To me a master is the one that produces fine practicioner which eventually become teachers themself but more importantly become good people,a master is someone that understands the purpose of his chosen style..someone who is able to defend himself when neccessary…
a master is not undefeatable no human is
and most importantly a master should never have the surname Bate
:D:D:D
[QUOTE=Laukarbo;870437]and most importantly a master should never have the surname Bate
:D:D:D[/QUOTE]
I knew a Master Bateman.
Thank you
Dear all,
Thank for your answers they are very interesting.
RD’S Alias - 1A
“First, some of your premises are wrong. ALL styles, no matter what they are should be functional in 12 to 18 months top, even Tai Chi.”
Some of my premises are from:
Wing chun - Sifu Duncan Leung
Hung kuen - late Sifu Chan Hon Chung from Hong Kong
I do not know who train you and how the kung fu masters teach in America, but I do know that many Chinese martial arts teachers in London only teach their students forms, with very little application in fighting. I based my observation on how their students fight in tournaments, as well as my own experience. They fought like boxers and kick boxers, but unable to use any of their kung fu techniques.
I used to know two Tai Chi teachers who had spent 15 years (2 hours per day training) learning from a traditional Chinese Tai Chi master. All they learned were forms and they could not even defence themselves in a fight! Therefore, until those kung fu instructors and masters change their minds about actually teaching their students something useful beside forms, then there is no way anyone can fight with their kung fu forms after 40 years of training, let alone 18 months. They may be able to fight like an amateur boxers, kick boxers, but not like kung fu fighters we saw in films.
“Your Hung gar times are off the scale. You can learn JUST the techniques found first section of the first form and be taking names in 6 months with that style.”
Here is part of the interview of a famous Hung Kuen master, the late Sifu Chan Hon Chung from Hong Kong with a BBC television reporter in 1980s:
“I have several thousands of pupils, but not even ten of them are good enough to be instructors. Hung Kuen is a very difficult to learn and no one can teach others if he or she is not an expert. It takes at least eight years for me to teach the student properly, whereas people will learn for only two or three years before they leave.”
Master Chan used to train 5 hours a day in Hung Kuen. If master Chan of the Hung Kuen style said to me that it would take him at least 8 years to teach Hung Kuen to me properly, how does anyone think that it is possible for me to master it in 9 - 10 years?
“Length of time to learn the whole system (able to use it in a fight)”
I am talking about learning the whole system and use it in a fight. I am not talking about learning few effective techniques.
If anyone call themselves masters , then I would expect them to know (as well as mastered) at least 80 -100% of their kung fu system. However, if a half bucketful instructor who know less than 50% of his system and call himself/herself a master, then this makes the title “master” to become worthless.
The classical Japanese sword fighting school - Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu give 3 stages of acknowledgement of achievement to their students. A diligent student received his first scroll after about 5 years. He got his second scroll after another 5 years. The third scroll only awarded to senior instructors who have been trained with the Ryu for a total of 15 years. The American scholar, Don Draegar was the only non Japanese ever to have achieved this rank in the Ryu (before 1982).
Thank you
Hitman
If you already knew the answer, why did you ask the question?
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;870531]If you already knew the answer, why did you ask the question?[/QUOTE]
Because he wanted us to pay attention to his beating-the-dead-horse blog.
They may be able to fight like an amateur boxers, kick boxers, but not like kung fu fighters we saw in films.
Ah, I see now.
All is clear.
I ask this question because:
They all wanted me to join their classes. I know the state of Chinese kung fu being taught in London. However, I do not know the level of martial arts skills being taught in other countries. I do not believe that it is possible for some one to learn 7 different martial arts under 40s old, so I thought to ask the experts’ advice in this forum, before I wasted my time and money to attend those classes.
Some of the replies told me that it is possible to learn 5 different styles.
Thank you
Hitman
[B][I][SIZE=“2”]
RD’S Alias - 1A
“First, some of your premises are wrong. ALL styles, no matter what they are should be functional in 12 to 18 months top, even Tai Chi.”
Some of my premises are from:
Wing chun - Sifu Duncan Leung
Hung kuen - late Sifu Chan Hon Chung from Hong Kong[/SIZE][/I][/B]
Reply]
Maybe they didn’t actually want to teach thier art.
[SIZE=“2”]I do not know who train you and how the kung fu masters teach in America, but I do know that many Chinese martial arts teachers in London only teach their students forms, with very little application in fighting. [/SIZE]
Reply]
Then they are not actually teaching the style, they are just giving out the wrapper it came in.
[SIZE=“2”]
I based my observation on how their students fight in tournaments, as well as my own experience. They fought like boxers and kick boxers, but unable to use any of their kung fu techniques.[/SIZE]
Reply]
No surprise there, they were not taught thier art, only the forms. Forms are not supposed to be taught until AFTER the style has become proficient. They are not teaching tools, but advanced tools of refinement and cataloging.
