What does it mean to be a Master of something?

[White Belt51]

I just happened to see something about Master Wong, where some one called him a fraud or something. So I thought I would respond. In Asia there are different names used for Teachers, depending on the Country. In China Teachers maybe called Sifu, or in Japan Sensei. The English Translation could mean Master, or Head Master. So when an Asian translates their title into English it may come out as Master. Simple as that. Another thing is you can study Classical Martial Arts from Asia, but the Lineage is not that Important as some make out. What is Important is how You can apply what You have learned. And that goes for every Area of your Life.

 

[skribs]

Here's a conversation I have had several times with numerous different students:

Student: Master Daniel?
Me: Mister Daniel, I'm not master yet. Although...that has a nice ring to it.

I would argue that just because someone calls you a master, doesn't make you a master. Otherwise I'd be a master already, and I'm definitely not there yet. If we're generalizing it, master can be used in a couple of different ways:

1. Someone who is recognized as the top in their category, either by an official association or by victory in a competition. For example, a chess master or grandmaster is ranked by the organization based on their skill relative to other players, or a Master Chef is someone who was won a master chef competition.

2. Someone who is an expert in everything of their trade. For example, let's say you take your car into the shop. One mechanic knows how to do basic repairs, but has to google everything else. Another mechanic will ask for help if he doesn't know something. The master will know 90% of the questions that the others have to google, and for the other 10% he knows the information he needs and exactly which reference book to get it from. He has confidence in his craft, and you can be sure that if you ask him a question, you'll have the correct answer in minutes. Whereas the other guys may take ten minutes to figure out what you're asking, the master mechanic will hear you say "it's making a kind of clunk-ting-clunk" and will stop you there, and say "give me 5 minutes and some duct tape" and your car is fixed.

3. Someone who is considered a leader in their field. This is someone that others would seek to apprentice under, learn from, or would go to for advice. By "others" I mean people beginning in the field or even those who are already proficient. For example, I already have several years experience in IT and a few years at my current position, so I am quite proficient at what I do. However, there are others in my department I go to for advice, because I consider them to have a mastery of the field.

4. A rank, such as in Taekwondo how 4th or 5th Dan can be considered Master and 7th or up can be Grand Master.

Any of these can apply to martial arts, although I would argue that 2, 3, and 4 are generally the ones you would consider. Hopefully someone would have all 3: the complete understanding of the art, the leadership skills required to properly teach the art, and the rank and approval of the organization (if applicable). For example, my Master has in various organizations/arts: 6th Dan and 5th Dan in different TKD organizations, 4th Dan in Hapkido, and 2nd Dan in both Special Forces and in sword. It is clear when he performs his techniques that he knows his stuff and has built up the muscle memory from decades of training, and he does a great job not only teaching the classes, but in training me to teach as well.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Here's a conversation I have had several times with numerous different students:

Student: Master Daniel?
Me: Mister Daniel, I'm not master yet. Although...that has a nice ring to it.

I would argue that just because someone calls you a master, doesn't make you a master. Otherwise I'd be a master already, and I'm definitely not there yet. If we're generalizing it, master can be used in a couple of different ways:

1. Someone who is recognized as the top in their category, either by an official association or by victory in a competition. For example, a chess master or grandmaster is ranked by the organization based on their skill relative to other players, or a Master Chef is someone who was won a master chef competition.

2. Someone who is an expert in everything of their trade. For example, let's say you take your car into the shop. One mechanic knows how to do basic repairs, but has to google everything else. Another mechanic will ask for help if he doesn't know something. The master will know 90% of the questions that the others have to google, and for the other 10% he knows the information he needs and exactly which reference book to get it from. He has confidence in his craft, and you can be sure that if you ask him a question, you'll have the correct answer in minutes. Whereas the other guys may take ten minutes to figure out what you're asking, the master mechanic will hear you say "it's making a kind of clunk-ting-clunk" and will stop you there, and say "give me 5 minutes and some duct tape" and your car is fixed.

3. Someone who is considered a leader in their field. This is someone that others would seek to apprentice under, learn from, or would go to for advice. By "others" I mean people beginning in the field or even those who are already proficient. For example, I already have several years experience in IT and a few years at my current position, so I am quite proficient at what I do. However, there are others in my department I go to for advice, because I consider them to have a mastery of the field.

4. A rank, such as in Taekwondo how 4th or 5th Dan can be considered Master and 7th or up can be Grand Master.

Any of these can apply to martial arts, although I would argue that 2, 3, and 4 are generally the ones you would consider. Hopefully someone would have all 3: the complete understanding of the art, the leadership skills required to properly teach the art, and the rank and approval of the organization (if applicable). For example, my Master has in various organizations/arts: 6th Dan and 5th Dan in different TKD organizations, 4th Dan in Hapkido, and 2nd Dan in both Special Forces and in sword. It is clear when he performs his techniques that he knows his stuff and has built up the muscle memory from decades of training, and he does a great job not only teaching the classes, but in training me to teach as well.

