# Wing Chun Ranking



## Spartan

Does Wing Chun follow a rank/ sash system like other types of kung fu?

Spartan


----------



## KamonGuy2

Yes in several ways. Many schools have a grading system (Kamon, James Sinclair, etc). In Kamon it is Yellow 1, Yellow 2, Red 1, Red 2, Green 1, Green 2 (senior level), Brown 1, Brown 2, Black 1-4

The Kamon gradings are few, which means students don't have to fork out hundreds of pounds a year, whilst still maintaining standards 

More generally, you can attain ranks such as Sihing (junior instructor/older brother), Dai Sihing (senior instructor) , Sifu (master/father) etc

There are many variations between different federations

In Kamon, Kevin Chan is only called Sifu, despite being one of the best wing chun practitioners around

Why were you asking friend?


----------



## brocklee

Yeah,

Sifu or

not Sifu

lol   the kwoon I attend doesn't seem to have a ranking system.   My first WC class gave us a hay bail string to wear around our waist.  The student that was there the longest tended to have the darkest string.

It was to my understanding that belts or sashes weren't given out because WC was designed to be mastered after only 6 or 7 years and because martial arts we're outlawed during that dynasty, so everything needed to be kept on the DL.  I'm sure its different per lineage.


----------



## KamonGuy2

Yeah but grades can be important. In Kamon we have 45 classes in London. That means if a student walks in from another class, the only way I can tell what level he is training at is by their sash. 

Alternatively you could ask them what level they are but it would take forever for them to explain what they know

I find gradings also help encourage students to progress. If you don't have gradings, you will never know quite how good you are (you could chi sao with one person and be better than them, and then chi sao with another and be worse)

Some schools like Ip Chun's are 'wander in' kind of schools that many masters go and visit. At places like Kamon, it is more of a formatted structured class. 

I think it might be a western thing


----------



## Spartan

I was just curious - I'm more familiar with the Japanese ranking systems. 

One side note: I've seen various wing chun practitioners at very high ranks and they all seem to be wearing a different sash color. If I'm correct, I thought I've seen pictures of William Cheung wearing a red sash.

Also, I've heard that a white sash is the highest rank that one can receive in this system and that master Yip Man was the only one to have ever held this rank. Could someone set me straight on this matter?

Spartan


----------



## CheukMo

Spartan said:


> I was just curious - I'm more familiar with the Japanese ranking systems.
> 
> One side note: I've seen various wing chun practitioners at very high ranks and they all seem to be wearing a different sash color. If I'm correct, I thought I've seen pictures of William Cheung wearing a red sash.
> 
> Also, I've heard that a white sash is the highest rank that one can receive in this system and that master Yip Man was the only one to have ever held this rank. Could someone set me straight on this matter?
> 
> Spartan


 
As far as I know, Wing Chun had no sash system in Yip Man's time.  There were si-hing, si-bak, si-je (etc.) and sifu.  The ranking systems of today are used for various reasons as stated by Kamon Guy and brocklee.  As far as William Cheung's red sash, it doesn't matter as he has his own school of which he is the "Grandmaster".  There are many who call themselves "grandmaster", but I didn't think it possible to have more than one grandmaster.  I'm not knocking anyone in particular, but I think one who is completely adept in WC and satisfied with his students referring to him as sifu is the real master.


----------



## brocklee

TigerStripe said:


> As far as I know, Wing Chun had no sash system in Yip Man's time.  There were si-hing, si-bak, si-je (etc.) and sifu.  The ranking systems of today are used for various reasons as stated by Kamon Guy and brocklee.  As far as William Cheung's red sash, it doesn't matter as he has his own school of which he is the "Grandmaster".  There are many who call themselves "grandmaster", but I didn't think it possible to have more than one grandmaster.  I'm not knocking anyone in particular, but I think one who is completely adept in WC and satisfied with his students referring to him as sifu is the real master.



My sifu has spoken of a sash dealing with Ip Man's time.  It was the sash that was worn either around the arm or the leg (can't quite remember) at a ceremony held for Ip Man by his students upon his passing.  I cant remember the colors but I believe his closest students wore either white or black sashes.  Then someone arrived wearing the same color sash as his closest disciples and they ripped it off his arm/leg.  He left and returned wearing a different color....anyone else know of a similar event?


----------



## KamonGuy2

TigerStripe said:


> As far as William Cheung's red sash, it doesn't matter as he has his own school of which he is the "Grandmaster". There are many who call themselves "grandmaster", but I didn't think it possible to have more than one grandmaster. I'm not knocking anyone in particular, but I think one who is completely adept in WC and satisfied with his students referring to him as sifu is the real master.


 
I thought that for a while but then I realised that technically Grandmaster is just another rank. 

In Kamon, Sifu Kevin Chan is very humble and has only ever been called a master. He is well above this rank. And how you can see it is that the people who are under him are easily masters themselves

If you run an organisation where your students have become Masters, you should by definition be a Grandmaster

Another way of thinking is that titles are given. Like the title of Professor. 
Sifu has been called a Master by many of his peers including Ip Chun, Geoff Thompson, Gracies, etc and is still very humble about the whole affair. He is happy just to be called Sifu

Many other federations like Cheungs use complete and utter nonsense to fool students into thinking they are some grand organisation. 

Cheungs wing chun is okay, don't get me wrong, but his past actions and comments have ripped apart wing chun (in a bad way)


----------



## CheukMo

Kamon Guy said:


> I thought that for a while but then I realised that technically Grandmaster is just another rank.
> 
> In Kamon, Sifu Kevin Chan is very humble and has only ever been called a master. He is well above this rank. And how you can see it is that the people who are under him are easily masters themselves.
> 
> If you run an organisation where your students have become Masters, you should by definition be a Grandmaster
> 
> Another way of thinking is that titles are given. Like the title of Professor.
> Sifu has been called a Master by many of his peers including Ip Chun, Geoff Thompson, Gracies, etc and is still very humble about the whole affair. He is happy just to be called Sifu


 
Then to me, Sifu Chan would be, in a way, a master. Humility with confidence is a sign of what I would term a "master". I think some "schools" of WC/WT/VT have ranks that in Cantonese reflect more on the traditional Chinese way, but can't be translated well into English.



> Many other federations like Cheungs use complete and utter nonsense to fool students into thinking they are some grand organisation.


 
I wholeheartedly agree.