[SIZE=“2”]
I used to know two Tai Chi teachers who had spent 15 years (2 hours per day training) learning from a traditional Chinese Tai Chi master. All they learned were forms and they could not even defence themselves in a fight! [/SIZE]
Reply]
Thier teacher did not teach them the art, just gave out the wrapper.
[SIZE=“2”]Therefore, until those kung fu instructors and masters change their minds about actually teaching their students something useful beside forms, then there is no way anyone can fight with their kung fu forms after 40 years of training, let alone 18 months. [/SIZE]
Reply]
Not all lines are modern forms collectors. There are still some old school systems that teach the fighting style the old way. In a system like that, 18 months will produce a fairly skilled fightter who can hold is own in a surprising number of situations. Many of those pure Old School lines are out of China, in Indonesia and Malaysia and the USA, but there are still real Old school Chinese masters in China too. Look for the schools that don’t teach forms until you can fight with it’s techniques.
[SIZE=“2”]
They may be able to fight like an amateur boxers, kick boxers, but not like kung fu fighters we saw in films.[/SIZE]
Reply]
Real Kung Fu does not look like a movie, but it does not look like Kick boxing either. Kick Boxing is a basic defense method hardwired into our genes. If one has to fight, and is not trained to, the genetic fall back style emerges.
All these modern Kung Fu systems that are teaching just the from choreography are NOT teaching the style’s methods fo fighting, so thier students fall back to the original bootup style that is loaded in human brain’s MS windows, which is crude crappy kick boxing and smothering tackles.
In essence by only teaching the forms, they are not passing on the style (If they even learned it from thier teachers), and it has died. Only the name and the pretty wrapping paper lived on in thier lines. You have to search and find an old school line that was not demilitarized in modern times.
[B][I][SIZE=“2”]“Your Hung gar times are off the scale. You can learn JUST the techniques found first section of the first form and be taking names in 6 months with that style.”
Here is part of the interview of a famous Hung Kuen master, the late Sifu Chan Hon Chung from Hong Kong with a BBC television reporter in 1980s:
"I have several thousands of pupils, but not even ten of them are good enough to be instructors.[/SIZE][/I][/B]
Reply]
Becaus he’sa crappy teacher. The very fact that he does not have anyone able to teach, dspite all this time, and thousands of students is absolute proof of his utter failure as a teacher.
[SIZE=“2”]Hung Kuen is a very difficult to learn and no one can teach others if he or she is not an expert. It takes at least eight years for me to teach the student properly, whereas people will learn for only two or three years before they leave."[/SIZE]
Reply]
Bull shit. This person is not a real teacher, and is not interested in passing his art to anyone. It’s all a facade with him, or he’d have Hungar fighters in Months, instead of years. I can take a TAPE of Hungar and it’s basic apps and martial strategies, teach off the TAPE and have real Hungar fighters in 18 months. I don’t even do the style, I just have an introduction to it. However, i know HOW to teach, apparently others don’t.
[SIZE=“2”]
Master Chan used to train 5 hours a day in Hung Kuen. If master Chan of the Hung Kuen style said to me that it would take him at least 8 years to teach Hung Kuen to me properly, how does anyone think that it is possible for me to master it in 9 - 10 years?
[/SIZE]
Reply]
Because he sux, and learned half assed backwards. THAT is why it takes these guys so long to learn and teach. they START with the forms. that is totally wrong. Only in MODERN times, like the last 3 generations did Kung fu training start there.
I learned the first section of the Tiger Crane form. There is enough applications in the BOW alone to make a solid Hung gar fighter quickly. All you need is to drill that, and maybe the first section of the form with resisting partners, and have a detailed explanation of how those techniques are applied, and you can fight in the Hungar style. ANYONE who can’t get a student proficient in 18 months either does not know how to teach, doesn’t WANT to teach the art, or never knew it in the first place and only had the superfical most part of it (IE the forms)
[B][I][SIZE=“2”]“Length of time to learn the whole system (able to use it in a fight)”
I am talking about learning the whole system and use it in a fight. I am not talking about learning few effective techniques.
[/SIZE][/I][/B]
Reply]
Then you are talking about Mastery, that would be 10 years of full time training.
[SIZE=“2”]If anyone call themselves masters , then I would expect them to know (as well as mastered) at least 80 -100% of their kung fu system. However, if a half bucketful instructor who know less than 50% of his system and call himself/herself a master, then this makes the title “master” to become worthless.[/SIZE]
Reply]
Not if that 50% or less person can kick the snot out of the puffy masters who only teach forms. Actually, knowing the forms, and being good at them is only about 10% of the style anyway. It was originally the LAST thing one learned AFTER mastering the art. It was a Diploma of sorts.
So if you have a guy who knows only one form of the system, but can fight well with every aspect of it, he is more a master than the guy that knows all the forms.
