Wing Chun Ranking

[KamonGuy2]

Bruce lee trained for 2 years and was pretty good at chi sao. Take a look at google, I think there's a few vids of him there.

I believe a master is self pro-claimed. If you claim yourself to be a master though, another master may come see if you really are.

Lemme know if I'm wrong but mastering would have to do with knowing every motion/form and having a firm knowledge and understanding of the movements. They would know all 3 forms, pole, dummy, sword, chi sao and history of WC. They can apply these movements to both demonstrations and fights. Right?

This is my point - I know all three hand forms and three non hand forms, chi sao, lok sao, feeding techniques etc but I would not consider myself to be a Master. Especially compared to the likes of Ip Chun etc

It is a shame there is no set definition of what being a Master is

 

[ed-swckf]

That's true because a lot people are accustom to training 3-5 hours a week, which isn't bad being a western civilization. If you we're to up that to 15-20 hours a week and remained dedicated to the art, its very feasible. It's all dependent upon how much commitment the practitioner is willing to give.

There is also the factor of the individual, some have a greater natural ability. Mastering an art won't really happen if its the focus and goal, that just takes focus away from what you should be concentrating on, which is not how do i become a master but rather what do i need to do with my wing chun right now. I would really say that while commitment on training is important it really isn't the deciding factor in mastering the art by far. I mean commited with what it mind is a question, if all the focus is on getting to master level it will take forever, if however the focus is on every word and action of the master and focussing purely on your skill now without holding it against some yardstick of being master then becoming a master will surely come.

I'm sure you've all heard this one:

A martial arts student went to his teacher and said earnestly, "I am devoted to studying your martial system. How long will it take me to master it." The teacher's reply was casual, "Ten years." Impatiently, the student answered, "But I want to master it faster than that. I will work very hard. I will practice everyday, ten or more hours a day if I have to. How long will it take then?" The teacher thought for a moment, "20 years." The confused student asked why and the teacher explaind how his focus was not on the quality of his training journey but on getting to the end to reap reward.

 

[CheukMo]

Speaking of Bruce Lee... He said that he wasn't a master and that he didn't want to be called one. He also said that the minute you begin to think you're a "master" is (also) when you stop learning and become vulnerable. (That is my paraphrasing, but it's very close to his actual words).

 

[KamonGuy2]

Speaking of Bruce Lee... He said that he wasn't a master and that he didn't want to be called one. He also said that the minute you begin to think you're a "master" is (also) when you stop learning and become vulnerable. (That is my paraphrasing, but it's very close to his actual words).

Yes but what I am saying is that many people have said he is a master and he was obviously a master of his own art (he invented it!)

 

[Tanizaki]

Yes but what I am saying is that many people have said he is a master and he was obviously a master of his own art (he invented it!)

"I have not invented a 'new style,' " - Bruce Lee

 

[brocklee]

"I have not invented a 'new style,' " - Bruce Lee

I think there's more context to it then just that. I believe he was stating that he didn't invent it because the movements are natural and not fixed. It's not a "new style" if the motions are already there, they're just unused.

 

[CheukMo]

Bruce regretted having come up with a name (Jeet Kune Do) for what he taught his students. He regretted that he was considered a master or creator of a style, but that was in the 70's when he had ceased teaching. Back to the point, his opinion was that everyone should look at their training to see what they were doing "wrong" or how they could improve it, including himself. I believe that is what made him as good as he was.

 

[KamonGuy2]

That quote from Bruce Lee was referring to the fact that he was not inventing anything new, but was still creating a new way of thinking and fighting.

This is to me an invention.

But what I was getting at was that other people viewed him as a master and as an inventor of a new system. We all know how good Brucie was and that he was fairly humble, but that didn't stop him being referred to as a 'Master of Martial Arts'. You look at the back of most of his video covers next time you're in Blockbusters

 

[Tanizaki]

That quote from Bruce Lee was referring to the fact that he was not inventing anything new, but was still creating a new way of thinking and fighting.

This is to me an invention.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you just said. "He didn't invent anything new, but that's an invention."? What?

But what I was getting at was that other people viewed him as a master and as an inventor of a new system. We all know how good Brucie was and that he was fairly humble, but that didn't stop him being referred to as a 'Master of Martial Arts'. You look at the back of most of his video covers next time you're in Blockbusters

Yes, I always cite advertisements as empirical support. They're almost as good a source as Wikipedia.