> Cheungs wing chun is okay, don't get me wrong, but his past actions and comments have ripped apart wing chun (in a bad way)


 
I agree with that as well. William Cheung's system is very different from Yip Man's teachings as taught by most of his other students. Most other styles that are an evolution (or devolution depending on your point of view) of WC by the Yip Man lineage change the name to reflect that. Bruce Lee's Jun Fan Gung Fu (not JKD) is one example. Yes, Yip Man taught many students over a long period of time and each would have seen a different picture of the Yip Man WC system. However, I doubt Yip Man would have took the time to teach William Cheung a completely different system that the rest of his students, such as his early-senior systems or his sons Yip Chun and Yip Ching.


----------



## Spartan

So you all feel William Cheung's story is a big hoax?

How different is William Cheung's system from other systems?

Is it just as or less effective than those other systems?


Spartan


----------



## CheukMo

Spartan said:


> So you all feel William Cheung's story is a big hoax?


 
I do. He basicly states that Yip (Ip) Man taught a different or "wrong" version of Wing Chun for his entire teaching years. He says only when he (William Cheung) became a senior student and assistant instructor did Yip Man teach him (and only him) the "true" and "traditional" Wing Chun.



> How different is William Cheung's system from other systems?


 
Stances are different. His focus is different. 



> Is it just as or less effective than those other systems?
> 
> 
> Spartan


 
I don't know if it is more or less effective than that of other styles or branches of Wing Chun as I haven't studied it, nor experienced enough of it to say. There are many schools of WC/WT/VT and many have a different focus than others and will concentrate on some things more than others but few claim to have been the only one who knows "true" Wing Chun.


----------



## KamonGuy2

Spartan said:


> So you all feel William Cheung's story is a big hoax?
> 
> How different is William Cheung's system from other systems?
> 
> Is it just as or less effective than those other systems?
> 
> Spartan


 
I believe he trained under Yip Man and had involvement with many fine martial artists (Bruce Lee, etc), but his claims that he was the only one ever to be taught the true third form disgusts me. 
The only reason to say that is to cash in. 

His fight with Emin Bosteppi really put things into perspective.


----------



## Spartan

Could you elaborate on what happened in this fight?


----------



## KamonGuy2

You haven't seen it? It's all over the web!! 
Basically Emin wasn't happy with what Cheung had been saying (about Cheung being the only one who knew th true third form and wing chun etc). Emin went to his school (I think it might have been a seminar) and asked Cheung for a fight. Cheung agreed. 

Emin grabbed Cheung and threw him to the floor in a side mount. He then hit him repeatedly. Cheung blocked a few but got hit. 

Students of Cheung had to pull Emin off of him. 

I have a dvd with it all on. It's hilarious. Not the best fight in the world but Emin got the job done (which was to show Cheung that he wasn't the best in the world)


----------



## CheukMo

This is supposed to be the fight. I can't make either face out very well though. http://www.ebmas.net/video/emin-vs-cheung.mpeg


----------



## KamonGuy2

Unfortunately my computer at work blocks vids. If you live in the UK Cheuk I can send you a copy of my DVD. It is quite funny - it has a northern guy commentating on the fight. 

There was apparently a similar confrontation (although I don't think it got physical) between Benny Meng and Alan Orr


----------



## bcbernam777

Spartan said:


> So you all feel William Cheung's story is a big hoax?


 
Whatever WC does say should be understood in this context. WC is a very smart business man, and as such does tend to embellish certain stories, he is to a certain degree quite an arrogant man, and partakes in a lot of self agrandising talk so as to increase his public profile, so that he can increase his marketability to attract more students. His flare for the dramatic has quite often landed him in hot water, in particular his claims that YM named him as the succesor of the YMWC system. A claim that he tries to back up with the fact that he alone was taught "classical" Wing Chun by YM, whereas the other students where taught the modified system of Wing Chun. This had created a rift between the Ving Tsun association and himself and had resulted in a letter from former students of YM man denoucing his claims. Certainly when you look at the time frame that he actually spent with Sigung then some holes do appear in his story, certainly in the time he was with YM he had learnt WC but to learn a suposed second system of WC does seem to be improbable.



Spartan said:


> How different is William Cheung's system from other systems??


 
The main differences as far as I can tell are in footwork and delivery, but these can be explained in interpretative differences and not a whole new style. However I have never studied under WC so I cannot give a definitive answer on that.



Spartan said:


> Is it just as or less effective than those other systems?
> Spartan


 
That is a matter of interpretation, certainly from what I have seen of WC's style, it appears to me to contain more complex actions, at the end of the day, there is no style that is more or less effective than another, it comes down to the fighter, his ability to synthsize the art, his understanding and most importantly his dedication to the way of fighting. Certainly with my Sifu I have found his particular flavour of Wing chun, more effective than other peoples, this however has little to do, I believe with the science that he teaches, but in the mode of delivery of the teaching, I was taught one on one, by Sifu himself, and therefore was privy to a higher level of training than others who have learnt in a classroom situation, there are those who have been taught by WC privatly and are as you would expect very effective fighters than others taught in a classroom situation. All martial arts have and effectiveness to them, it doesn't matter if it is karate, Tai Chi, Tae Kwon Do, BJJ etc etc. There is an effectivenss to them all, it is whether that effectiveness is utilised by the student or not.

In answer to your original question, it depends on who you are taught WC by as to whether or not there is a ranking system. Certainly many of the larger schools do have some form of ranking system involved, usually built around the 6 forms of WC with another 1 or 2 ranks for Teaching level. However some schools exsist that have no formalised ranking structure, they simply build the foundation of the Sui Lum Tao, progress to (usually the Chum Kui) and move on from there, with no formalised ranking at all, they simply require that you can perform the necessary skills before moving into deeper levels of teaching. For example, the reson that the Sui Lum Tao is taught firstly is that it is the foundation, the key development for the necessary Sui Lum Tao energy which is the fundamental building block or the engine that makes Wing Chun run effectvly.


----------



## profesormental

Greetings.

This has been discussed before in this forum.

The Wing Chun ranking systems are arbitrary and used by individual instructors.

The Ving Tsun Athletic Association adopted one similar to the new Wu Shu rankings, with separations coming from the different forms, similar to the following:

Level 1: Sil Lum Tao and applications
Level 2: Chum Kiu and Applications
Level 3: Fist half of the dummy and applications
Level 4: Bil Jee and Applications
Level 5: second half of the dummy and applications
Level 6: 6 1/2 pt. pole and applications
Level 7: Bart Cham dao and applications
Level 8: Honorary for high levels and time instructing about 15 to 20 years.
Level 9: Similar to level 8, except teaching and training for 35 to 30 years or more.

you can look it up on their site.