I'd argue that "master" can be a relative term. To a new student, I might seem a master. Perhaps even to some moderately experienced students. I doubt anyone with dan rank in NGA would think so - I'm too honest about my weaknesses for that to happen. So, if a student called me "master", I'd probably stop them, just because I'm not a fan of it (neither is Richard Bowe, though we routinely refer to him as "Master Bowe"). If someone introduced me as "Master Seymour", I'd laugh inside and let it be. It's not a big deal.

 

[skribs]

I'd argue that "master" can be a relative term. To a new student, I might seem a master. Perhaps even to some moderately experienced students. I doubt anyone with dan rank in NGA would think so - I'm too honest about my weaknesses for that to happen. So, if a student called me "master", I'd probably stop them, just because I'm not a fan of it (neither is Richard Bowe, though we routinely refer to him as "Master Bowe"). If someone introduced me as "Master Seymour", I'd laugh inside and let it be. It's not a big deal.

It is a big deal to me, because my goal is to be a master. I want it to mean something when people call me master.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It is a big deal to me, because my goal is to be a master. I want it to mean something when people call me master.

I can see that. None of my training has included an art with a title of "Master", so defining what a master is, would be difficult. I strive for mastery (which is really the same thing). I have glimpses of it. In some areas, I already have what some would call mastery. In other areas, not so much. I doubt that ever changes from this point forward, so I suspect there's never going to be a point where I feel I've reached that stage of "master", though others will hopefullly feel differently (whether they ever use the term or not). That last sentence is why I say it's not a big deal: I don't think I'll ever hear someone call me "master" and think, "Yeah, that's me."

 

[JR 137]

When you meet a true master, within seconds, you just know...

 

[Steve]

Here's a conversation I have had several times with numerous different students:

Student: Master Daniel?
Me: Mister Daniel, I'm not master yet. Although...that has a nice ring to it.

I would argue that just because someone calls you a master, doesn't make you a master. Otherwise I'd be a master already, and I'm definitely not there yet. If we're generalizing it, master can be used in a couple of different ways:


2. Someone who is an expert in everything of their trade. For example, let's say you take your car into the shop. One mechanic knows how to do basic repairs, but has to google everything else. Another mechanic will ask for help if he doesn't know something. The master will know 90% of the questions that the others have to google, and for the other 10% he knows the information he needs and exactly which reference book to get it from. He has confidence in his craft, and you can be sure that if you ask him a question, you'll have the correct answer in minutes. Whereas the other guys may take ten minutes to figure out what you're asking, the master mechanic will hear you say "it's making a kind of clunk-ting-clunk" and will stop you there, and say "give me 5 minutes and some duct tape" and your car is fixed.

3. Someone who is considered a leader in their field. This is someone that others would seek to apprentice under, learn from, or would go to for advice. By "others" I mean people beginning in the field or even those who are already proficient. For example, I already have several years experience in IT and a few years at my current position, so I am quite proficient at what I do. However, there are others in my department I go to for advice, because I consider them to have a mastery of the field.

4. A rank, such as in Taekwondo how 4th or 5th Dan can be considered Master and 7th or up can be Grand Master.

Any of these can apply to martial arts, although I would argue that 2, 3, and 4 are generally the ones you would consider. Hopefully someone would have all 3: the complete understanding of the art, the leadership skills required to properly teach the art, and the rank and approval of the organization (if applicable). For example, my Master has in various organizations/arts: 6th Dan and 5th Dan in different TKD organizations, 4th Dan in Hapkido, and 2nd Dan in both Special Forces and in sword. It is clear when he performs his techniques that he knows his stuff and has built up the muscle memory from decades of training, and he does a great job not only teaching the classes, but in training me to teach as well.

One minor, but important point.

The designation of “master” in the examples you use above are not relative. That suggests the standards are subjective. For the designation to have any real meaning, the criteria are objective.

Google tells me that this is a thumbnail of how one becomes a certified master chef.
How to Become a Chef

Even in situations where the certification is grounded in competitive performance, the criteria isn’t relative to other players. Rather, it’s an objective criteria based on individual performance. Granted the difference is more subtle, but I think still important.

Grandmaster (chess) - Wikipedia

Another point is that you use the term master where I would normally use either reputation or the term expert. Master is generally a designation. It’s more like the term “doctor.” It’s an honorific. The same as earning a belt. You do x, y, and z, and if you do, we will certify you as a “master.”

Further, generally where there may be confusion, people will be more specific. I watch the show Forged in Fire, they always introduce him as ABS certified master smith. This conveys not just what he is, but by what objective criteria he was certified.

 

[Steve]

Just one last thing. Where the criteria is subjective, there is confusion that leads to threads like this. We know consciously or subconsciously that the grading is flawed, and so question the credentials of the person.

 

[mograph]

It's a credential, conferred by an organization.
It's also a way of addressing someone with respect.
In some places, the Master is just the most skilled guy in the club.