 

[CheukMo]

Bruce Lee invented by taking away techniques or added them. He did "invent" a new style in the mid to late 1960's which is best named "Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do". That is what he taught his students. He did continue to refine his martial art in the 1970's but didn't teach it as he viewed it as his own personal style, not to be taught. Was he a "master"? Yes, if by that you mean a great martial artist.

 

[bcbernam777]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you just said. "He didn't invent anything new, but that's an invention."? What?.

I think what Kamonguy is getting at is that whilst bruce did not "invent" new teqniues, or even principles, he did however invent a new way of approaching fighting within contemporary society. Bruce took what already exsisted, thought it out, tested it, rethought it out, and took a fresh look at the true nature of fighting stripped bare of the stylised ideologies that many traditional forms of martial arts held.

However I will say that whilst Bruce was fresh and new in the way he approached Martial Arts, he was not the first to hold such dynamic ways of thinking about "The fight". We must remember that each new "system" or "way" had its roots in someone looking at the old and then finding different and what they considered to be, better and practical ways of approaching the science of fighting.

We sometimes forget that Martial arts is an evolution, and Bruce was simply one in a long line of revolutionarys, who bought about the catalyst to allow this evolution to exsist in the form it does today.

Yes, I always cite advertisements as empirical support. They're almost as good a source as Wikipedia.

I speak my perception when I say this, but by the very nature of advertising, i.e. people telling you biased facts to gain your patronage of a good or service, no matter how great such advertisments may be, it is inherently flawed because of this biased nature and therefore cannot be relied on to heavily, especially for objective discussions of any nature.

 

[Tanizaki]

I think what Kamonguy is getting at is that whilst bruce did not "invent" new teqniues, or even principles, he did however invent a new way of approaching fighting within contemporary society. Bruce took what already exsisted, thought it out, tested it, rethought it out, and took a fresh look at the true nature of fighting stripped bare of the stylised ideologies that many traditional forms of martial arts held.

You have done a very nice job as Kamon Guy's internet lawyer.

We sometimes forget that Martial arts is an evolution, and Bruce was simply one in a long line of revolutionarys, who bought about the catalyst to allow this evolution to exsist in the form it does today.

Evolution and revolution are opposites.

I speak my perception when I say this, but by the very nature of advertising, i.e. people telling you biased facts to gain your patronage of a good or service, no matter how great such advertisments may be, it is inherently flawed because of this biased nature and therefore cannot be relied on to heavily, especially for objective discussions of any nature.

Whoosh.

 

[bcbernam777]

You have done a very nice job as Kamon Guy's internet lawyer.

Oh yeah hes paying me by the minute

Evolution and revolution are opposites..

Can I have source for that? Im sure there is an advert that should fit the bill

Whoosh.

Well Tanizaki, with your witty sarcasm and troll like behaviour your going to fit right into MartialTAlk

 

[Tanizaki]

Can I have source for that? Im sure there is an advert that should fit the bill

Yes. The source is the words' definitions. Evolution is a very slow process of incremental change, while revolution is a very fast process of wholesale change. I am dumbfounded that you asked me for a source. I assume you won't ask for a source if I say that wet is the opposite of dry.

Well Tanizaki, with your witty sarcasm and troll like behaviour your going to fit right into MartialTAlk

Don't call me a troll just because something flew over your head. Although, this would not be the first time that I have encountered someone who took words he did not understand as disrespect. Remember that scene in the 40-Year-Old Virgin?

 

[KamonGuy2]

You have done a very nice job as Kamon Guy's internet lawyer..

First off, BC is not my internet lawyer, but it is clear that he has experience and manners way beyond you

As for my original statement, I first mentioned that Bruce Lee had claimed he had not invented anything new. That was his claim, not mine
I then went on to say that if someone creates a new way of thinking, that (to me) is an invention. Please read posts more carefully Tani

Don't call me a troll just because something flew over your head. Although, this would not be the first time that I have encountered someone who took words he did not understand as disrespect. Remember that scene in the 40-Year-Old Virgin?

You are a troll because instead of creating rational arguments, you attack the person posting rather than the post itself

Your comments are neither positive or inciteful. Read over some of CheukMo's and bcbernam777's posts and it might help you to become a better member and one that I can take seriously

 

[brocklee]

My sifu can beat up your sifu....nyaaa lol yeeesh

 

[Tanizaki]

First off, BC is not my internet lawyer, but it is clear that he has experience and manners way beyond you

Don't worry. I won't call this a personal attack, or you a troll by extension.