Ok. I looked it up and here it is:

The Full Instructor certificate and the Levels                  7 and 8 post-graduate certificates can only be issued by the VTAA.                  The Level 7 certificate has to be examined and certified by our                  approved instructor with 15 years of teaching experience. The                  Level 8 certificate has to be examined and certified by our approved                  instructor with 20 years of teaching experience.
                The minimum examination requirements for the                  Levels 1 to 8 Rank certificates (including our honorary certificates)                  are as follows:

*Level 1 or Siu Nim Tau certificate                    (Junior Practitioner)*
Siu Nim Tau (1st Form)
Single Hand Chi Sau

*Level 2 or Chum Kiu certificate (Intermediate Practitioner)*
Chum Kiu(2nd Form)
 Double Hand Chi Sau (basic Lok Sau or Pon Sau)

*Level 3 or Chi Sau certificate (Advanced Practitioner)*
Advanced Double Hand Chi Sau
Kua Sau (Free-style)

*Level 4 or Wooden Dummy certificate (Apprentice Instructor)*
The first half of Wooden Dummy Form (about 60 movements)

*Level 5 or Biu Jee certificate (Assistant Instructor)*
Biu Jee (3rd Form)
According to the curriculum requirements, individual instructors                        can re-schedule the Biu Jee Form to Level 4 and the Wooden                        Dummy Form to the Level 5.

*Level 6 or Wooden Dummy certificate (Full Instructor)*
The complete set of the Wooden Dummy Form
Kicking Techniques
Advanced Footwork
Holders of the Level 6 certificate can apply to the VTAA                        for Full Instructor Certificate subject to the fulfillment                        of the minimum training period of 5 years.

Oh well, my memory is not that bad!!

These are only general guidelines, and they are certificates, not ranking per se.

enjoy!

Juan M. Mercado


----------



## KamonGuy2

Hold the phone!!!!!!

That is a VT ranking system and one of about a million different ranking systems. 

In some WC schools (like Kamon) non-hand forms are taught at the end of the system (when you are actually good enough to do them)

I am not overly impressed by VT - I train with two of their guys in other arts, and their wing chun is poor. They claim to have been doing it for 8 years and are not very good fighters


----------



## bcbernam777

Kamon Guy said:


> Hold the phone!!!!!!
> 
> That is a VT ranking system and one of about a million different ranking systems.
> 
> In some WC schools (like Kamon) non-hand forms are taught at the end of the system (when you are actually good enough to do them)
> 
> I am not overly impressed by VT - I train with two of their guys in other arts, and their wing chun is poor. They claim to have been doing it for 8 years and are not very good fighters



Out of interest what are the circumstances they train in, what is their lineage and how far down are they (without naming specific names), I had someone come out of a particular school that was  descended  from Choy Sheung Ting. He had been training for 6 years, I had been training for 12 months under sifu Fung, and his Wing Chun was nowhere as good as Mine HOWEVER he was trained by an instructor who had about 2 instructors under him and he trainined within a classroom environment, where as I trained personally with Sifu one on one. The point is this, at the end it did not come down to the individual system as such but the conditions that he had been taught under. I think you will find that there are good and bad students under every flavour of Wing Chun.


----------



## KamonGuy2

bcbernam777 said:


> Out of interest what are the circumstances they train in, what is their lineage and how far down are they (without naming specific names), I had someone come out of a particular school that was descended from Choy Sheung Ting. He had been training for 6 years, I had been training for 12 months under sifu Fung, and his Wing Chun was nowhere as good as Mine HOWEVER he was trained by an instructor who had about 2 instructors under him and he trainined within a classroom environment, where as I trained personally with Sifu one on one. The point is this, at the end it did not come down to the individual system as such but the conditions that he had been taught under. I think you will find that there are good and bad students under every flavour of Wing Chun.


 
I appreciate what you are saying. Howver, in Kamon the instructors have to be good to be given that position. It is tempting with the numbers of students we have to open up another 40 classes in London, but it would mean that the quality would lessen. 

If anyone is to be given the position of instructor, they should know how to fight (I'm not talking UFC standard, but at least be able to put a bit into practice), they should know the sytem to a high level (ie know why they are doing the forms) and they should be a good teacher!

The guys I trained with had none of these qualities. I am not sure which instructor they had trained under (could be more than one as VT is a big organisation)

I basically put them under pressure and they buckled. I am not exactly the best WC guy around. I have trained for a while and I am good enough to hold my own, but there are people out there who could give me a run form my money, no question

But these guys had nothing. It was as if they had been taught wrong on purpose!


----------



## Spartan

The progression rate seems like it's slower in WC than in other systems? Is there any truth in this?


----------



## profesormental

Greetings.

What it all boils down to is the specific instructor. Each will teach at different rates, qualities, order, emphasis, etc. And the students will absorb and attain skill at their own pace too.

The Wing Chun Rankings are an arbitrary yet somewhat organized way to teach a certain minimum skills and knowledge.

I not only teach group classes, I teach private classes as to asses individual concerns and learning styles of my students. It is part of the training curriculum.

It is unfortunate, yet finding substandard practitioners is the result of too many variables to just pin it on one.

Hope that helps.


Juan M. Mercado


----------



## tenth1

i could not agree more with bcbernum, the environment in which learning occurs the dedication of the student and how much they train as opposed to how long they have trained has a huge impact on the ability of the student


----------



## brocklee

Spartan said:


> The progression rate seems like it's slower in WC than in other systems? Is there any truth in this?



None, WC was created to be taught and mastered in 6-7 years.  It's what's coming outta the gene pool that makes it seem a bit slower


----------



## KamonGuy2

Yeah to be honest you could be taught all the moves in about a year, but the wing chun system requires 'muscle memory and a development of 'sensitivity', which takes a while. 

Saying that, I do know karate and TKD schools where you could get your black belt in two years!!!!

