In chinese there is the phrase [SIZE=3][/SIZE]; zung si in Cantonese or zong shi in Mandarin, which normally translates as Grandmaster. This honorary is applied to people who have made great innovations in their art, are great teachers, have a definite legacy, exhibit thought leadership, etc. Although an individual may display only some or all of these traits.
This term is never used lightly, and is really only conferred by their peers rather than their own students.
This is why I cringe when I see so many masters refered to as grandmaster or great grandmaster (GGM). GGM doesn’t really exist in Chinese. If we’re using the normal familial analogies, master = sifu and grandfather = grand master, then the Chinese term is [SIZE=3][/SIZE] (tai si fu) for grand master or maybe [SIZE=3][/SIZE] (si jo).
When we say Grandmaster Yip Man, we don’t expect his own students to be the same kind of grand master do we? They may be grand masters, but not grandmasters.
Right, rant over and apologies to any grand masters out there. No disrespect was intended to anybody’s grand master … maybe I’m being too precise with the language?
CFT –> excellent point, and Yuan is right on the money as well.
In Hong Kong and in China, one very rarely sees the use of the term “grandmaster”, and that is normally reserved for someone very, very senior, like the recognized heir of a martial art. For example, Chan Xiao Wang is publicly recognized as the true heir of Chen Tai Chi passed down from Chan Fa Ke, and he is often referred to as the grandmaster of Chen Tai Chi. People, meanwhile, address him as “Sifu”. I guess if you think about it, only “Grandmaster” and “Sifu” are really ever used in China.. I hardly ever see “Master”… in fact, I don’t even know what the Chinese characters for Master would be. Anyone know?
What I have noticed is that the term “grandmaster” is used so often in the USA that it seems to not possess the same meaning as it does in China. My teacher, Ho Kam Ming, is referred to as “sifu” all over Hong Kong, Macau, and China, and he likes to be addressed in those terms. Since I can rememeber, I have always just called him by “Sifu”… that is what I call him these days when I see him or talk to him over the phone. I notice that here in the US, he is oftentimes referred to as “Master” or “Grandmaster” (which is a wonderful honor bestowed on him through this recognition)… not sure what his personal take is on it… I should ask him next time. But I do know that it appears that “Master” and “Grandmaster” are used a heck of a lot more often here than in Hong Kong and China, from my own observation.
Which brings up a good discussion topic… here in the US, how does one distinguish between a “sifu”, a “Master”, and a “Grandmaster”? I am definitely curious.
Many WC people are lost in translation (good movie reference): sifu = master, sigung = grand master, si tai gung = great grand master
titles = good for business, more students and seems “legit…”. I.E. - “This guy says he’s a Grand Master, but this guy over here is Supreme Ultimate Grand Master Of All Awesomness… he must be good otherwise he couldn’t say it (or put it on the internet).”
If a school puts a definition on what “Master” status is…
maybe all of the WC system including knives and has a strong school with students who have schools, whatever… somone who is obviously a good sifu since he / she has quality students who also have students. So a school now has a “Master”.
If that “Master” then trains someone up to that “Master” level, voila! “Grand Master”, then “Great Grand Master” and so on.
These terms don’t really have meaning except for those who use them, so does it really matter. The only universally recognized “Grand Master” is Yip Man and he is probably the only one who will ever have this distinction as the WC clans splinter into smaller and smaller offshoots.
Maybe I don’t have a point, but if someone wants to give their sifu, or sigung, or whoever this respect / status, then that’s their right. It’s only cheesy when they give themselves that status, and I don’t really care enough about other Wing Chun families and their claims to really see it as “unfortunate”.
–Aaron
For those seeking hot grandmaster on grandmaster action check out the thread Yip Man VS Ip Man to see who’s winning…
I see so many schools with trophies out in front and multiple titles of Grandmaster this and Grandmaster that, that I completely share the same sentiments expressed here. Marketing… pure and simple.
For me Grandmaster simply refers to the designated leader of a lineage.
In these days when people are learning from videos and/or “acquiring” Biu Gee status in such miniscule amounts of time, I think that definitely these titles don’t mean as much as they should
Personally, I can only work on myself and give meanings to these terms through my own efforts.