As for my original statement, I first mentioned that Bruce Lee had claimed he had not invented anything new. That was his claim, not mine
I then went on to say that if someone creates a new way of thinking, that (to me) is an invention. Please read posts more carefully Tani

Actually, it was I who first mentioned that after you claimed he invented a whole fighting system. That was when you began to backpedal.

You are a troll because instead of creating rational arguments, you attack the person posting rather than the post itself

Whom did I attack?

Your comments are neither positive or inciteful. Read over some of CheukMo's and bcbernam777's posts and it might help you to become a better member and one that I can take seriously

Not inciteful? I thought your whole objection was that you found me inciteful rather than insightful.

 

[KamonGuy2]

Don't worry. I won't call this a personal attack, or you a troll by extension.

It is a personal attack on a person who has shown no ettiquette on a forum

Actually, it was I who first mentioned that after you claimed he invented a whole fighting system. That was when you began to backpedal.

I have not backpeddalled.
I stated clearly that your Bruce Lee quote was Bruce Lee's opinions, not ours. A person can insist that they are something they are not, but it takes other people to agree to make it true

My posts were suggesting that it hardly ever matters what you claim to be. If I say that I am a Master and people disagree then its hard to maintain it. If I claim I am not a Master and people disagree then again it is hard to maintain it. That is why most masters in martial arts never claim to be that

In Lee's case, he claimed he never invented a new art. I and many others disagree, which is where this argument stemmed from

Whom did I attack?

I will withdraw my statement. Your comments were sarcastic and harsh. On a supposedly positive and engaging forum they seemed like an attack, but maybe they weren't so I withdraw that

Not inciteful? I thought your whole objection was that you found me inciteful rather than insightful.

Again, what was the point in saying this. To make my poor spelling/grammar apparent to people on the forum? Well, yes my spelling is atrocious. Now instead of diverting away from the important posts, maybe you will go away and learn a martial art

 

[Tanizaki]

It is a personal attack on a person who has shown no ettiquette on a forum

Egad! I cannot believe what a troll you are!

I have not backpeddalled.
I stated clearly that your Bruce Lee quote was Bruce Lee's opinions, not ours. A person can insist that they are something they are not, but it takes other people to agree to make it true

What made you think it was his opinions? Could it be the fact that they were COMING OUT OF HIS MOUTH? Nice deductive work.

And no, truth or falsity of claims is not decided by popular consensus. That would be the ad populum fallacy.

My posts were suggesting that it hardly ever matters what you claim to be. If I say that I am a Master and people disagree then its hard to maintain it. If I claim I am not a Master and people disagree then again it is hard to maintain it. That is why most masters in martial arts never claim to be that

See above.

In Lee's case, he claimed he never invented a new art. I and many others disagree, which is where this argument stemmed from

I disagree that it is even possible to invent a martial art. To my knowledge, no one has ever sought to patent one.

I will withdraw my statement. Your comments were sarcastic and harsh. On a supposedly positive and engaging forum they seemed like an attack, but maybe they weren't so I withdraw that

I thought British people liked sarcastic humor. "Stiff upper lip" and all that.

Again, what was the point in saying this. To make my poor spelling/grammar apparent to people on the forum? Well, yes my spelling is atrocious. Now instead of diverting away from the important posts, maybe you will go away and learn a martial art

I am the grandmaster of Tanizaki-do Logic-jutsu.

 

[bcbernam777]

Yes. The source is the words' definitions. Evolution is a very slow process of incremental change, while revolution is a very fast process of wholesale change. I am dumbfounded that you asked me for a source. I assume you won't ask for a source if I say that wet is the opposite of dry.


Don't call me a troll just because something flew over your head. Although, this would not be the first time that I have encountered someone who took words he did not understand as disrespect. Remember that scene in the 40-Year-Old Virgin?

Thsi will be my last word on the subject. Not I did not use the word "revolution" as in the process but revolutionary, as int the charichterisations of the people involved in the changes in MA. So learn to read properly we wont have a problem.

Now to the reason you are a Troll, my first post to you whilst disagreeing with opints that you had made was in every respect civil and engaging. Your reply was sarcastic and down right rude. If you are the type of poster who delights in return rudeness for civility then by all the classic definitions you my friend are a Troll. If you want to hang around Martial Talk for more than 2 seconds and gain a little respect, then learn to disagree without the viniger.