Titles

[MJS]

How much value do you place on the various titles in the arts? I ask this, because on another forum, I was reading a thread by someone who stated that he was just about ready to test a student of his for 5th degree black. He goes on to say that he's been making a living teaching since 1992, and that bringing someone to this rank shows that he has spent alot of time and commitment with this student. His question was whether or not he should now consider himself a Grandmaster.

Now, I'm not saying that titles should not be used, but IMO, I feel that there should be more behind that title than simply promoting someone to 5th.

Thoughts?

 

[terryl965]

I agree with you

 

[Rook]

Well, doesn't whatever art he belong to have a standard set of titles? Ussually a title is awarded to you by people from your organization or from you art. If you are an art founder, titles are sometimes given by MA organizations but there is a fine line between that and sokeship councils that is turning greyer by the day. There really isn't a time that I can think of when a person should appoint his or herself to a new title.

 

[Carol]

Well, doesn't whatever art he belong to have a standard set of titles? Ussually a title is awarded to you by people from your organization or from you art. If you are an art founder, titles are sometimes given by MA organizations but there is a fine line between that and sokeship councils that is turning greyer by the day. There really isn't a time that I can think of when a person should appoint his or herself to a new title.

What Rook said.

I can't think of any title that should be appointed.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I too agree

But to me titles don't mean much I have seen some pretty amazing martial artists most going by their first name. It is how you train and who you are that matters. A title means nothing, it a label that is all.

And I am VERY aware this is regional, but every time I hear someone say they are a grand master I think of what I was told about Beijing. If they call someone a grand master there.... they are being very sarcastic.

 

[exile]

I agree with you

Ditto. I've always thought that if the term `Grandmaster' means anything at all, it identifies someone who's made a fundamental and sustained contribution to their art—who has demonstrably advanced it by conspicuous excellence in some core aspect of it over many, many years. Emphasis on many.

 

[Kacey]

Titles should be earned - not taken.

I have no problems with organizations that require instructors to promote students to a certain rank before some they themselves can be promoted, and for the reasons MJS quoted - having an instructor who spends the time and effort to bring a student to a certain level shows dedication and commitment. Nonetheless, I don't feel it is the instructor/student's place to take a title based solely on this one attainment.

MJS, do you know if this person you mention has an instructor - because that is the person who should be bestowing titles (as an expression of rank).

 

[MJS]

Well, doesn't whatever art he belong to have a standard set of titles?

Yes.

Ussually a title is awarded to you by people from your organization or from you art.

Agreed.

If you are an art founder, titles are sometimes given by MA organizations but there is a fine line between that and sokeship councils that is turning greyer by the day.

He is not the founder of the art.

There really isn't a time that I can think of when a person should appoint his or herself to a new title.

Agreed.

 

[Drac]

Ditto. I've always thought that if the term `Grandmaster' means anything at all, it identifies someone who's made a fundamental and sustained contribution to their art—who has demonstrably advanced it by conspicuous excellence in some core aspect of it over many, many years. Emphasis on many.

I agree with exhile..The handful of Grandmasters that I have had the privledge to meet and train with personify the above description...

 

[MJS]

MJS, do you know if this person you mention has an instructor - because that is the person who should be bestowing titles (as an expression of rank).

AKAIK, yes, this person is affiliated with an organization, hense the reason why I was so curious as to why someone would want to promote themselves, rather than going thru their inst.

Mike

 

[Drac]

I was so curious as to why someone would want to promote themselves, rather than going thru their inst

It is a good question...

 

[Infinite]

Can I :deadhorse titles are earned, bestowed, and gained.

Not earned,claimed,gained or worse claimed,gained

 

[kroh]

Have you ever noticed how many grand masters there are? Even now we have great grand masters, supreme great grand masters...I have even heard some one refer to himself as...Lord.

OK...Since we can't really quantify what makes a master because each of the systems has their own criteria, what's the point? I have seen some of these great grand masters and some of the martial arts they profess. Either I wasn't privy to the hidden meaning of what they were doing or they couldn't fight thier way out of a wet paper bag. I have also seen others (like Xue Sheng said) who are the very epitome of what a master of should be and yet refuse to be refered to by title.

I think part of the problem is that in America, we all want to feel special. I am sure there are many who say," That group has a grand master...maybe we should have one too." Suddenly the title looses much of its meaning.

Titles are fine as long as some one using them understands what the language behind them means. If you call some one Grand Master... That is redundant to a point but possible if you are refering to the dictionary defintion of master as head of household. The master heads a small group and the Grand master controls all of them. Do we really need a Supreme Great Grand Master. In my opinion it sounds like a supersized portion at a fast food restaraunt.

The other thing that I often wonder about is why a person would refer to themselves by a title in another language when they don't speak it. I have noticed that a lot of the Americanized Kempo systems have moved from calling their instructors by an Asian word to using the polite monicre of Mr. or Ms. (mrs. etc). I think that is a great step to making the system they study truely their own. Some even use the title of Professor or Dr. (although some of these still wierd me out a bit).

Titles should have a definate purpose. They should define clear cut seperations in an organization and should be exactly as designed... a descriptor to tell who is who. When they transcend that and start stroking the ego instead...

Better that I not finish that one...

Regards,
Walt

 

[exile]

Titles are fine as long as some one using them understands what the language behind them means. If you call some one Grand Master... That is redundant to a point but possible if you are refering to the dictionary defintion of master as head of household. The master heads a small group and the Grand master controls all of them. Do we really need a Supreme Great Grand Master. In my opinion it sounds like a supersized portion at a fast food restaraunt.

...Titles should have a definate purpose. They should define clear cut seperations in an organization and should be exactly as designed... a descriptor to tell who is who.

I think I've always supposed that the use of the titles `Master' and `Grandmaster' were patterned after the use of these titles in chess, where they've been part of the ranking since Czar Nicholas II first awarded it to a group of top tournament finishers in 1914. The FIDE which regulates the international chess world has strict competition criteria for both titles, and in addition, there appears to be a `Super Grandmaster' title, again awarded on a strictly quantitative basis depending on international FIDE tournament performance, with the number of these Super GMs never having exceeded double digits since it was instituted. Each of these titles identifies the holder's competence as a chessplayer in a very specific way that can be immediately documented by consulting his or her FIDE numerical rating. Anyone who claimed any of these titles without the numbers to back it up would be kicked out of the chess world so fast they'd be travelling backwards in time.

Big difference between us and them, eh?

 

[kroh]

Anyone who claimed any of these titles without the numbers to back it up would be kicked out of the chess world so fast they'd be travelling backwards in time.

And this is a good example of where the titles have a purpose. The titles attest to the persons skill BACKED UP BY their past achievements, and not just becuase they opened up their own chess club and they need something flashy to put on the door to draw in students.

Great example,
Regards,
Walt

 

[exile]

And this is a good example of where the titles have a purpose. The titles attest to the persons skill BACKED UP BY their past achievements, and not just becuase they opened up their own chess club and they need something flashy to put on the door to draw in students.

Perfect analogy, Walt!

I suppose the problem is that if it's a competitive contest you're getting rank in, the parameter you use for ranking is there for all to see: success in sanctioned contests. With the MAs, there's just no way you can quantify competence in a parallel fashion. Competition is only a part, and for many practitioners (and styles) a minor part, of the story. So we wind up with all this title-mongering...

 

[jks9199]

How much value do you place on the various titles in the arts? I ask this, because on another forum, I was reading a thread by someone who stated that he was just about ready to test a student of his for 5th degree black. He goes on to say that he's been making a living teaching since 1992, and that bringing someone to this rank shows that he has spent alot of time and commitment with this student. His question was whether or not he should now consider himself a Grandmaster.

Now, I'm not saying that titles should not be used, but IMO, I feel that there should be more behind that title than simply promoting someone to 5th.

Thoughts?

I don't think that Grandmaster is a title you take for yourself.

Beyond that -- I'm given to understand that anyone calling themself "sensei" doesn't understand the word in Japanese. I don't know if that's true or not...

I generally don't call myself "master" or anything else, nor do I require students to address me by anything other than "Mister" or my name.

But a lot of this is also dependent on the practices within a style. Some styles call practioners at certain levels "professor" or "doctor"; others use their own names, and still others just don't bother with it.

 

[Iron Leopard]

In my style and some others I've been associated with 5th degree is the master level. I don't know how I feel about this other than ...I feel I will never be ready for this level and I also feel that nobody should promote themselves to any rank or title.

 

[wade]

I have 2 student that I have promoted to KKW 5th Dan, they call me master (small letters) last name. I call them by their first names. To everyone else I go by my ultra secret magical hidden name, wade. It's easier to remember...

 

[Bigshadow]

In many martial arts certain titles are associated with certain ranks.

However, I like the idea of some titles being given by one's peers because they respect their level of skill and rank versus being demanded or ordered by the person just to be formal and sound cool, especially when referring to themselves. You will notice that the most humble masters rarely ever refer to themselves as master.