What are the founders called in Japanese? I see lots of white guys calling themselves founders. When you just grab stuff from other syllabuses and make your own syllabus I don't think that your really a founder. Why can't they say its Smith's Hapkido instead of making up weird names for styles.
Yeah He bascially said make up your own style of "no style" but if you see him move its clear his fundamentals are Wing Chun, which was his formal training.
There are only a few individuals that are considered "founders" to Japanese/Okinwawan arts. No true practitioner of any Japanese style would refer to themselves in this manner, nor should I hope refer to themselves as "Grandmaster". Morihei Ueshiba (植芝盛平), "founder" of Aikido, is refered to as O-Sensei, or great teacher. A Shihan in Aikido is certainly not considered a master by any means. It just means that they are well respected among the organization. In Karatedo, who would one even consider eligible to be a founder? Gichin Funakoshi (船越 義珍) created Shotokan karate in Japan, but never was considered a "grandmaster" nor a "founder". He was merely a skilled Shorin Ryu Karateka that wanted to spread the way of the fist to the Japanese populace. Same situation for Chojun Miyagi (宮城長順). He created Goju Ryu, but is not refered to by any other title. Finally, what of the way of the fist all together? The lineage traces back to Shinjo Choken in the 1600's, beyond which point can not be confirmend. But in no way do we credit him with creating To-de, do we? In modern day Shorin Ryu the highest title one can recieve is Hanshi, meaning "Master". This title is associated with 9th and 10th Dan rank.
I repsect the Japanese MA system and I believe they as well as most Asian MA groups are well in control, by rules or simple self repsect. My questions are whats gotten into non Asians who become Soke, GM Supreme GM and ...etc. When will this stop or be called out?
In response I'll say this - I do not believe 95% of the westerners who claim these titles, and I believe 0% of the ones who bost titles along the lines like Utter Supreme Master of the Universe, etc., because no Asian art would contain a title of the sort. I will recognize westerners who have spent 40yrs training as possibly using the title "Master", but as far as I know there are no westerners who can claim to be head of (a true)style, and certianly not the head of a Ryu that has been handed down by families for generations, as is what "Soke" implies. Very few individuals can claim the title "Soke", and to date there are no westerners that are soke in any Japanese/Okinawan Style, and I'm pretty sure that the same holds true for Chinese and Korean styles as well, though the term may be different. I hold that many western practitioners of the Asian arts abuse titles in order to make themselves sound more important and to make up for a lack of skill.
It already is. Bullshido and other groups debunk one of these self-proclaimed masters every month. However, groups like the World Head of Family Sokeship Council and others succeed because 99% of the people walking into a martial arts school just don't have a clue.
There is one his name is Mike de alba ( sorry my bad he is of latin background) A kicked out guy from hwa rang do that just could not hack it.
Hello all, This I think is a very relevant point for the US, where many people tag rank together and the have higher rank in their own style. I believe that if someone wants to do their own thing, all power to them - but not as a high rank, but as a "no-rank" - just a founder - this is probably too humbling to many that want to have their own style to do. A "Grandmaster" should be a master of masters, but not really in the literal sense, but in terms of their understanding and depth of knowledge of their art. In addition, a Grandmaster to me is someone that has given of themselves so long to an art that without their involvement, the art would have been lessened. I believe that in Korean Martial arts, the term does not really exist, but is often used to ease the trasition to the myriad of somewhat confusing Korean Terms.
What about Don Angier and Yanagi-Ryu? I believe that Kenji Yoshida designated Angier the head of his family ryu (Yanagi Ryu), and that he is (legitimately) referred to as soke. btw, Mr Angier certainly does not fit the stereotype of the publicity-hungry, title-mad westerner who creates his own system and names himself soke, etc.
