Just wanted to know if any of you have plans on what to do once you finish/become sifu level of your current style…
would you continue teaching the same style, learning more from your current teacher. Or go in search of a different style? (while still practicing the current style of course)
It’s a bit difficult to answer that question at this very moment, but of course assumptions can be made. I’m definitely going to continue studying the “mastered system”, but besides that, it would also be interesting to explore new styles. I had Hung Gar and Wing Chun in my mind to study besides my CLF after a certain master’s degree, if there is such (there’s always more to learn).
either fight professionaly or make movies
seriously about the making movies?
how do you even get into that? start out stunt performing or somethin?
Finish? nah. I think one of the main things you learn over years of training is that you’ll never know it all - you won’t finish. That said, there is nothing wrong with training in another style if you so choose.
Just wanted to know if any of you have plans on what to do once you finish/become sifu level of your current style…
hahahahahahahaha…finish…hahahahahaha..
I still dont know where to begin.
Buddhapalm
There’s no such thing as finishing your style because the more you learn, the more you learn that you have a longer way to go.
It’s like constanly stepping into a bigger sphere of what kung fu is about. It’s as deep as on ocean. Unless you can get as good as the master’s a few generations before you, there’s no such thing as mastering your style.
However you can go outside of your style to learn a few things to compare. Keep one style for 10 years. After that you can try others for the heck of it, but still keeping your main style.
Mastery?
I agree with Cha Kuen. Mastery of a kung fu style i believe is not possible, especially with todays lifestyle. Previous masters after a liftime of dedication to an art say to others that they are still discovering new things about it. Kung fu is an extremly deep disipline, inorder to become anything in a chosen style, you must integrate it into your lifestyle, and become engrossed in it fully. If you find kung fu easy, then your not training hard enough, by some means you will then later realise you kung fu is “empty” . Mastery of kung fu does not exist. My 2 cents.
I think some of the answers here are rather glib. I know it’s very p.c. to say “there is no end” or “you only keep getting deeper and deeper” but there is some validity to the idea of “finishing” a style. You may not be an invincible master of gong-fu and have found ‘the last dragon’ catching bullets in your teeth but that’s I dodge in most cases.
If you make gong-fu your life choice and train proffesionally, then you can learn an entire style. Sure there’s more to learn out there but you could for instance, learn every set in your style have clear mastery of all the relevant jings and be a skilled fighter.
It’s rare but it does exist. I’ve heard YC refer to how long it takes to ‘master’ Hung Gar. My current Sifu reffers to learning internal styles after ‘mastering’ Baji. You may not be the best in the world but a musician can master his instrument why is gong-fu so different. In fact, the mastery should be the requirement for the creation of new styles that happens every so often. Satchmo was as much a master as any gong-fu legend of the past.
I agree with Omar,
Glib and to some extent politically correct.
Styles disappear once they are ‘mastered’, beginners and inexprienced practitioners mistake the acquisition of style as mastery, it isn’t. A master transcends the form of his art, just as in the example Omar gives.
Its about individuals, and if it were not then everyone would be the same in the same style, and that never happens.
No one knows what standards held in the generations before those teaching those who are alive today, but speculation and opinions about them are part of the attachment to a pai, so they will always be found in plenty.
Attachment to a style is part of the life-span development process for a martial artist, it’s strongest in neophytes who have to have some grounding in structure (system and social/cultural).
Middle-aged - experienced martial artists are usually at their most generative, and creative, and the older generations have settled into wisdom about themselves, and the truth that their chosen system(s) is just a vehicle for their life’s journey of discovery into themselves.
It’s appropriate that journeymen find the answer that reflects where they are now.
Good points N & O & this is the truth of the matter as I know it too. Mastery is a word & can mean many things & if a person means being very skillful in a hand then yes to end point & although skill becomes more smooth other things pass in time so there is balance & on the whole the highest level a person can get is where they will stay if they practice right through the years. Stupid television kung fu stuff to say never reach the end for fighting skill & old guys from way back not any better than best there is today & maybe not as good. They had more time is wrong & no such thing is going down to store to buy milk in 15 minutes & all things took more time to get done & people didn’t have good health for as long as they do now so generations back being better is silly I think. All things that are good get better in time & all things that are bad get worser in time & this I think is fact & not opinion. If peoples are right that only old guys from way back were good then where else in this life can they show something like this & the answer is no place so old guys from way back being the best is nonsense I think & young guys coming up will be better than me.
I’m not even halfway to the “finish line”, and when I go back to practicing the foundation of my style, I figure out new stuff…
So IMO you don’t need to go to another style to learn new stuff, but just observe the details of your own style and you will discover hidden applications.