Why? because he’s got 90% of the style already, and the guy who knows all the forms only has 10% of the style.
RD, when the fuck are you going to learn how to use the god damn quote function. You take what little pleasure there is away from reading the threads which you participate in. Press the QUOTE button INSTEAD of hitting REPLY~!
Master Chan used to train 5 hours a day in Hung Kuen. If master Chan of the Hung Kuen style said to me that it would take him at least 8 years to teach Hung Kuen to me properly, how does anyone think that it is possible for me to master it in 9 - 10 years?
Reply]
Because he sux, and learned half assed backwards. THAT is why it takes these guys so long to learn and teach. they START with the forms. that is totally wrong. Only in MODERN times, like the last 3 generations did Kung fu training start there.
I learned the first section of the Tiger Crane form. There is enough applications in the BOW alone to make a solid Hung gar fighter quickly. All you need is to drill that, and maybe the first section of the form with resisting partners, and have a detailed explanation of how those techniques are applied, and you can fight in the Hungar style. ANYONE who can’t get a student proficient in 18 months either does not know how to teach, doesn’t WANT to teach the art, or never knew it in the first place and only had the superfical most part of it (IE the forms)
You have ZERO idea of WHO Chan was or what he meant, do you?
[QUOTE=Hitman;870529]
They may be able to fight like an amateur boxers, kick boxers, but not like kung fu fighters we saw in films. [/QUOTE]
Hey! want to know why when you see guys fight, it doesn’t look like fights in films?
[SIZE=“5”]BECAUSE IT IS A FUCKING MOVIE![/SIZE]
This board is full of idiots, really it is :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;870545]You have ZERO idea of WHO Chan was or what he meant, do you?[/QUOTE]
I don’t really care who he was, if he took EIGHT years to get a good fighter, and if he taught thousands, but less than ten are qualified to teach, after all that time, then his record speaks for itself, now doesn’t it.
[EDIT]
I’d like to add, that the person in question could very well have been the best hung gar player ever, but that does not mean he can actually teach it. Also, his TEACHER may not have been a very good teacher either, and he managed to get good eventually, because of his own talent.
Practicing an art, and TEACHING an art are two totally different skill sets. A Great martial artist does not = a great teacher.
As I mentioned before, i can often teach something I either just learned, or am mimiking off of a tape better than the master can, despite not even knowing what I am teaching very well. Why is this? because i am a very good teacher, and I have a very methodical, step by step teaching methodology and i have a natural talent for identifying what is important and what needs to be taught when and at what stage.
[QUOTE=Lama Pai Sifu;870543]RD, when the fuck are you going to learn how to use the god damn quote function. You take what little pleasure there is away from reading the threads which you participate in. Press the QUOTE button INSTEAD of hitting REPLY~![/QUOTE]
Reply]
You are really petty.
you are really petty
reply]
yeah but it gets a bit annoying, please us the quote button:p
Responce]
Could it also be that Chan-Sifu holds himself and his teaching to a higher standard? Perhaps he doesn’t cater to mediocrity. Perhaps people are used to getting what they want, their way, without actually recognizing and understanding what exactly it is they are supposed to be learning.
This is why most people who practice Gung-Fu learn forms and sparring, and do not invest the proper time developing a foundation by stance training and lien-gung, and then years later, their Gung-Fu is merely an empty shell of what it’s supposed to be. Then they sit and complain that it’s inneffective. Perhaps it’s because they never actually learned it in the first place. All they learned was forms and some “applications.”
Now they’re 'Masters."
Answer]
BTW, I believe he studied under Lam Sai-Wing.
[QUOTE=Hitman;870529]
I do not know who train you and how the kung fu masters teach in America, but I do know that many Chinese martial arts teachers in London only teach their students forms, with very little application in fighting. I based my observation on how their students fight in tournaments, as well as my own experience. They fought like boxers and kick boxers, but unable to use any of their kung fu techniques.
[/QUOTE]
thats because they werent drilling application obviously, the answer is ptretty self explanetory, you fight how you train, if you train hitting the air then you’l become very good at hitting the air the opposite is also true.
I used to know two Tai Chi teachers who had spent 15 years (2 hours per day training) learning from a traditional Chinese Tai Chi master. All they learned were forms and they could not even defence themselves in a fight! Therefore, until those kung fu instructors and masters change their minds about actually teaching their students something useful beside forms, then there is no way anyone can fight with their kung fu forms after 40 years of training, let alone 18 months.
wel duhhh
They may be able to fight like an amateur boxers, kick boxers,
i resent that, since when did kick boxing or boxing become lesser arts?? they are equally if not more valid arts, they teach by and large whats applicable.
but not like kung fu fighters we saw in films.
NO ONE FIGHTS LIKE THEY DO IN FILMS, ITS A MOVIE, its there for ENTERTAINMENT.