To be honest, there are a lot of titles out there that are claimed by a lot of people and personally, I really don't care. The various Japanese, Filipino, Chinese, and Korean titles don't really mean that much to me. I am more interested in how the person actually teaches and represents the art. It's sort of like "just" looking at people based on their rank or title... you have no clue what they are about until you work with them, use their resource materials, read their articles and so on. The above linked list of "Sokes" is like that to me. Of the list, I have worked with 2 of them and have been "blown away" by their skills, the sheer amount of work they do to advance knowldge of their respective arts, and by how much they really want to make the martial arts better. I don't know the rest but would take the on a case-by-case basis instead of painting them all with the same brush. There are some "bad apples" but there are some good ones, too. As far as ranks go, I don't think it's anything to get too hung up about. Each style (and even school or federation) is different with different requirements and expectations. I've been thinking and reading about this quite a bit recently and have come to look at it in a very general way: 1st dan - 3rd dan : these are the "up-and-comers" of the art and the ones who sweat on the floor, work hard polishing their skills and helping teach the next generation. Cut them some slack because they have a ful plate and a lot responsibility 4th-6th dan - "Masters" or I prefer "Master Instructors". These are the people who are running the schools and mentoring the instructors at their school. Their job is tough, having to balance instruction of color belts and black belts while teaching 'how to teach". They also may fill areas of responsibility within the federation, such as setting up clinics, tournaments, testing, and so on. I think in many Hapkido systems, formal testing ends at 6th dan (more or less) 7th, 8th, 9th dan - These ranks tend to be appointed for dedication, hard work, spreading the art and tend to be more "contributions-based" than technqiues based. These people are expected to mentor the "masters", do clincis and seminars, research/develop/maintain the higher level skills to teach the 4th-6th dans. They should be helping to maintain test integrity and quality of the material and teaching. They offer advice and support to the various schools. I'd say the are more administrative than anything. They fill a higher role than the "Masters" so I don't mind a higher title like "Senior master" or "Grandmaster" 10th dan- the head of the system who glues it together and provides oversight for curriculum and promotions as well as develops resources and seminars and helps provide advice and insight for the people running the federation (7th to 9th dans). Honestly, I think the person him (or her) self and how they present and practice the art, as well treat their juniors and seniors is more important ultimately than judging them based on something as small as a "title".
Hello all, CJ, firstly, what does DeAlba's Latin heritage have to do with anything? Google the name if you can't spell it. Second, how do you rate "not hacking" something? DeAlba has a Master's level certification from GM Lee, Joo Bang. He tested and got certification for 1-5 dan - with photographic evidence on his website. In addition, it appears, and is the case that he resigned from the organization and was not "kicked out". The WHRDA website states now that he is no longer a part of the group, but makes NO mention of him being "kicked out". DeAlba now has branch schools of his system spread all over the world, and people seem to like training with him very much. Please indicate how this is not being able to "hack it".
I too don't know where CJ is coming from, or going, with this "not hacking it" comment about Mr. De Alba. I read many years ago that De Alba actually was kicked out of the organization, but not because he couldn't hack it, but because he was deviating from the Hwa Rang Do curriculum and teaching fighting skills from other arts. I think at one time I remember seeing a statement from Lee, Joo Bang that he stripped De Alba of his black belt and considered him a white belt now. I have seen some of De Alba's stuff and he is very good but I guess any type of deviation from the Hwa Rang Do curriculum is a mortal sin. This is just what I remember reading a while ago, so it may or may not be the way it went down. Anyone else remember what happened?
This sounds about right....JBLee is similar to IHSuh (WKSA) in that no one is supposed to substaintially deviate from the curriculum. Right or wrong, this is typical of that generation it seems. The "couldn't hack it" tag is probably an effort to discredit him so as to not lose membership. "Master" is a term I discourage as young and new students tend to assume that is what they should use. I make an effort to ensure people don't use it, I think it carries almost negative stigma these days since it is so....overused/misapplied/misunderstood. I Can't stand it.... good skills or not, there seem to be a growing # of people with that title that I don't want to be lumped in with. Too many "instant" masters these days. Unfortunately this shines poorly on the quality masters as well. I've been training 20+ years, and I don't care if anyone ever calls me that, no matter what rank I earn.
I agree. I went out of my way to never use it when referring to my master/ grandmaster instructors in my association and was told that I was being over sensitive and that it's just a title equivalent to a master plumber or master electrician, etc. The difference is, no one ever calls their plumber "master". We had at least one impressionable student that would refer to my instructor as "the master," even out in public when he wasn't around ("the Master told me to do this...). I just cringed everytime she said it but she was already brainwashed into it and I couldn't get her to stop. My opinion is use the title "master instructor" or "grandmaster instructor" but have your students call you sir, mister, or even the korean equivalent, but there is no reason to have them call you master and if you insist on them calling you master or voluntarily refer to yourself as master, then it's just to stroke your own ego.
I feel the word "master" has too many negative connotations in the west for general use. I agree that using the term master instructor is appropriate and in class, my students use the Korean term of Kwan Jang Nim (for me) and Sa Bum Nim for the instructors of those ranks. I actually feel that there is a benefit to the student in keeping a more professional atmosphere in class by using titles (similar to addressing a college professor by his/her title in class). Of course, there are many other, and more important factors in creating an optimum learning enviroment, but IMO this is one factor among many. OTOH, I tend to cringe when a student refers to me as "master". There are times at seminars, black belt testings and tournaments that I may be announced/introduced as "Master David Hughes" in a formal martial arts setting, but other than that, I'm very uncomfortable with it.
