Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 61 to 65 of 65

Thread: Are "Grandmasters" helping or hurting the progress of kung fu?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,230
    As I mentioned before, we have way too many fools who are claiming high rank and using titles that are not appropriate. 30 year old Sijos? Not. 25 Year old Grandmasters? Not.

    who cares about your title. Put your money where your cakehole is. That is the only thing that matters.

    anything else is hubris.
    Mouth Boxers have not the testicular nor the spinal fortitude to be known.
    Hence they hide rather than be known as adults.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shell Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,664
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Wuxia007 View Post
    Do "Grandmasters" help or hurt the progress of kung fu?
    When my teacher was still alive, people called him "master". After my teacher passed away, people called him "grandmaster". The term "grandmaster" always mean "dead people" to me.

    In Chinese culture, no matter how much that you

    - love your parents, you just don't hang their pictures on the wall when they are still alive.
    - respect your teacher, you just don't call him "grandmaster" when he is still alive.
    Last edited by YouKnowWho; 06-14-2014 at 12:01 PM.
    http://johnswang.com

    More opinion -> more argument
    Less opinion -> less argument
    No opinion -> no argument

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,230
    My Baguazhang teacher taught us that a master is someone who practiced his entire life to perfect their art/system. When they passed there were called Master. If they were the Head of the system, you would call them Grandmaster.

    Similar to what you mentioned above, Wang Shifu.
    Mouth Boxers have not the testicular nor the spinal fortitude to be known.
    Hence they hide rather than be known as adults.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Dale Dugas View Post
    As I mentioned before, we have way too many fools who are claiming high rank and using titles that are not appropriate. 30 year old Sijos? Not. 25 Year old Grandmasters? Not.

    who cares about your title. Put your money where your cakehole is. That is the only thing that matters.

    anything else is hubris.

    Sometimes I wonder if an instructor being a good fighter is more or even as important as being a good teacher.

    In my experience, I have studied at a school where the instructor didn't use, or at the very least, emphasize titles. He appeared to be a very good well-trained fighter himself but failed to be able to communicate those skills well enough as a teacher for me to gain much, if anything, from his lessons.

    But at another school where the instructor emphasized titles, I had no real idea if the instructor was a good fighter because he rarely, if ever, showed off his personal skills for the class. However, with that said, he had great communication and teaching skills that it didn't matter because I walked away from his lessons with the confidence that I had progressed as a martial artist.

    IMO, I don't think it matters much if an instructor is a proven fighter if he can't teach it properly.

    I don't know, maybe this is one of the positive sides of having a title-emphasized school system with a grandmaster in that it implies a level of teaching quality.

    Would you pay tuition to attend a university that didn't emphasize structure within its school system?
    Last edited by Wuxia007; 06-22-2014 at 11:44 AM.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Wuxia007 View Post
    Sometimes I wonder if an instructor being a good fighter is more or even as important as being a good teacher.

    In my experience, I have studied at a school where the instructor didn't use, or at the very least, emphasize titles. He appeared to be a very good well-trained fighter himself but failed to be able to communicate those skills well enough as a teacher for me to gain much, if anything, from his lessons.

    But at another school where the instructor emphasized titles, I had no real idea if the instructor was a good fighter because he rarely, if ever, showed off his personal skills for the class. However, with that said, he had great communication and teaching skills that it didn't matter because I walked away from his lessons with the confidence that I had progressed as a martial artist.

    IMO, I don't think it matters much if an instructor is a proven fighter if he can't teach it properly.

    I don't know, maybe this is one of the positive sides of having a title-emphasized school system with a grandmaster in that it implies a level of teaching quality.

    Would you pay tuition to attend a university that didn't emphasize structure within its school system?
    The problem with the university comparison is that the requirements for degree are peer reviewed. In most schools, one person, for any number of reasons, can give rank. This often leads to people having rank for their ability to kiss up, their perseverance(but not knowledge or skill), etc. The styles where this is less common tend to be ones that focus on producing fighters who fight in tourneys.

    Also, skill in contact definitely impacts the degree of accuracy of what is being taught. Without some contact to judge, many people are quite fond of the grace with which they do form, but if that grace does not carry over to contact, then it is a false grace.

    I think a mix is good. Good fighters don't necessarily know enough to produce fighters that fight differently than themselves. Having teaching skill without deep content from contact experience (which can come from different approaches) can only by dumb luck produce good fighters, imo.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •