Not a Sifu
Rene Ritchie, February 27th, 2008
I was once asked to make a name card (like a business card, but a modern tradition in many Asian countries for introducing yourself in and out of business, and passing on your important information) for a Chinese Wing Chun Kuen teacher. He’d trained under his teacher for a dozen or so years, and after moving away, continued training and teaching for two dozen more.
I set up the card under the name “Sifu” (in Chinese and English).
Upon reviewing the draft, the gentleman requested a change. He wanted a different set of characters used, which meant “transmitter”
He said “My sifu is still alive, and so he is the sifu, I am merely a transmitter of sifu’s knowldge”.
30+ years in and he was a merely “transmitter”, yet in the West we have magazine after webpage of nascent “Masters”, “Grandmasters”, “Gods” and more…
A very apt subject to me personally, as this reflects what’s gone on in my mind before. Am I a Sifu or not syndrome? I mean, what do I care for labels or positions? The first I knew of it was an embroidered sash.
I suppose it wasn’t what it meant to me, it was outsiders to see and relay to. I’ve only ever been known as Spencer really.
Hark, yet I am also a transmitter. Of words and feelings imho…
Maybe that’s the carling talking!
I have no assumptions to a persons skill level unless I, first hand, can distinguish them from my own. Even then, I wouldn’t assume a title for that person as titles,especially in the west are flagrantly abused.
I have a little knowledge but have been asked several times to teach individuals privately. Still….I would never consider myself a Sifu even, let alone anything more. It was summed up for me by Ernie on KFO. I’d use the term coach if I had to use anthing. Friend or Dan would be better
This is meant in no disregard to those that are ‘genuine’ Sifu’s (Ernie IMO is one himself but is humble) but it’s more important, for me that titles should be given, not taken.
My ex Sifu proclaimed to be a GM…LOL….
One of the reasons I turned and ran to be honest!
Truly pathetic….
Peace
Shen
I hear people constantly talking about their or their sifu’s “skill level” and I wonder what precisely they are talking about. Skill in WCK is fighting skill, not skill in doing unrealistic drills (chi sao) or doing demos or talking a good game. WCK is a martial art. And the only way to determine fighting skill — a person’s ability to apply their WCK in fighting — is by fighting. Chi sao does not correspond in any way to fighting. It’s like boxing: you can’t know how good a boxer someone is without seeing them actually box.
And, your level can only be determined by the level of opponents you can either defeat or at the very least hold your own against in fighting. A good boxer is someone who can box successfully against good boxers; a high-level boxer is someone who can box successfully against high-level boxers.
So if you’ve never seen your sifu fight a decently skilled (nonWCK) fighter, you can have no idea what his “skill level” really is.
Fighting skill, regardless of the art, comes only from fighting/sparring, and if your sifu or you aren’t spending loads of time sparring with good fighters, there is no possible way to be “skilled” or to maintain that skill.
What most people in the TCMAs, including WCK, teach is “the curriculum”. But the curriclulum (forms, drills, theory, etc.) is not the subject matter (fighting). Anyone who knows the curriculum can teach the curriculum. Knowing the currcilum, however, does not mean you know the subject matter (memorizing a math book doesn’t make you a mathematician). You learn WCK, the subject matter, by fighting.
Problems arise from confusing the curriculum with the subject matter, and when people with little understanding (which comes only from fighting skill) of the subject matter trying to impose their views how WCK “should” be done or applied. A bad golfer can’t teach others how to play good golf. The honest WCK teachers make this clear. They’ll say “I can teach you the art (the curriculum) but I can’t teach you to use it (the subject matter).” Not only are they honest, but they at least appreciate the distinction.
The others are the blind leading the blind.
Intersting points by Shen and Terence, although I’d have to say I disagree with T’s remarks about fighting and comparing WCK to boxing as I don’t believe this is a good argument for either parties to participate in.
Witnessing a Sifu actually ‘fight’ would imho be degenerative to the students learning. Why do I need to see that? Especially when I view fighting as barbaric really, not as a competitive sport. Now, you can judge a persons skill level in WCK by their exchange of words, chisau related drills and form and weaponry practises. This would give an decent overview to a students competency in the style ‘as a whole’. Basically, assessing use of the tools of WCK is enough imo and only links to something like boxing in a small way; padwork, bagwork, sparring (gorsau) and empty hand drills.
None of these practises are actual fighting. They’re a way to prepare a fighter, yes, but these days I feel grateful that I haven’t had to fight to survive! I’m not saying I havent used my skill to avoid being hurt in a fight, but I wasn’t fighting I was avoiding getting into one! Also, I tend to not coach fighters for competition, I would pass them to others who do specialize in this field.
