(716) 247-5254 admin@wmarnis.com

Grandmaster Titles in Modern Arnis: Authority, History, and Earning the Title

Let’s set the record straight. I absolutely recognize the concept of Grandmaster titles. What I do not recognize is the rewriting of Modern Arnis history to justify protocols that never existed while Professor Remy Presas was alive.

While Professor was alive, he never issued the title of Grandmaster to any of his students. Not one. He was the Grandmaster of the art. In Modern Arnis, Grandmaster was a position, not a rank-based title. It wasn’t something you were promoted into over time. There was one Grandmaster—Remy Presas.

That distinction matters.

Modern Arnis was created by Remy Presas in 1957, when his brothers Ernesto and Roberto were just kids. As they grew older, they helped shape the future of the art. Each brother eventually formed his own distinct system—Ernesto with Kombatan and Roberto with Arnis de Mano—but all came from the Modern Arnis chassis.

Here’s the issue we see now in the U.S.: it seems that any time there’s a promotion to 8th degree or higher, people are automatically assuming the Grandmaster title. I have a real issue with that because that wasn’t the protocol for Remy’s art. That’s a Kombatan protocol, not a Modern Arnis protocol.

This confusion is part of why we need to be clear about where these traditions come from. The assumption that an 8th degree black belt in Modern Arnis is automatically a Grandmaster is simply not how Remy’s system worked.

Even after Remy passed away, Ernesto made it very clear that he did not have the authority to promote anyone in his brother’s art. That boundary existed then. It’s being blurred now.

This confusion also shows up when people misunderstand authority versus acknowledgment.

Let me give you a real-world example. I was teaching in Germany at Dieter’s East Meets West camp. Dieter asked me to sign as a witness on diplomas for two of his students—8th-degree black belts who, under the DAV protocol, carried a Grandmaster title.

Dieter knew exactly how I felt about these titles and wanted to explain his organization’s approach. I told him plainly: it’s not a big deal.

Why?

Because my signature on someone else’s paper is not an endorsement of rank or title. It’s a witness signature—nothing more. It carries no authority unless it’s on my organization’s paper.

Professor Remy Presas did the same. He signed diplomas as a witness. When people tried to pass those papers off as official rank endorsements, he shut that down. If it didn’t come on his paper, it didn’t come from him. Same rule applies with me.

And let’s be clear: I ask these questions of everyone, regardless of style. The universal question: What have you done to earn the title? Titles should be about contribution, not just time. We see people with a handful of students calling themselves Grandmasters, and it waters down the meaning.

So let’s keep the history clear and the standards meaningful. Modern Arnis was Remy Presas’s creation, and Grandmaster was a position he held. That’s how we honor his legacy.

Respectfully,
Datu Tim Hartman
Modern Arnis Tribal Chief

#filipinomartialarts #modernarnis

Learning From a Master Doesn’t Always Make You a Student

Recently, I was listening to an FMA discussion podcast featuring several Modern Arnis practitioners when a comment by Bruce Chu of Florida really made me think.

He said:

“Professor had a lot of followers and participants, but not a lot of students.”

At first, that statement might sound controversial, but the more I thought about it, the more I understood exactly what he meant.

Professor Remy Presas introduced Modern Arnis to thousands of martial artists through seminars, camps, and demonstrations around the world. Those who attended absolutely learned from him, and many even hosted his events. His influence is beyond question.

But it raises an interesting question:

Does learning from a master automatically make you their student?

I don’t believe it does.

A student-teacher relationship is built through consistency, guidance, correction, accountability, and mutual commitment. It is an ongoing relationship, not simply a shared experience.

Here’s one way to look at it.

I’ve spoken with people who say they trained with Professor for ten years. That sounds impressive until you learn they may have only attended one seminar each year. If each seminar lasted five hours, that’s roughly fifty hours of instruction over an entire decade.

Now compare that to your own school.

If someone attended only five hours of class each year for ten years, would you consider them one of your active students? Most instructors probably wouldn’t. We’d likely describe them as someone who participated occasionally.

So why should the definition change simply because the instructor lived in another state or another country?

Distance doesn’t redefine the relationship. It only changes the opportunity for interaction.

My own experience was different.

I began training in Modern Arnis in 1985 and trained with Professor regularly for many years. Between monthly training, seminars, camps, private instruction, and extended weekends together, I estimate I accumulated well over 1,500 hours of direct training with him.

I don’t mention that to elevate my experience. I mention it to illustrate what an ongoing student-teacher relationship can look like. It was built over years of repeated instruction, correction, conversation, and mentorship—not just memorable seminars.

That doesn’t diminish anyone else’s experience.

A single seminar with a master can change the direction of your martial arts journey. You can learn lessons that stay with you for life.

But inspiration and mentorship are not always the same thing.

Learning from a master doesn’t always make you a student.

I’ve always made a distinction in my own school between participants, members, and students. Every person who walks through the door has value, but occasional participation isn’t the same as an ongoing student-teacher relationship.

The same applies to me.

I’ve attended seminars taught by exceptional martial artists throughout my career. I gladly give those instructors credit for what they taught me. But if I trained with someone once—or even several times—I wouldn’t honestly claim to be their student. I was a participant who had the privilege of learning from them.

The same principle applies outside of martial arts. I regularly attend business conferences and seminars where I learn from outstanding presenters. Their knowledge has helped me grow, but attending a presentation doesn’t make them my mentor. Just as in martial arts, a true student-teacher relationship requires an ongoing connection.

None of this diminishes Professor Presas’ legacy.

If anything, it highlights the extraordinary reach of his influence. Thousands learned from him. Thousands were inspired by him. His impact on Filipino Martial Arts is immeasurable.

At the same time, I believe we honor our teachers best by honestly describing the relationships we had with them.

Words matter.

Relationships matter.

Giving proper credit doesn’t diminish anyone’s experience—it puts it into its proper perspective.

So I’ll leave you with this question:

Where did your relationship with Professor fit? Were you a long-term student under his guidance, or were you someone who had the privilege of learning from him through seminars and camps? Both experiences have value—they’re simply different.

The original thought came from Bruce Chu, and I wanted to give him full credit for planting the seed for this discussion.

My goal isn’t to divide anyone or diminish anyone’s journey. It’s simply to encourage thoughtful reflection about what it truly means to be a student.

I’d genuinely like to hear your perspective.

Respectfully,
Datu Tim Hartman
The Tribal Chief