

[Rich Parsons]

One could so argue, but then one would be defeating the original argument.......as the subject is 'Mastering' an art (Mastery).......not become a 'Master' of lower ranks.........same word, different meaning.

Right, Right, Write

I think I got it.

 

[Sandpaperhead]

I think people tend to calculate proficiency in an art in terms of years or belts too much. I mean we can all agree that there are a lot of McDojos out there that give out black belts like candy on halloween. And, they also give out black ranks based on time spent, not exactly how many HOURS spent.

My instructor always tells me "You don't know what you are doing until you have put in at least 1000 hours and even then you're not a master"

Most people don't have the time to put in 1000 hours in a skill or an art form. The average guy practices 2-4 hours a week. so let's be generous and say 4 hours a week. Those 4 hours x 4 weeks = 16 hours a month. 16 x 12 = 192.

So the average guy puts in 192 hours a year... so it would take him 5 years to reach that 1000 hour mark.

and then 10x that to master (if we follow the rule of 10s).

So yeah it could take a life time. That's why if you wanna get good at something fast put in the hours.

Look at the UFC guys; they come from one specific background usually but train 8 hours a day 6x a week and move like pros in the other disciplines a few months in. How do they do it? Hours.