I’d much prefer to teach this ethic, than to teach everyone that fighting is all WCK has to offer. I also like the ‘coach’ label and do use this at The Yum Yeurng Academy…
I’ll say the term “Sifu” is what students call me and its because I am culturally Chinese and some of them understand the tradition - similar to the European trade guilds of old (which probably were influenced like the concept of civil service in old China). Originally, most of my students were of Chinese descent and we stuck to the old title of “Sifu”. But the characters used are more the ones for a “s skilled craftsman”, rather than “Skillful Father”.
But I don’t abuse the title and have students carry my bags, open my door, etc. And I am happy to know people and treat them as individuals. I am not their “father”, they do not adopt my name, and our relationship is built upon trust and mutual respect and friendship. In Chinese, my haircutter who shaves my head without causing it to bleed is “Sifu”. In China, my cabdriver is called “Sifu”. And the chef in my favourite restaurant is called “Sifu”. Its just a term of respect culturally.
As a Chinese medicine doctor and herbalist I am sometimes referred to as “sifu”, as well as “Zhong Yi” (Chinese medicine), “Yi Shi” (Silled in medicine), “Lang Zhong” (Another doctor term), “Dai Fu” (more of an affectionate doctor term). These are customary titles, not a big deal.
WCK is a cultural art and in some ways, I have preserved it as such - it is a trade skill, but one concerned with application. And as such, it is a fighting art. Its an ugly art in some ways - not in line with the Japanese concept of “Do” (Way), but more “Jutsu” as in “Skill” or “Art”. Perhaps some westerners would want it to be more of a “Do”. Bruce Lee did - he wanted it to be “Jeet Kune Do”. But we are not a “Do”. We need to get real. In HK, kids want to study martial art just like kids here want to study boxing or wrestling - it is a sport, but they want skills to be able to use. Now I don’t think WCK is a sport, but aspects of it can certanly be turned into sport. Its a martial art, and there is a lot of martial in that art. Unlike Contemporary Wushu which might be martial ART, we are still a MARTIAL art.
We do everything in the context of combat - from drills to exercises. Chi Sao is not taught for the sake of Sticking hands, it is for realising openings and crossing the bridge and developing structure. If Chinese medicine were only for the cultural preservation and not for its clinical effectiveness, I would not have this profession - I’d be some kind of history professor or cultural anthropologist. But Chinese Medicine is for clinical effectiveness, just like WCK is for combat effectiveness. Otherwise what we do is a sh*tty dance and partner dance.
I always tell people their mileage may vary based on experience. They have to get their own experience. As I said in previous posts, people become apprentices, then journeymen, then craftmasters. Most have not even gotten to the level of apprentice and learned the skill, let alone refine it - then how can they become a craftsmaster? And as s journeymen, it is a duty to learn/refine your craft with other masters to strengthen what is weak. It might mean you study with other Sifu and other arts. That’s the way it was done in Old China.
And for those who call themselves coaches - a good thought is understanding how much of WCK do they really know, in terms of articulating the system, how it compares with other crafts and craftsmen teaching, terminology, concepts, core principles? There’s a difference between being a technician and artist. So the coach title might be trendy…but does not really make one a “Sifu”.
And that gentleman who calls himself not a Sifu - he’s correct - the students call him Sifu, he does not refer himself as Sifu. It is the relationship that calls and defines the tern “Sifu”. So when non-Chinese call themselves grandmaster and supreme grandmaster, and try to equate the term “Sifu”, “Sigung” or “Si Jo” - they are misusing the term.
The proper terms are familial and in relation with whom. For example, Alan Orr is my student, he call me “Sifu”, his students call me “Sigung” - I do not refer to myself as “Grandmaster” Chu.
As for other self-proclaimed titles, WCK has no titles of “Jeung Mun Yan” (Gatekeeper), “Dharma Protector” (although all Upasakas “Lay devotees of Buddhism” are Dharma Protectors), and other unusual titles. These are probably made up with more than a twinge of ego or people wanting to control their particular sect. I might dare say that WCK has no religious connotations, Zen or otherwise.
Hi,
Interesting view-points.
Terence, I’ve heard your viewpoint on this so many times but it’s nice for you to have a new ‘venue’ on which to preach it.
Skill level is quite a vague term and I really do appreciate the point you’re making. There can be many discussions about the roles people play in TCMA but ultimately, to lump every single individual in to the fighter category just seems too limited for me.
I think the idea that anyone we learn from has to fight or have fought against ‘decent’ fighters, is not always valid. If a Sifu or Coach or whatever you wish to call them passes down enough understanding of the WCK system then it’s not their responsibility to make sure you, as an individual can use the art, it’s down to you. Here I’m sure you’ll agree as I’m not talking about taking a teachers word for it that something works but discovering yourself what works and what doesn’t.