I like to think that anyone who has done wing chun for around five years is good, but as BCBernam (forgive my spelling) says, it comes down to how much is learnt, how hard the student studies and how good the teacher is


----------



## brocklee

Kamon Guy said:


> Yeah to be honest you could be taught all the moves in about a year, but the wing chun system requires 'muscle memory and a development of 'sensitivity', which takes a while.
> 
> Saying that, I do know karate and TKD schools where you could get your black belt in two years!!!!
> 
> I like to think that anyone who has done wing chun for around five years is good, but as BCBernam (forgive my spelling) says, it comes down to how much is learnt, how hard the student studies and how good the teacher is



Well, it requires some muscle memory.  My first instructor's theory revolved around muscle memory and all we did was train combo drills and repetitive fore arm conditioning drills.  It was very fun and game like.  My sifu now has opened me to the idea that we don't want to get into the muscle memory game because it will leave you hanging when you are placed in a position to where you have to think to get out but  cant because you're dependent upon muscle memory and aren't used to thinking.  Instead of building muscle memory, because we don't use them in our style anyways, we simply work on aligning the joints with our basic attacks.  The moves are so simple and come one after another, which gives the appearance that they're trained as combos but they're not.  I would say the focus of muscle memory should be directed toward maintaining center and the alignment of your structure.  The rest is bone and joint work.


----------



## KamonGuy2

brocklee said:


> Well, it requires some muscle memory. My first instructor's theory revolved around muscle memory and all we did was train combo drills and repetitive fore arm conditioning drills. It was very fun and game like. My sifu now has opened me to the idea that we don't want to get into the muscle memory game because it will leave you hanging when you are placed in a position to where you have to think to get out but cant because you're dependent upon muscle memory and aren't used to thinking. Instead of building muscle memory, because we don't use them in our style anyways, we simply work on aligning the joints with our basic attacks. The moves are so simple and come one after another, which gives the appearance that they're trained as combos but they're not. I would say the focus of muscle memory should be directed toward maintaining center and the alignment of your structure. The rest is bone and joint work.


 

What!!?? That's the whole point of wing chun. You don't want to start thinking about how to get out of a clinch or if someone throws a punch you don't want to be left there thinking 'how do I deal with this?' 

Muscle memory is extremely important to help you react in situations at a split seconds notice. If someone grabs your throat, your reactions should be built in. If you don't react, your attacker will rip your throat out. 

I would go back to your Sifu and point this out to him. 
The mind freezes in real confrontations (I have been in a few) and you will not be able to use your mind. 

It is the same if someone rugby tackles you etc. You need to sprawl or react staright away or he will take you to the ground.


----------



## CheukMo

I would say muscle memory would be the main "concept" to train around.  However, I think it is impossible to memorize (muscularly) every possible attack and counter-attack.  Therefore, training in different combo's and changing them up would be the best of both.  When you hit (or block, etc.) straight with no thought, you're where you need to be.


----------



## brocklee

Yes, my last message is worded kinda funny.  I'm agreeing with muscle memory but am saying that it should be limited to the simple movements.  The muscle memory should revolve around the movements from our forms as appose to the combos used in timing drills.  It is to my understanding that people become attached to these combos and build those as muscle memory.  My sifu teaches us to not train those as muscle memory drills because those 3 hit combo drills may be one hit too many for what you may need at the time.  Each move, in its singular form, should be seen as it's own little combo in itself and all you end up doing is going around connecting these little movements, which end up appearing to be a large combo.  You don't want to use these 3 hit timing drill combos in a fight because it makes you less agile due to the fact that your muscle memory is over riding your logic and desire after step 1 or 2.  

I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to think during a fight, I know I sure want to.  I want to think clearer though, and that's what the simple muscle memory helps out with.  I don't have to think about how a punch is going to be thrown or a block is going placed because I practice those for many hours.  I do, however, want to write out my attack as it is happening.  I want to be thinking about how I'm going initiate contact, which lines I'm going to use to get in and whats too much?.  

Maybe Im just weird


----------



## KamonGuy2

brocklee said:


> Yes, my last message is worded kinda funny. I'm agreeing with muscle memory but am saying that it should be limited to the simple movements.
> 
> I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to think during a fight, I know I sure want to. I want to think clearer though, and that's what the simple muscle memory helps out with. I don't have to think about how a punch is going to be thrown or a block is going placed because I practice those for many hours. I do, however, want to write out my attack as it is happening. I want to be thinking about how I'm going initiate contact, which lines I'm going to use to get in and whats too much?.
> 
> Maybe Im just weird


If you have been in a fight (I don't know whether you have or not) or have been attacked, your brain does not function as per normal. 

Psychologists have called this the survival element of our brain

It's like a rabbit caught in a headlights - you just react. Either move or stay frozen. Or if you saw a kid in the road and a bus coming. Some people freeze and some people jump in to save the kid. 

In a fight it is a very similar experience. You aren't really conscious about moves you do your body just reacts. 

We try and train wing chun so it is like walking up the stairs. You don't think about moving your leg to the next step, you just do it. 

If you think of chi sao training - you try to think as little as possible. If you think it betrays your energy and people can read you. 
You want your chi sao to be more reactive - if your opponent pushes down, your arm moves around. If your arm pushes to the side your arm moves around. 

It is like if someone throws a punch. You don't want to be caught thinking 'okay that punch is coming in, which block is best?'. The punch will be so fast you want your body to just respond automatically. 

I hope this kind of clarifies it a bit.


----------



## brocklee

Kamon Guy said:


> If you have been in a fight (I don't know whether you have or not) or have been attacked, your brain does not function as per normal.
> 
> Psychologists have called this the survival element of our brain
> 
> It's like a rabbit caught in a headlights - you just react. Either move or stay frozen. Or if you saw a kid in the road and a bus coming. Some people freeze and some people jump in to save the kid.
> 
> In a fight it is a very similar experience. You aren't really conscious about moves you do your body just reacts.
> 
> We try and train wing chun so it is like walking up the stairs. You don't think about moving your leg to the next step, you just do it.
> 
> If you think of chi sao training - you try to think as little as possible. If you think it betrays your energy and people can read you.
> You want your chi sao to be more reactive - if your opponent pushes down, your arm moves around. If your arm pushes to the side your arm moves around.
> 
> It is like if someone throws a punch. You don't want to be caught thinking 'okay that punch is coming in, which block is best?'. The punch will be so fast you want your body to just respond automatically.
> 
> I hope this kind of clarifies it a bit.



No, it does.  Completely.  I think we're agreeing on the same thing.  It should be like walking up the stairs and natural, but not every set of stairs has the same amount of steps nor are they the same height and width.  So we are trained to climb steps but make last minute adjustments so that we don't understep and fall down.  So we're both agreeing just giving different circumstances.

A large portion of my training, and this may differ to yours and others, is to focus on staying relaxed when confronted and during training.  Doing so allows the eyes to not focus in and the brow stays flat.  
I have used WC many times and it has always worked out well.  There have been times that I lost, but the guy in front of me will always remember our crossing.