Maybe I don’t have a point, but if someone wants to give their sifu, or sigung, or whoever this respect / status, then that’s their right. It’s only cheesy when they give themselves that status, and I don’t really care enough about other Wing Chun families and their claims to really see it as “unfortunate”.
Maybe you dont. Maybe you do. Sure someone can give someone whatever label they chose.
It is still ok to say that it is unfortunate- an expression of opinion.
Perhaps I do care enough about other wing chun families!!
Master is an English word and in some things (chess for instance) it has precise meanings- same for grandmaster in chess. Precise ratings based on precise points obtained in precise and open competition..
But loose usage of those terms can make wing chun people look like buffoons, IMO. But that may be ok to some.
PS- I have seen a realtively young man who was alive- call himself sijo!!! Like the infamous early “Chinese” ad-mistranslation translation of “Coke refreshes”-it brings back the ancestors. No problem- some folks understood after they quit laughing when JFK in Berlin said “I am a donut” or its equivalent when he meant he was a berliner!!
What’s a little sloppiness in language? Or is it in the thought?
Or is there a difference?
you are correct in idea, but other than the extremes that don’t need mentioning, it’s almost a harmless act, that reflects on the family that uses it. My Sifu cringes when I say that he is the “Master” of our kung fu family but I only use that term at our website so that people who don’t know about Ving Tsun will get an idea about our identity. My opinion is that he would deserve “grand master” status judging on the amount of students, grand students and great grand students he has taught, but this my opinion and not one that we use. Why? Because we don’t have official ranking as such in place within our family.
So my usage of “Master” is respectful not unlike when when I call many of my Sifu’s younger kung fu brothers (sisuk) Sibak, not because I’m confused about my lineage but because I know where their kung fu is coming from and I know how they got it, so they deserve the more respectful “Sibak”.
Modern fulltime schools need to make money to survive. As long as that doesn’t get in the way of the real kung fu then… i guess you know where I’m going with this and we would need a whole other thread for it.
If someone claims “Allmightness”, I think it’s funny but does it really effect me? No. Who cares, it reflects on that style of kung fu not mine.
When it some to English being precise, we are the most confusing language on the planet. Multiple meanings for the same word, mutiple words for the same idea, etc… It’s no different when you try to translate Chinese into English, there are no exact definitions. I think Sijo means “creator of a system” what other meanings are there in the US, some just think it equals sigung, others the master of the school. I don’t know for sure, I don’t read Chinese.
Anyway, all the points in the thread are valid, and I think I’m just argueing the details to waste time while updating my mac’s OS, so there!
–Aaron
PS: it seems that the greatest weapon against WC guys is terminology. But maybe the fact that we all care so much about details says something about our kung fu when compared to the easily defined and catagorized martial arts.
Good point GreatGooglyMoogly of the Great Relief style. Sifu should mean you have students not that you passed a certain level (Biu Je), but if someone gets to the point where they can take on students and should take on students, it makes sense that the school would let them have day classes or off days to help them build up a student base so that they can get their own school when they are ready. I personally don’t like having more than one sifu in the school, and probably wouldn’t let that happen in my own.
Wow, didn’t expect so much feedback and good quality too!
There is definitely no problem refering to a sifu as “my grand master” or my “great grand master”. It makes sense in your own lineage if you are using English to describe the relationship.
However, when you refer to grandmaster such-and-such and great-grandmaster so-and-so, he is not the grandmaster of someone of another lineage. He is Sifu such-and-such.
Joy, great comment about chess grandmasters. As you say it is not so easy to quantify the contribution made to WC by modern masters.
Along side Yip Man I would also “rank” Yuen Kay San as a modern Grandmaster. Just my opinion.
The problem of addressing these great great grand grand masters is a reflection of modern school set ups/life expectancy. I’m sure that in the past you wouldn’t really get more than 3 generations in a single school.
In any case, if someone introduced their “grand master” to someone else (in Chinese) the third party would not refer to the grand master as “tai sifu” or “si gung” or “sijo”, they would say “your reputation precedes you Yip sifu”
Even Yip Man with his rightly recognised grandmaster status would only be addressed as Yip sifu by his peers.
Originally posted by ntc For example, Chan Xiao Wang is publicly recognized as the true heir of Chen Tai Chi passed down from Chan Fa Ke, and he is often referred to as the grandmaster of Chen Tai Chi.
