With thousands of martial arts authorities publishing online and in print, how do you decide whom to trust, and whom to ignore? Credibility is an important factor, but determining a martial artist’s credentials is a perilous task.
Frankie Chan vs. Lam Ching-Ying
Since crossing hands in a duel can lead to serious injury or death, most sane martial artists look for alternative means of establishing credibility. Lineage reputation is one such method.
Great masters beget great masters, whereas the students of charlatans go nowhere. Under this Confucian-flavored principle, the martial disciple inherits a portion of their master’s reputation, and would-be authority figures that decline to identify their lineage are viewed with suspicion.
Lineage is indeed a useful heuristic, in my experience. Yet here I am, writing a weekly martial arts column, without providing a list of my teachers; and I do not accept challenge matches; I am not even Asian. How cheeky!
The absence of my declared martial pedigree is no oversight. Although it is no secret—I have named names during meetings of the Seattle Martial Arts Club—I choose not to publish a list here. Why jeopardize my credibility this way?
The first reason is simply to avoid implicating my teachers in any martial heresies, or embarrassing departures from orthodoxy. By representing only myself, I enjoy the freedom to endorse ideas that would otherwise prove too inconvenient or impolitic.
Sure, I could exercise greater restraint, and practice a face-saving diplomacy. Even so, accidents happen, and occasional blowback is inevitable. I’d rather not burden my instructors with the unintended consequences, thereby repaying their charity with cruelty!
Secondly, withholding my lineage tree precludes the argument-by-authority and proof-by-tenure rhetoric that plagues so many other martial arts forums. Suppose I inherited my Taiji skills from Yang the Invincible, and possessed the Zen mind-seal of Shakyamuni: would these facts alone help anyone to benefit from our discussions here? I think not. What does matter is an expedient agility with language, and a clear elucidation of ideas, so that each can be judged fairly on their merits.
Receive free updates by email or RSS
4 responses so far ↓
1
Chris
// Feb 10, 2008
That said, I should give credit where it is due, and plenty of credit is due my instructors. So, any one who wishes to identify themselves—for accolades or blame—is welcome to do so below.
I humbly extend this invitation to anyone who believes, rightly or wrongly, that they have “taught me a lesson”.
2
Bob Patterson
// Feb 11, 2008
Very well said. Lineage and credible instructors are a must. However, I choose to not name the masters and teachers that I have been associated with on my blog. For that matter, I don’t even name our students are rarely posts pictures or videos.
On occasion (and despite valuing tradition) I question certain aspects of tradition on my blog. I have no need or desire to offend those within our organization. However, you cannot learn and grow if you never think beyond your martial art.
Somewhere in here there’s a metaphor about balance.
~BCP
3
Thomas
// Feb 13, 2008
People should be responsible for themselves, anyway. Great teachers still have terrible students, and some terrible teachers yield students who may not be great yet, but may end up being great in the future. Individuality of the practitioners is what I think works best, and you don’t have to engage in a duel to find this out, either. Just talking with someone or observing them in action is generally enough to get a good idea of what they do.
How to Learn Zhan Zhuang From a Book // Jan 5, 2009
[...] met Michael and other genuine masters of their arts, I held no illusions regarding my own level of mastery. I did, however, believe that [...]
Leave a Comment