----------



## Tanizaki

brocklee said:


> None, WC was created to be taught and mastered in 6-7 years.


Is the above statement accurate?


----------



## KamonGuy2

Tanizaki said:


> Is the above statement accurate?


It's an interesting statement. The majority of wing chun moves/forms can certainly be learnt within 6 years. Most people in Kamon (if they train four times a week) can obtain a black sash in this time, but it is usually given after a decade. 

It is certainly more accurate to say that wing chun is one of the quickest arts to learn. In TKD I have found that it takes a decade just to get into the swing of it. Nothing wrong with that - I don't think time is a reflection on skill (I know people who have been doing martial arts for two years who are better than some people who have been doing it for ten!). 

I know that when wing chun was first created, the soldiers in the various dynasties needed to train an art quickly and effectively as the enemies were looming. 

Bruce Lee did around 2 years of wing chun before moving to the US, and he was pretty good lol


----------



## brocklee

Tanizaki said:


> Is the above statement accurate?



If you research the history or storyline related to WC, you'll find this to be true.  My memory's a bit cloudy but hit had to do with training Kung-fu during a dynasty that banded MA.


----------



## CheukMo

brocklee said:


> If you research the history or storyline related to WC, you'll find this to be true. My memory's a bit cloudy but hit had to do with training Kung-fu during a dynasty that banded MA.


 
The Qing (Ching) Dynasty.


----------



## ed-swckf

Tanizaki said:


> Is the above statement accurate?


 
I personally believe that whilst you can learn the system fairly quickly it takes a lot longer to master it.  I don't think you could put a time on how long it takes to master it.


----------



## brocklee

ed-swckf said:


> I personally believe that whilst you can learn the system fairly quickly it takes a lot longer to master it.  I don't think you could put a time on how long it takes to master it.



That's true because a lot people are accustom to training 3-5 hours a week, which isn't bad being a western civilization.  If you we're to up that to 15-20 hours a week and remained dedicated to the art, its very feasible.  It's all dependent upon how much commitment the practitioner is willing to give.


----------



## KamonGuy2

It is also difficult to measure when someone masters wing chun. I have learnt all the forms, all the drills (within our particular style), can fight well, can perform chi sao to an okay level, but I do not feel that I have mastered it any way shape or form

I know that someone once mentioned that in order to become a master you had to alter something in the forms. 

There are a couple of Sifus in Sheffield who claimed to be Masters, but my brother went to the class and found that the instructor did not know the pole form or third form. 

Bruce Lee was branded a Master of kung fu, but barely touched upon wing chun. 

I think generally, an average person who trains hard will be a good fighter after 6 years of training


----------



## brocklee

Kamon Guy said:


> It is also difficult to measure when someone masters wing chun. I have learnt all the forms, all the drills (within our particular style), can fight well, can perform chi sao to an okay level, but I do not feel that I have mastered it any way shape or form
> 
> I know that someone once mentioned that in order to become a master you had to alter something in the forms.
> 
> There are a couple of Sifus in Sheffield who claimed to be Masters, but my brother went to the class and found that the instructor did not know the pole form or third form.
> 
> Bruce Lee was branded a Master of kung fu, but barely touched upon wing chun.
> 
> I think generally, an average person who trains hard will be a good fighter after 6 years of training



Bruce lee trained for 2 years and was pretty good at chi sao.  Take a look at google, I think there's a few vids of him there.  

I believe a master is self pro-claimed.  If you claim yourself to be a master though, another master may come see if you really are.  

Lemme know if I'm wrong but mastering would have to do with knowing every motion/form and having a firm knowledge and understanding of the movements.  They would know all 3 forms, pole, dummy, sword, chi sao and history of WC.  They can apply these movements to both demonstrations and fights.  Right?


----------



## KamonGuy2

brocklee said:


> Bruce lee trained for 2 years and was pretty good at chi sao. Take a look at google, I think there's a few vids of him there.
> 
> I believe a master is self pro-claimed. If you claim yourself to be a master though, another master may come see if you really are.
> 
> Lemme know if I'm wrong but mastering would have to do with knowing every motion/form and having a firm knowledge and understanding of the movements. They would know all 3 forms, pole, dummy, sword, chi sao and history of WC. They can apply these movements to both demonstrations and fights. Right?


This is my point - I know all three hand forms and three non hand forms, chi sao, lok sao, feeding techniques etc but I would not consider myself to be a Master. Especially compared to the likes of Ip Chun etc

It is a shame there is no set definition of what being a Master is


----------



## ed-swckf

brocklee said:


> That's true because a lot people are accustom to training 3-5 hours a week, which isn't bad being a western civilization. If you we're to up that to 15-20 hours a week and remained dedicated to the art, its very feasible. It's all dependent upon how much commitment the practitioner is willing to give.


 
There is also the factor of the individual, some have a greater natural ability.  Mastering an art won't really happen if its the focus and goal, that just takes focus away from what you should be concentrating on, which is not how do i become a master but rather what do i need to do with my wing chun right now.  I would really say that while commitment on training is important it really isn't the deciding factor in mastering the art by far.  I mean commited with what it mind is a question, if all the focus is on getting to master level it will take forever, if however the focus is on every word and action of the master and focussing purely on your skill now without holding it against some yardstick of being master then becoming a master will surely come.

I'm sure you've all heard this one:

A martial arts student went to his teacher and said earnestly, "I am devoted to studying your martial system. How long will it take me to master it." The teacher's reply was casual, "Ten years." Impatiently, the student answered, "But I want to master it faster than that. I will work very hard. I will practice everyday, ten or more hours a day if I have to. How long will it take then?" The teacher thought for a moment, "20 years."  The confused student asked why and the teacher explaind how his focus was not on the quality of his training journey but on getting to the end to reap reward.


----------



## CheukMo

Speaking of Bruce Lee... He said that he wasn't a master and that he didn't want to be called one.  He also said that the minute you begin to think you're a "master" is (also) when you stop learning and become vulnerable.  (That is my paraphrasing, but it's very close to his actual words).


----------



## KamonGuy2

CheukMo said:


> Speaking of Bruce Lee... He said that he wasn't a master and that he didn't want to be called one. He also said that the minute you begin to think you're a "master" is (also) when you stop learning and become vulnerable. (That is my paraphrasing, but it's very close to his actual words).


Yes but what I am saying is that many people have said he is a master and he was obviously a master of his own art (he invented it!)