I have to disagree there.
Chenjiagou does not recognise a “Gate Keeper” (Zhang Men Ren), and has no tradition to pass the complete art from a master to a single disciple only (Dan Chuan).
The people that call him “grandmaster” and spread this are a few of his students as far as I know.
Chen Fa Ke’s TJQ style is 1 of 6 sub-styles and thus 1 person could not be grandmaster of Chen T’ai Ji Quan.
T’ai Ji Monkey(notes on his post- a bit off topic)—
there is more to CXW’s status than just the respect of “a few of his students”.
Sure the contributions of original Chen style shows up in several substyles.
But the generational transmission via Chen Fake is a very strong one. Feng Zhiquan who learned from Chen Fake is superb and he has had his students. These days he(FZ) seems to be more into
his own syntheses and the health aspects of taji. Carrying the Chen family
standard has fallen on Chen Xiao Wang… though there are several other superb Chen stylists of his generation. Not just by reputation or the adulation of his students. CXW won the major (all styles)push hands contests in his rise including the major Chen village event.
Before he headed for Australia the PRC regarded CXW asa a national treasure and sent him on visits abroad to show Chen style.
CXW’s brother still teaches in Chen village and CXW’s youngest son who trains in the village- looks like he also will be very very good.
In any case there is no overall grandmaster or lineage holder
in Ip Man wing Chan or overall wing chun. Though I respected Leung Shun’s leadership role after Ip man’s death and Wong Shon Leung’s after that. But on those things my opinions are not all that important. Back to the standard programing.
Thanks for your input.
Yuanfen brings up some excellent points and information about Chan Xiao Wang. From my own perspective, my indicating him to be “recognized as the heir to Chen Tai Chi” comes from information I gathered from the governing martial arts bodies in China who recognize him as such. I am merely conveying this information. Personally, I have not studied with him, though I did study some of the Chen forms under Chan Zheng Lei, who along with Chan Xiao Wang are among the 4 official keepers (from Chen village) of the style. I think the Chen forms are excellent for soft strength training, and ESPECIALLY for health because of its concurrent silk-like softness and explosiveness hardness.
Would anyone here ever sign their name “Master” or “Grand Master”? What about “Sifu”?
In marketing material? (“Join now and get 2 months free! Grand Master John Smith”)
In personal correspondance? (“Hugs and kisses, Master John Smith”)
In casual online chat? (“I disagree! Sifu John Smith”)
When communicating with a student? (“Congratulations on your hard work! Master John Smith”)
When communicating with someone you don’t know (“Please send information. Sifu John Smith”)
When sending a letter to Tsui Sheung-Tin? (“I would like to arrange a seminar. Grand Master John Smith”)
Does the context matter? Is it always fine, never fine, sometimes fine?
No flames or personalizations (ie. no using real world examples) please, just real opinions in generous language.
(Personally I would never use any title in any way, except if I were dealing with a martial art supply store that offered 50% discounts to ‘titled’ people–which I’ve encountered in the past–as hey, 50%…)
The Info I got and posted here comes from Chen Family Members directly, the info is even online on Jarek’s site.
Not getting into an argument here, what you say and what I hear from the Chen village does not mesh, in doubt I wil go with what I her from Chen Family members rather than someone on the net or outsiders of the Family.
Sounds good to me. The point that started this whole discussion wasn’t really about who was the heir of Chen Tai Chi in general, but really about the “Master” and “Grandmaster” and “Sifu” and “Almightyness” and… (etc) titles. So, no worries there if that is the claim by the Chen family per your post… absolutely fine with me, cause it really does not impact what I learned from Chan Zheng Lei. I thought he was a fantastic teacher and his kung fu was among the finest I have personally encountered.
No problems. I posted this also to point out that who we often see as “grandmaster” is quiet often proposed and spread either by students or outsiders.
I am neither in the CZL or CXW lineage. Having seen videos and read articles of both of them I personally tend to lean towards CZL as having more skill.
Apart from that I think this is a good thread and shouldn’t be shut up in the WC forum, as I think this pertains to all MA styles equally.
I agree with you, especially with your comment about titles often used by students rather than the teachers themselves. In fact, a lot of the teachers would hesitate to use some of the titles by which they are addressed, something which we have seen posted in this thread pretty often as well.