So by testing what you learn by mixing it up with what ever you would call a decent fighter is your way, and I think it’s a very honest route TBH. There are others who may not profess to be great fighters and after all, there is always someone out there who can make mincemeat of you, however tough you get.
These ‘non fighters’ may be the ones who can retain the info and understanding of the system on a deep academic level and if what they teach stays very close to the art passed down to them, perhaps by one who really did fight well, then I see no issue with that either. After all, it’s the student, who may wish to fight or not who will take what they want from the training, testing themselves to the high level you refer to or not. These people are still paying the art a service by passing it, accurately, on to the potential myriad of ‘fighters’. Let them work out what works and so I don’t see the problem as B&W as that.
ChuSauLei,
Thank you for your explanations from a Chinese perspective. They tally very much with my ideas on titles, especially the being called something by others but not calling yourself by any specific term.
With regard to the amount of knowledge any one may have, I don’t think the term Sifu, Master, Coach, Grandmaster etc… has any honest baring of one’s understanding of WCK. There are so many truly awful examples of these examples out there that it’s more down to one doing a bit of research and taking the time to sift through the sh*t
Re the term Coach, I’d be more likely to perceive the guy as humble than the one who calls himself Master but still… That could be exactly what he wants me to believe!!!
There are good and bad examples of all IMO, just more bad.
Peace
Shen
Shen writes:
“Terence, I’ve heard your viewpoint on this so many times but it’s nice for you to have a new ‘venue’ on which to preach it.”
Apparently ‘preach’ means to offer a consistent viewpoint different than your own.
“Skill level is quite a vague term and I really do appreciate the point you’re making. There can be many discussions about the roles people play in TCMA but ultimately, to lump every single individual in to the fighter category just seems too limited for me.”
If your martial art is performance-based, then skill level is not something vague at all. It is the level at which you can perform (fight with) your martial art. In any sport or athletic activity — which are all performance-based — skill level is a simple thing to determine. It’s not that difficult to determine how good a tennis player, how good a golfer, how good a boxer you are. It’s only when what you do isn’t performance-based that these things are vague.
Being a fighter isn’t limited, any more than being a boxer or wrestler is limited.
“I think the idea that anyone we learn from has to fight or have fought against ‘decent’ fighters, is not always valid. If a Sifu or Coach or whatever you wish to call them passes down enough understanding of the WCK system then it’s not their responsibility to make sure you, as an individual can use the art, it’s down to you. Here I’m sure you’ll agree as I’m not talking about taking a teachers word for it that something works but discovering yourself what works and what doesn’t.”
You miss the point. What “understanding” can they pass down? Only the understanding of someone who has never developed skill in their art. What understanding does a poor golfer or poor tennis player have?
“So by testing what you learn by mixing it up with what ever you would call a decent fighter is your way, and I think it’s a very honest route TBH. There are others who may not profess to be great fighters and after all, there is always someone out there who can make mincemeat of you, however tough you get.”
There will always be better boxers or better wrestlers too, but that doesn’t detract from the point that you only learn to box or wrestle by actually boxing and wrestling. It’s not a question of “testing” your boxing or wrestling. You are not in fact boxing or wrestling unless you are doing the activity itself. Similarly with WCK — you are not “doing” WCK unless you are fighting.
“These ‘non fighters’ may be the ones who can retain the info and understanding of the system on a deep academic level and if what they teach stays very close to the art passed down to them, perhaps by one who really did fight well, then I see no issue with that either. After all, it’s the student, who may wish to fight or not who will take what they want from the training, testing themselves to the high level you refer to or not. These people are still paying the art a service by passing it, accurately, on to the potential myriad of ‘fighters’. Let them work out”
Nonfighters are nonWCKers, just like nonfighters are nonboxers or nonwrestlers. It is the activity (the subject matter) that is controlling, not the curriclum. Nonfighters can learn the curriculum but they can’t understand the curriculum, since that understanding comes from doing the activity. Memorizing a book doesn’t mean you understand the book’s subject matter.
Hi Terence,
Skill level of a great tennis player is clear to see as they play televised matches and records are held of their performances/ achievments. The same goes for any performer who participates in a controlled environment when they reach a high, or even Pro’, level. The skill level is hence easy to determine and compare with others.
Unsanctioned fights though are random occurrences which aren’t on any record. Neither do they happen in a structured manner, such as the typical pyramid structure, of most competitions.
This leaves no information from which to accurately assess anything more than if that one fight was won or lost. It doesn’t offer the transparency of comparison further than that moment and is not visible to any other fighters from which we could really compare skill levels.
Therefore I say skill level, in this context, is vague as who is it compared to?
Peace
Shen