... so the term can be quite subjective.

One presumes that someone who actually is a master of an art,

• knows of a lot of people who also practice the art
• knows a lot about the history of the art
• contributes to the quality of the art, often by teaching others
  
• studied with good teachers
• possesses a high level of skill in almost all areas of the art
  
• is comfortable with learning new skills
• is of good character

 

[Steve]

It's a credential, conferred by an organization.
It's also a way of addressing someone with respect.
In some places, the Master is just the most skilled guy in the club.

... so the term can be quite subjective.

One presumes that someone who actually is a master of an art,

• knows of a lot of people who also practice the art
• knows a lot about the history of the art
• contributes to the quality of the art, often by teaching others
  
• studied with good teachers
• possesses a high level of skill in almost all areas of the art
  
• is comfortable with learning new skills
• is of good character

I agree. What I was trying to get at is that, where it is subjective, people have discussions like this one wondering what the term is all about. I bet on the Bladesmith forums, they don’t have threads about what it means to be a master smith.

 

[Zombocalypse]

OP, this is a great question...

My opinion is that Masters are simply people who followed their destiny of greatness. Every field that can be mastered require a different process to become a master on. A man or woman with the aptitude to become a master of something is the one who find joy in whatever process it takes. And that man or woman is destined to reach the top of his or her respected field.

People may say, "It's not destiny, it's a choice." I don't believe that one bit. We were born to become something. And unless we figure out what that is (by figuring out our aptitudes and inclinations and interests and passions), we will never be a master of anything...

 

[JR 137]

Pretty simple, really...

 

[Gerry Seymour]

OP, this is a great question...

My opinion is that Masters are simply people who followed their destiny of greatness. Every field that can be mastered require a different process to become a master on. A man or woman with the aptitude to become a master of something is the one who find joy in whatever process it takes. And that man or woman is destined to reach the top of his or her respected field.

People may say, "It's not destiny, it's a choice." I don't believe that one bit. We were born to become something. And unless we figure out what that is (by figuring out our aptitudes and inclinations and interests and passions), we will never be a master of anything...

I don’t buy into either destiny or predetermined purpose. We have proclivities that make us more likely to succeed at some things, but the rest is mostly choice.

 

[Zombocalypse]

I don’t buy into either destiny or predetermined purpose. We have proclivities that make us more likely to succeed at some things, but the rest is mostly choice.

And often times, when we do choose to go against our "grain", or whatever you call it, we are left unhappy and incompetent. It's the consequence of not honing our true inclinations and talents.

I believe you can succeed with pure inclination with no talent, because your passion for it will overpower your lack of talent. And I believe you can succeed with pure talent and no inclination, because your sheer starting-competence will be high. But you can't succeed without having at least one.

It's like me with writing novels. Zero aptitude, zero talent. I thought I was meant for it, only to realize that I hated fiction in general and preferred to write fitness books and philosophical topics instead. To be fair, I've been told I had potential, but I was far from prodigal. Unlike my ability and knowledge to write quality articles related to weightlifting. When I was 19, I wrote an article that got posted on a popular vertical-jumping website. I was happy about it. Eventually it got taken down because I failed to cite sources, but it was a damn good article.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And often times, when we do choose to go against our "grain", or whatever you call it, we are left unhappy and incompetent. It's the consequence of not honing our true inclinations and talents.

I believe you can succeed with pure inclination with no talent, because your passion for it will overpower your lack of talent. And I believe you can succeed with pure talent and no inclination, because your sheer starting-competence will be high. But you can't succeed without having at least one.

It's like me with writing novels. Zero aptitude, zero talent. I thought I was meant for it, only to realize that I hated fiction in general and preferred to write fitness books and philosophical topics instead. To be fair, I've been told I had potential, but I was far from prodigal. Unlike my ability and knowledge to write quality articles related to weightlifting. When I was 19, I wrote an article that got posted on a popular vertical-jumping website. I was happy about it. Eventually it got taken down because I failed to cite sources, but it was a damn good article.

That is all about those proclivities. None of that is destiny. I am good at teaching complex topics (management/leadership, martial arts, Excel). That can be traced to some personality points, natural strengths, and things I enjoy (mostly because of those strengths). Most people burn out either because they are working without purpose (leads to lack of engagement) or they are working in an area outside their strengths, which takes much more effort.

 

[JR 137]

That is all about those proclivities. None of that is destiny. I am good at teaching complex topics (management/leadership, martial arts, Excel). That can be traced to some personality points, natural strengths, and things I enjoy (mostly because of those strengths). Most people burn out either because they are working without purpose (leads to lack of engagement) or they are working in an area outside their strengths, which takes much more effort.

People quite often work harder at things they’re good at vs things they aren’t. Avoiding difficult tasks is human nature. People would rather refine things that seemingly come naturally than work on things they feel they aren’t going to be good at no matter how hard they try.