----------



## Tanizaki

Kamon Guy said:


> Yes but what I am saying is that many people have said he is a master and he was obviously a master of his own art (he invented it!)



"I have not invented a 'new style,' " - Bruce Lee


----------



## brocklee

Tanizaki said:


> "I have not invented a 'new style,' " - Bruce Lee



I think there's more context to it then just that.  I believe he was stating that he didn't invent it because the movements are natural and not fixed.  It's not a "new style" if the motions are already there, they're just unused.


----------



## CheukMo

Bruce regretted having come up with a name (Jeet Kune Do) for what he taught his students. He regretted that he was considered a master or creator of a style, but that was in the 70's when he had ceased teaching. Back to the point, his opinion was that everyone should look at their training to see what they were doing "wrong" or how they could improve it, including himself. I believe that is what made him as good as he was.


----------



## KamonGuy2

That quote from Bruce Lee was referring to the fact that he was not inventing anything new, but was still creating a new way of thinking and fighting. 

This is to me an invention. 

But what I was getting at was that other people viewed him as a master and as an inventor of a new system. We all know how good Brucie was and that he was fairly humble, but that didn't stop him being referred to as a 'Master of Martial Arts'. You look at the back of most of his video covers next time you're in Blockbusters


----------



## Tanizaki

Kamon Guy said:


> That quote from Bruce Lee was referring to the fact that he was not inventing anything new, but was still creating a new way of thinking and fighting.
> 
> This is to me an invention.


I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you just said. "He didn't invent anything new, but that's an invention."? What?



> But what I was getting at was that other people viewed him as a master and as an inventor of a new system. We all know how good Brucie was and that he was fairly humble, but that didn't stop him being referred to as a 'Master of Martial Arts'. You look at the back of most of his video covers next time you're in Blockbusters



Yes, I always cite advertisements as empirical support. They're almost as good a source as Wikipedia.


----------



## CheukMo

Bruce Lee invented by taking away techniques or added them. He did "invent" a new style in the mid to late 1960's which is best named "Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do". That is what he taught his students. He did continue to refine his martial art in the 1970's but didn't teach it as he viewed it as his own personal style, not to be taught. Was he a "master"? Yes, if by that you mean a great martial artist.


----------



## bcbernam777

Tanizaki said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you just said. "He didn't invent anything new, but that's an invention."? What?.


 
I think what Kamonguy is getting at is that whilst bruce did not "invent" new teqniues, or even principles, he did however invent a new way of approaching fighting within contemporary society. Bruce took what already exsisted, thought it out, tested it, rethought it out, and took a fresh look at the true nature of fighting stripped bare of the stylised ideologies that many traditional forms of martial arts held.

However I will say that whilst Bruce was fresh and new in the way he approached Martial Arts, he was not the first to hold such dynamic ways of thinking about "The fight". We must remember that each new "system" or "way" had its roots in someone looking at the old and then finding different and what they considered to be, better and practical ways of approaching the science of fighting. 

We sometimes forget that Martial arts is an evolution, and Bruce was simply one in a long line of revolutionarys, who bought about the catalyst to allow this evolution to exsist in the form it does today.





Tanizaki said:


> Yes, I always cite advertisements as empirical support. They're almost as good a source as Wikipedia.


 
I speak my perception when I say this, but by the very nature of advertising, i.e. people telling you biased facts to gain your patronage of a good or service, no matter how great such advertisments may be, it is inherently flawed because of this biased nature and therefore cannot be relied on to heavily, especially for objective discussions of any nature.


----------



## Tanizaki

bcbernam777 said:


> I think what Kamonguy is getting at is that whilst bruce did not "invent" new teqniues, or even principles, he did however invent a new way of approaching fighting within contemporary society. Bruce took what already exsisted, thought it out, tested it, rethought it out, and took a fresh look at the true nature of fighting stripped bare of the stylised ideologies that many traditional forms of martial arts held.


You have done a very nice job as Kamon Guy's internet lawyer.



> We sometimes forget that Martial arts is an evolution, and Bruce was simply one in a long line of *revolutionarys*, who bought about the catalyst to allow this *evolution* to exsist in the form it does today.


 
 Evolution and revolution are opposites.



> I speak my perception when I say this, but by the very nature of advertising, i.e. people telling you biased facts to gain your patronage of a good or service, no matter how great such advertisments may be, it is inherently flawed because of this biased nature and therefore cannot be relied on to heavily, especially for objective discussions of any nature.



Whoosh.


----------



## bcbernam777

Tanizaki said:


> You have done a very nice job as Kamon Guy's internet lawyer.


 
Oh yeah hes paying me by the minute





Tanizaki said:


> Evolution and revolution are opposites..


 
Can I have source for that? Im sure there is an advert that should fit the bill




Tanizaki said:


> Whoosh.


 
Well Tanizaki, with your witty sarcasm and troll like behaviour your going to fit right into MartialTAlk


----------



## Tanizaki

bcbernam777 said:


> Can I have source for that? Im sure there is an advert that should fit the bill


Yes. The source is the words' definitions. Evolution is a very slow process of incremental change, while revolution is a very fast process of wholesale change. I am dumbfounded that you asked me for a source. I assume you won't ask for a source if I say that wet is the opposite of dry.



> Well Tanizaki, with your witty sarcasm and troll like behaviour your going to fit right into MartialTAlk


Don't call me a troll just because something flew over your head. Although, this would not be the first time that I have encountered someone who took words he did not understand as disrespect. Remember that scene in the 40-Year-Old Virgin?


----------



## KamonGuy2

Tanizaki said:


> You have done a very nice job as Kamon Guy's internet lawyer..


First off, BC is not my internet lawyer, but it is clear that he has experience and manners way beyond you

As for my original statement, I first mentioned that Bruce Lee had claimed he had not invented anything new. That was his claim, not mine
I then went on to say that if someone creates a new way of thinking, that (to me) is an invention. Please read posts more carefully Tani



Tanizaki said:


> Don't call me a troll just because something flew over your head. Although, this would not be the first time that I have encountered someone who took words he did not understand as disrespect. Remember that scene in the 40-Year-Old Virgin?


You are a troll because instead of creating rational arguments, you attack the person posting rather than the post itself

Your comments are neither positive or inciteful. Read over some of CheukMo's and bcbernam777's posts and it might help you to become a better member and one that I can take seriously


----------



## brocklee

My sifu can beat up your sifu....nyaaa lol yeeesh


----------



## Tanizaki

Kamon Guy said:


> First off, BC is not my internet lawyer, but it is clear that he has experience and manners way beyond you


Don't worry. I won't call this a personal attack, or you a troll by extension.