Two Chinese sayings come to mind:
-
Under this sky, all martial arts are Shaolin’s
-
Beware of a young man’s fist, but beware of an old man’s staff
Do you know what these two expressions mean? 
BH,
Your quotes are common enough, but, number one is far from the truth, even under ‘China’s’ skies.
I am ‘Shaolin’, in background, both Northern and Southern, but I have no problem with the huge varaiety of non-Shaolin arts in China’s rich heritage. Shaolin is not Mo-Shut, only a part of it. If you claim to be Shaolin, then remember the truth of that, otherwise you may cause offense to people inclined to teach you good manners. Ask your Si-Hing’s or your Si-Fu.
As for your second quote, its simply to remind young people not to get inflated over the advantages of youth. Experience often (but not alaway) shows more readily with the use of weapons. An older generation master should not fear youths strength or speed, refined skill is a hallmark of mastery. Borrowed sound-bite ‘quote’ wisdom is the hallmark of youthful ignorance.
DT,
Let’s hope so… there are some who will push the enevelope, but very few.
Hehehehehehehehh…Sorry, Fu-Pow got me started.
I’m doing what my teacher told me to do:
learn as much as I can about OTHER styles.
As my Sifu says:
“Kung fu is an endless treasure, you keep digging and you will always find more.”
Under the sky NOT all martial arts belong to Shaolin or even have any attachment to Shaolin BH & Hakka Tong Long sure don’t trace anywhere back to Shaolin & just politics by groups that do trace to Shaolin. There was good fighting hands many life times before Buhddists even come to China it’s not like we never fight or make good hands before Indian Monk come to China okay. More right to say under the sky all Shaolin belongs to India but that might start politics so I say enough on this thing. Okay FP I now understand what you mean when you say no finish point & the way I understand you’re saying it I agree with your opinion of this thing & same holds for artists in other things too I think.
Originally posted by needlefist
[B]BH,
Your quotes are common enough, but, number one is far from the truth, even under ‘China’s’ skies.
I am ‘Shaolin’, in background, both Northern and Southern, but I have no problem with the huge varaiety of non-Shaolin arts in China’s rich heritage. Shaolin is not Mo-Shut, only a part of it. If you claim to be Shaolin, then remember the truth of that, otherwise you may cause offense to people inclined to teach you good manners. Ask your Si-Hing’s or your Si-Fu.
[/B]
Well, 1st the quote isnt from me. 2nd I don’t think the quote means that Shaolin “owns” all styles, as in “invented”.
From what I understand, Shaolin Temple partly developed, partly integrated and partly perfected various arts that the monks came in contact with.
Add common sense to the mix, and the fact that humans all over the planet are wired the same way.
Now is it still possible to invent a new way, for example, to kick that hasnt been “invented” yet?
In that light, I think the quote is meant to be understood as Shaolin, having explored all possible ways of the human body to be used as a martial tool, all martial arts are synonymous with Shaolin.
There is no implication of superiority or ownership there I think.
BH,
I’ve heard many Chinese Si-Fu make the claim that all TCMA derive from Shaolin. These are invariably ‘Shaolin’ stylists of one kind or another. I’ve also seen the same teachers mocked and ridiculed by other Chinese Si-Fu who knew better. Your quote was not highlighted as personal in origin to you, far from it, its a common enough myth amongst many Shaolin stylists.
To claim:
“In that light, I think the quote is meant to be understood as Shaolin, having explored all possible ways of the human body to be used as a martial tool, all martial arts are synonymous with Shaolin”
is at worst an attempt at mass appropriation of every other system or approach that is NOT Shaolin, or at best an appology for the attitude held in belief, that ‘All Styles Come From Shaolin’.
Indeed, a lot of very competent Shaolin stylists would not want to claim some systems that pass as martial arts, as descending from their heritage
It might be better to say that all styles that claim Shaolin lineage ‘claim’ descent from Shaolin. The truth is much more complex with many ‘Shaolin’ systems being patriotic movements who adopted the Shaolin name in order to rouse support for anti-Manchu action. The name Shaolin was associated with patriotism in China centuries before the Manchu’s conquered and overthrew the Ming. It was good politics to ally with a patriotic myth.
DT,
You rightly state that martial arts in China are much older than Buddhism (certainly than the Shaolin Ch’an sect). Shaolin is not the only Buddhist tradition in martial arts in China, which again gives lie to the claim that all styles come from Shaolin. Not even all Buddhist styles come from that/those temple(s) and not even from Ch’an Buddhism either.