What makes a Master?

[skribs]

So what does everyone think about people with relatively little time in an art or who are of a relatively young age, but are considered masters by their peers. Reading and researching karate, youll find examples of this from "the olden days". Arikaki died in his twenties- Funakoshi considered him a master. Youll also find examples of so and so was a master of X art, that person then trained B art under so and so and after four years mastered that art.......

Someone who started at 4 and has done this for 20 years has been doing this their whole life, since their brain was in its most developmental stages.

In BJJ, the most difficult weight class is adult: age 18-29. If you're in your 30s or older you get put into higher and higher age groups called Master 1, Master 2, etc. (In this case, the title has nothing to do with mastery, as Professor is the title used in BJJ).

I, as a Master 2 player (age 36-40), can go into the Master 1 or Adult brackets for a more difficult competition, but I can't go into Master 3 or higher because it would be unfair.

 

[isshinryuronin]

We should note the Arikaki (Arigaki) you are mentioning is Ankichi A., not the long-lived (and even more famous) Arigaki Seisho who taught Funakoshi (Shotokan creator) and Mabuni (shito-ryu creator).

Ankichi may be considered a prodigy, starting his karate as a child and learning from the some of the most renown masters in Okinawa such as Kyan, Chibana and Hanashiro. He may have died young but probably had close to 18 years in the art, likely training hours each day. Put this all together and you have a very good martial artist.

Don't know if Funakoshi called him a master (he might have) or if he was referring to his teacher, Seisho. Certainly, Ankichi would have been called "master" by his student, Nagamine Shoshin.

 

[Fungus]

I would say a "master", in MA or anything for that matter, is someone that has enough depth in his knowledge to now only know many things and hold many skills, but to also have a deep awareness of it's own limits of knowledge; which is necessary for exploring and learning on your own (as the leader or pioneer in the art) without external guidance. Such masters typically appear overly humble as seen by non-masters that do not possess the same awareness and insight of beyond.

 

[HighKick]

One might want to define a master in a discipline by that individual's attitude and behaviour towards the discipline under discussion.
To me, it doesn't matter how much they know, or what they've done, but how they think and act (or thought and acted if they're very old, or deceased) towards their discipline.

I would say that they show or have shown:

• character
• an ability to teach
• respect for competitors and students
• expertise

The first three are necessary, but not sufficient.
The last quality is probably what separates a master from a good teacher: degree of expertise.

Is there a hard barrier in terms of expertise? Once you get "here," you're now a master?
As we know, ask a master, and they wouldn't say they're a master, rather that their teacher was a master.

So I'd be careful to avoid saying that there's any such thing as an objective level called "master."
Rather, that one approaches mastery of that art. If they fit the categories above, they are approaching mastery.

But sure, in some cases, we can use the word as shorthand, as in "Yo-Yo Ma is a master of the cello."
I just don't think that we need to use the title "Master" as much as we do.

That's my opinion, of course.

If the tile wasn't self-used and self-applied so often, I don't believe there would be too much of a problem.

 

[Haruhiko]

If the tile wasn't self-used and self-applied so often, I don't believe there would be too much of a problem.

But what about my ancient art of Egojutsu? HOW WILL I MAKE MONEY?

 

[Prince_Alarming]

But what about my ancient art of Egojutsu? HOW WILL I MAKE MONEY?

By teaching clackledockling?

Also, for some reason I misread the thread title 'what makes a hamster'...