> As for my original statement, I first mentioned that Bruce Lee had claimed he had not invented anything new. That was his claim, not mine
> I then went on to say that if someone creates a new way of thinking, that (to me) is an invention. Please read posts more carefully Tani


Actually, it was I who first mentioned that after you claimed he invented a whole fighting system. That was when you began to backpedal.



> You are a troll because instead of creating rational arguments, you attack the person posting rather than the post itself


Whom did I attack?



> Your comments are neither positive or inciteful. Read over some of CheukMo's and bcbernam777's posts and it might help you to become a better member and one that I can take seriously



Not inciteful? I thought your whole objection was that you found me inciteful rather than insightful.


----------



## KamonGuy2

Tanizaki said:


> Don't worry. I won't call this a personal attack, or you a troll by extension.


It is a personal attack on a person who has shown no ettiquette on a forum



Tanizaki said:


> Actually, it was I who first mentioned that after you claimed he invented a whole fighting system. That was when you began to backpedal.


I have not backpeddalled. 
I stated clearly that your Bruce Lee quote was Bruce Lee's opinions, not ours. A person can insist that they are something they are not, but it takes other people to agree to make it true 

My posts were suggesting that it hardly ever matters what you claim to be. If I say that I am a Master and people disagree then its hard to maintain it. If I claim I am not a Master and people disagree then again it is hard to maintain it. That is why most masters in martial arts never claim to be that

In Lee's case, he claimed he never invented a new art. I and many others disagree, which is where this argument stemmed from



Tanizaki said:


> Whom did I attack?


I will withdraw my statement. Your comments were sarcastic and harsh. On a supposedly positive and engaging forum they seemed like an attack, but maybe they weren't so I withdraw that



Tanizaki said:


> Not inciteful? I thought your whole objection was that you found me inciteful rather than insightful.


Again, what was the point in saying this. To make my poor spelling/grammar apparent to people on the forum? Well, yes my spelling is atrocious. Now instead of diverting away from the important posts, maybe you will go away and learn a martial art


----------



## Tanizaki

Kamon Guy said:


> It is a personal attack on a person who has shown no ettiquette on a forum


Egad! I cannot believe what a troll you are!



> I have not backpeddalled.
> I stated clearly that your Bruce Lee quote was Bruce Lee's opinions, not ours. A person can insist that they are something they are not, but it takes other people to agree to make it true


What made you think it was his opinions? Could it be the fact that they were COMING OUT OF HIS MOUTH? Nice deductive work.

And no, truth or falsity of claims is not decided by popular consensus. That would be the ad populum fallacy.



> My posts were suggesting that it hardly ever matters what you claim to be. If I say that I am a Master and people disagree then its hard to maintain it. If I claim I am not a Master and people disagree then again it is hard to maintain it. That is why most masters in martial arts never claim to be that


See above.



> In Lee's case, he claimed he never invented a new art. I and many others disagree, which is where this argument stemmed from


I disagree that it is even possible to invent a martial art. To my knowledge, no one has ever sought to patent one. 



> I will withdraw my statement. Your comments were sarcastic and harsh. On a supposedly positive and engaging forum they seemed like an attack, but maybe they weren't so I withdraw that


I thought British people liked sarcastic humor. "Stiff upper lip" and all that.



> Again, what was the point in saying this. To make my poor spelling/grammar apparent to people on the forum? Well, yes my spelling is atrocious. Now instead of diverting away from the important posts, maybe you will go away and learn a martial art



I am the grandmaster of Tanizaki-do Logic-jutsu.


----------



## bcbernam777

Tanizaki said:


> Yes. The source is the words' definitions. Evolution is a very slow process of incremental change, while revolution is a very fast process of wholesale change. I am dumbfounded that you asked me for a source. I assume you won't ask for a source if I say that wet is the opposite of dry.
> 
> 
> Don't call me a troll just because something flew over your head. Although, this would not be the first time that I have encountered someone who took words he did not understand as disrespect. Remember that scene in the 40-Year-Old Virgin?


 
Thsi will be my last word on the subject. Not I did not use the word "revolution" as in the process but revolutionary, as int the charichterisations of the people involved in the changes in MA. So learn to read properly we wont have a problem. 

Now to the reason you are a Troll, my first post to you whilst disagreeing with opints that you had made was in every respect civil and engaging. Your reply was sarcastic and down right rude. If you are the type of poster who delights in return rudeness for civility then by all the classic definitions you my friend are a Troll. If you want to hang around Martial Talk for more than 2 seconds and gain a little respect, then learn to disagree without the viniger.


----------



## Carol

*ATTENTION ALL USERS**

Please keep the conversation polite, respectful, and on-topic.

Thank You,

*- Carol Kaur -
- MT Moderator -


----------



## KamonGuy2

Tanizaki said:


> Egad! I cannot believe what a troll you are!
> 
> What made you think it was his opinions? Could it be the fact that they were COMING OUT OF HIS MOUTH? Nice deductive work.
> 
> And no, truth or falsity of claims is not decided by popular consensus. That would be the ad populum fallacy.
> 
> I disagree that it is even possible to invent a martial art. To my knowledge, no one has ever sought to patent one.
> 
> I am the grandmaster of Tanizaki-do Logic-jutsu.


Tanizaki, I have seen that you have much to learn in the way of ettiquette. bcbernam777 has lost patience with you which says a lot in itself.

You do not agree that you can invent a martial art? How do you think that martial arts were first created? Choi Kwang Do which is a derivative of TKD was invented by Master Choi, TaiBo was a 'martial art' that was invented recently. I still have the articles stating that these arts were invented

Unfortunately, truth or falsity of claims is decided by popular consensus. That is why America has jury's. That is why people vote. 

When Bruce lee first came to America, he stated a lot of things and no-one believed him. It took students, media etc to convince America that he was good. Even now, people still debate as to how good a fighter Lee was.


----------



## Tanizaki

Kamon Guy said:


> You do not agree that you can invent a martial art? How do you think that martial arts were first created? Choi Kwang Do which is a derivative of TKD was invented by Master Choi, TaiBo was a 'martial art' that was invented recently. I still have the articles stating that these arts were invented


Tae Bo is an aerobics program. I have articles stating that UFOs are real. That does not make it so. You are using the appeal to authority fallacy.

