A related topic came up in conversation, so I posted this commentary from Jeff Cooper as reflecting my personal thoughts. Jeff Coopers Commentaries Vol. 6, No. 8 July 1998 This matter of terminology continues to perplex. In activities requiring dexterity, endurance, strategy, and skill it has become commonplace to refer to an expert as a master. If one looks at the record, it becomes clear that a master is a teacher. He should be very good at what he does, but mainly he should be good at teaching what he knows. Consider, for example, the headmaster of a school. Thus a practitioner of weaponcraft should properly not be considered a master unless he regularly teaches his craft to others. In England in the Middle Ages masters of weaponry were licensed by the crown, and one of the interesting provisions was that once a master had attained that designation he was forbidden thereafter to compete in his activity. Today almost anyone who has ever done well in a contest or been to school sees no shame in opening his own school, thus placing himself in the category of master, whether he knows it or not. The country today is awash in two-bit schools of pistolcraft. They will take your money and hand you a ticket, but whether you are any better with your weapon after graduation will depend entirely upon the competence of the master. (Today I know of two proven and verifiable shooting masters - John Gannaway and Louis Awerbuck.) What does it take to be a master of weaponcraft? First, it requires demonstrated expertise with the chosen weapon. A master need not be a world champion in competition, but he does need to be a dangerous competitor. He must be able to do everything that the weapon is capable of doing, and doing it on demand. He must be able to show his students exactly what is expected of them, while not, at the same time, intimidating them. Second, the master must understand the theory of the technique of his instrument. He must know the geometry and physiology behind the shooting process. Generations of military and police instructors have got by without this by simply emphasizing This is the way we do it! While that may be good enough for government work, it is not the best way to success. I remember from long years ago an encounter with a great master of the saber. We youngsters depended almost entirely upon speed, but this gentleman showed us that speed was unimportant without timing. To demonstrate he would choose a pupil and than say exactly how and where he would hit him - and then do it. When your master can do that to you, you tend to believe what he says. Third, the master must have a genuine desire to impart. Here is where the master differs from the mere expert. He must desire excellence in his students more than excellence in himself, and seek at all times to produce that. We have all known some very good shots who have failed as teachers because of a lack of this essential desire. Fourth, the master demonstrates command presence, which is a combination of articulation, vocal tone, posture, and attitude. The master must be able to command without rank. Obviously, true masters of weaponcraft are not common. During the time I ran the school at Gunsite, I sought continually for people who displayed the necessary qualifications, but I did not find a lot of people who made the grade. That is doubtless one reason why really good marksmanship is so rare. Very few practitioners are truly qualified to teach it.
Posted on: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:23:29 +0000