“I have several thousands of pupils, but not even ten of them are good enough to be instructors. Hung Kuen is a very difficult to learn and no one can teach others if he or she is not an expert. It takes at least eight years for me to teach the student properly, whereas people will learn for only two or three years before they leave.”
dont learn from this guy
Master Chan used to train 5 hours a day in Hung Kuen. If master Chan of the Hung Kuen style said to me that it would take him at least 8 years to teach Hung Kuen to me properly, how does anyone think that it is possible for me to master it in 9 - 10 years?
“Length of time to learn the whole system (able to use it in a fight)”
since when have learning the whole system and being able to use it meant the same thing, i dont know every single wrestling move in the book but i can wrestle someone if i need to
I am talking about learning the whole system and use it in a fight. I am not talking about learning few effective techniques.
you dont need to learn the whole system to be able to use it in a fight, i’m no master at html but i can use it. how about this, go find someone who is teaching techniques against resisting opponents and making them work, then learn a few techniques, then when u got those down leanr a few more and so on and so on, forget about systems
If anyone call themselves masters , then I would expect them to know (as well as mastered) at least 80 -100% of their kung fu system. However, if a half bucketful instructor who know less than 50% of his system and call himself/herself a master, then this makes the title “master” to become worthless.
i’d rather have a teacher that knows 50% and can make that 50 work than someone who knows it all but makes me wait around for years “its better to train one kick a thousand times than train a thousand kicks once”
The classical Japanese sword fighting school - Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu give 3 stages of acknowledgement of achievement to their students. A diligent student received his first scroll after about 5 years. He got his second scroll after another 5 years. The third scroll only awarded to senior instructors who have been trained with the Ryu for a total of 15 years. The American scholar, Don Draegar was the only non Japanese ever to have achieved this rank in the Ryu (before 1982).
thats because they were probably a school that tought high ranked officials and their families and wanted to keep their business for a long time, during the 200 year peaceful era known as the “Tokugawa era”
do you really think that a functional martial arts gym in feudal japan would take that long to train a warrior, feudal japan was turbulent and people were dying all the time
most peoples lives would be over by the time they were 50 tops! they just didnt have the time to teach for that long to warriors who would be out fighting wars against other clans you couldnt spend that amount of time trainining
saying that you need to learn for years and years is just a way of ensuring repeat business from gullible fools like yourself
[QUOTE=TenTigers;870575]Responce]
Could it also be that Chan-Sifu holds himself and his teaching to a higher standard? Perhaps he doesn’t cater to mediocrity. Perhaps people are used to getting what they want, their way, without actually recognizing and understanding what exactly it is they are supposed to be learning.
This is why most people who practice Gung-Fu learn forms and sparring, and do not invest the proper time developing a foundation by stance training and lien-gung, and then years later, their Gung-Fu is merely an empty shell of what it’s supposed to be. Then they sit and complain that it’s inneffective. Perhaps it’s because they never actually learned it in the first place. All they learned was forms and some “applications.”
Now they’re 'Masters."[/QUOTE]
Reply]
This would be the fault of the teachers, not the student. The student can only absorb the material presented. if all that is is forms, then that is all he can get good at.
When I teach, I do stances right away (structure), Qi Gong (Mechanics), Conditioning (specialized and general), basics, foot work and applications. I also have various competitive exercises designed to build positional and entry skills so the student can get to, and unleash thier techniques from a tactically superior, advantagous position. I teach this BEFORE even a single application.
Once I can see the student has developed some footwork and positional skills, THEN I teach them the 18 Basic shaolin techniques (Modified to replace many with Tai tzu varients of course).
In the first 3 months I can get a student fighting WITH the style on a beginning level. by 9-12 months they will be functional, and by 18 they are pretty good, because this is ALL I teach in that time.
At 9 to 12 months, they test for the first level.
After that, I start to add techniques from the first form. I don’t actually teach the form’s choreography till they are proficient in using all the techniques in actual competitive application.
Things I’m considering:
Some styles, like Hung Gar, have tiger, snake, crane built into them… could this count for 3 styles right there? Some might argue that. And if you understand those concepts well, you might be able to pick up Wing Chun rather quickly. And if you get pretty good at Wing Chun and chi sau, you might be able to pick up a close-in style like southern mantis or Bak Mei, rather quickly.
I spent 5 to 7 years studying those styles, mostly focusing on Wing Chun. I learned alot about bridging and sticking. That later helped me understand some concepts when training internal but it was different.
Which brings me to another point. Seeing something (demonstrated or on video) doesn’t mean you understand it. You understand what you see. Most of the time there’s a lot of little detail in there. Details that make the difference.
I don’t know what any of these considerations mean or are worth. In the end, martial arts is very individualistic and follow the golden rule… what you get out of it depends on what you put into it.