I think that invention is a poor word to apply to a martial arts system. Assuming that it is any sort of intellectual property at all, patent is a bad fit. Maybe copyright? Dance routines can be copyrighted.



> Unfortunately, truth or falsity of claims is decided by popular consensus. That is why America has jury's. That is why people vote.


No, that is incorrect. Popular consensus does not determine the truth or falsity of claims. For example, it was once popularly held that the universe was geocentric, but now we know that the solar system is heliocentric.

To use your example of juries, have you ever noticed that it is sometimes discovered that an innocent person has been convicted? A jury's verdict does not mean that the person committed the crime of which he was accused; it simply means that 6 or 12 people were convinced of it.



> When Bruce lee first came to America, he stated a lot of things and no-one believed him.


If that's true, he is one of the most amazing people I have ever heard of. Imagine a person who was born speaking! 



> It took students, media etc to convince America that he was good. Even now, people still debate as to how good a fighter Lee was.



I don't see with this has to do with the matter of inventing a martial art.


----------



## KamonGuy2

Tanizaki said:


> Tae Bo is an aerobics program. I have articles stating that UFOs are real. That does not make it so. You are using the appeal to authority fallacy..


Tae Bo is actually labelled as a martial arts/aerobics system. UFO's are real!! UFO - Unidentified Flying Object. If a person sees something in the sky he cannot identify, that is a UFO. 



Tanizaki said:


> I think that invention is a poor word to apply to a martial arts system. Assuming that it is any sort of intellectual property at all, patent is a bad fit. Maybe copyright? Dance routines can be copyrighted..


It might be a poor word but it is still a right word. Many martial arts existing today have some kind of copyright in the sense that if you go and start a new club that looks and sounds like another, you are answerable to numerous people. 
But I cannot believe you are nitpicking over a word. Invent, create, devise, conceive, whatever!!




Tanizaki said:


> No, that is incorrect. Popular consensus does not determine the truth or falsity of claims. For example, it was once popularly held that the universe was geocentric, but now we know that the solar system is heliocentric..


Yes but at the time that was true to them. 
Just as now most scientists believe that the dinosaurs were killed by a meteor, they might find out in ten years that there was something else that caused it.  



Tanizaki said:


> To use your example of juries, have you ever noticed that it is sometimes discovered that an innocent person has been convicted? A jury's verdict does not mean that the person committed the crime of which he was accused; it simply means that 6 or 12 people were convinced of it..


 Yes, but it is the truth in the eyes of the law. If a person is convicted, that is the truth unless new evidence comes to light. But my point was that if you have 12 jurors and 1 person disagrees that the man is guilty, you can still convict him



Tanizaki said:


> If that's true, he is one of the most amazing people I have ever heard of. Imagine a person who was born speaking! .


You are trying to be clever in that Bruce Lee was born in America. However, you have slipped up - I said when Bruce Lee first CAME to America, not when Bruce Lee was first IN America. Try again



Tanizaki said:


> I don't see with this has to do with the matter of inventing a martial art.


We were discussing what makes a master and whether general consensus makes a thing true. I was pointing out that many people still debate over whether Lee was ever a great fighter


----------



## Tanizaki

Kamon Guy said:


> Tae Bo is actually labelled as a martial arts/aerobics system.


The use of the passive voice here is weasel words. It begs the question "labeled by whom?"



> UFO's are real!! UFO - Unidentified Flying Object. If a person sees something in the sky he cannot identify, that is a UFO.


Until it is shown to be a weather balloon.



> It might be a poor word but it is still a right word. Many martial arts existing today have some kind of copyright in the sense that if you go and start a new club that looks and sounds like another, you are answerable to numerous people.


An invention has four characteristics: novelty, usefulness, non-obviousness, and patentable subject matter. Movements of the human body are not patentable. However, they can be copyrighted. 



> But I cannot believe you are nitpicking over a word. Invent, create, devise, conceive, whatever!!


I fail to see how it is picking nits. We do not say that Herman Melville invented Moby Dick, for example. If you cannot say what you mean, however can you mean what you say?



> Yes but at the time that was true to them.


So what? Did the sun jump around the universe once human beings rejected the geocentric model?



> Just as now most scientists believe that the dinosaurs were killed by a meteor, they might find out in ten years that there was something else that caused it.


Thank you for supporting my argument that consensus does not make something true. I am glad we now agree.



> Yes, but it is the truth in the eyes of the law. If a person is convicted, that is the truth unless new evidence comes to light. But my point was that if you have 12 jurors and 1 person disagrees that the man is guilty, you can still convict him


Actually, that is a matter of state law. Some require unanimous jury verdicts, others do not. No matter, truth in the eyes of the law is not empirical truth, which is what I am talking about.



> You are trying to be clever in that Bruce Lee was born in America. However, you have slipped up - I said when Bruce Lee first CAME to America, not when Bruce Lee was first IN America. Try again


It's ok that you did not know he was born here. Are you saying that when he was born in America, he did not come to America? Where did he come, then?



> We were discussing what makes a master and whether general consensus makes a thing true. I was pointing out that many people still debate over whether Lee was ever a great fighter



I was discussing that Bruce Lee never invented anything. I never talked about what makes a master. It is impolite to take part in a discussion if you do not know the topic.


----------



## shesulsa

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS - SECOND WARNING!

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful and return to the original topic.  These in-thread warnings are for ALL USERS.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assist. Administrator*_


----------



## Tanizaki

shesulsa said:


> _*ATTENTION ALL USERS - SECOND WARNING!
> 
> Please keep the conversation polite and respectful and return to the original topic.  These in-thread warnings are for ALL USERS.
> 
> G Ketchmark / shesulsa
> MT Assist. Administrator*_



It is. People are disagreeing without being disagreeable. I never understood the call for the first warning.


----------



## shesulsa

Tanizaki said:


> It is. People are disagreeing without being disagreeable. I never understood the call for the first warning.


*Admin Note: Final Warning

Then I suggest you read the general posting rules of the forum and ask any questions in the support forum before posting again;  name-calling would be a good example of rule-breaking and the need for warnings.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
Assist. Administrator
*


----------



## Tanizaki

shesulsa said:


> *Admin Note: Final Warning
> 
> Then I suggest you read the general posting rules of the forum and ask any questions in the support forum before posting again;  name-calling would be a good example of rule-breaking and the need for warnings.
> 
> G Ketchmark / shesulsa
> Assist. Administrator
> *


Who called anyone a name? If you mean when bcbernam777 called me a troll, I said I wouldn't hold that against him, so no harm done.


----------

