Workshop announcement

[passing_through]

Friday November 1st to Sunday November 3rd

Hung Fa Yi Sixth Public Workshop

This workshop will cover the Hung Fa Yi System Three Track Approach and the progression from Kiu Sau to Chi Sau to Saan Da.

The HFY system contains thorough, in-depth information and is traditionally presented in three distinct formats: Saam Mo Kiu (philosophy track), Kiu Sau/Chi Sau/Saan Da (technical track), and Five Battle Array (strategical/tactical track). Throughout this workshop, exercises and examples from each of the three tracks will be presented in-depth: Kiu Sau exercise, Strategic footwork, and Fau Kiu/Saan Kiu/Weng Kiu experience in learning.

Price:
$250 Non Members
$175 VTM Members
$150 HFY Members

for more information contact,
Ving Tsun Museum
5715 Brandt Pike
Dayton, OH 45324
(937) 236-6485
host@vtmuseum.org

[reneritchie]

Have a good workshop!

[Chango]

This work shop will cover the true origin of HFY Chi sau! You will see the logic from which HFY Chi sau is realized! the knowlege is very precise!

Chango (SGS) :D

[reneritchie]

Will this be painted straight over the penciled artwork (without first inking it) like the true origin of Wolverine mini-series? 8)

(sorry, it's one of those mornings...)

[Savi]

Originally posted by reneritchie
Will this be painted straight over the penciled artwork (without first inking it) like the true origin of Wolverine mini-series? 8)

(sorry, it's one of those mornings...)

Rene,
what?

-Savi.

[reneritchie]

Sorry, you kind of have to be a a comic book fan, and rather befuddled, to get it. Or not 8).

RR

[Sandman2[Wing Chun]]

renerichie stop trolling.

;)

[reneritchie]

Sandman2[Wing Chun] mentioning a Marvel mini, no matter how incomparable to 'Doll's House' or 'Fables & Reflections', is NOT trolling. ;)

RR

[Savi]

I will most definitely be attending! Five Battle Array, HFY Chi Sau origin, Saam Mou Kiu, Sitaigung Gee, Sigung Meng, Sifu Loewenhagen, and whole bunch of Wing Chun practitioners all under one roof for a whole weekend! My eagerness grows...

Such a wonderful opportunity! Many people from Meng's of AZ will certainly be delighted to participate and share kung fu!

-Savi.

[canglong]

How is the weather in Dayton right now?

[Rolling_Hand]

--(sorry, it's one of those mornings...)--RR

When you live your life in accordance with basic goodness, then you develop natural elegance. Your life can be spacious and relaxed, without having to be sloppy. In other words, you can cheer up and can actually let go of your depression and embarrassment about being a human being.

[FIRE HAWK]

The Weather in Dayton is rainy and nasty right now .

[canglong]

Well, Firehawk instead of sharing good weather and good kung fu we will just have to make do with good kung fu and good hot tea. Hope to see you at the seminar.

[reneritchie]

1.3

[Rolling_Hand]

--i.3-RR

You begin to see that there are seasons in your life in the same way as your 1.3 mum.

[reneritchie]

-0.2

(Really, referring to someone's 'mum'... how schoolyard. If you're going to troll, at least put some effort in. I'm sure even your fellow cultists are yawning and clicking back over to their spam-porn virus auto-mailers at this one).

[taltos]

I can't speak for anyone but...

Rene, your last post on this thread was on 10/10.

It's been over two weeks of silence from you here.

From dictionary.com...

mum
adj.
Not verbalizing; silent.

interj.
Used as a command to stop speaking.

Idiom:
mum's the word
Say nothing of the secret you know: Mum's the word on the surprise party.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, perhaps imitative of closing one's lips.]

Maybe (just maybe) it was a comment on silence.

I could be wrong. I'm just offering up (as other sometimes do) that there are usually several interpretations of something. Perhaps before descending into "fellow cultists...spam-porn virus auto-mailers," we could be 100% sure?

Also, just out of curiosity... Have I personally ever done/said anything in my posts to indicate that I am included in this group of people. I am certainly proud of my Yip Man, Hung Fa Yi, and VTM heritage, but I don't consider myself a "cultist," nor do I have any of the software you refer to. Were you making a generalization that includes me (and others on this forum), or were you referring to a specific subset of the VTM? If I AM inlcuded in your catagorization stated previously, please let me know what I have done to help you decide that.

-Levi

[Shadowboxer]

I think RR was talking to Rolling Hand.

[reneritchie]

Shadowboxer is correct.

Levi - I wasn't referring to the VTM at all. Actually, I don't think the VTM would tolerate the kind of behavior Roger displays online, and the manner in which he insults the system, and its practitioners here and on the VTAA, as it flies in the face of their stated goals and beliefs. In fact, were Roger to join the VTM, I think his behavior would only improve. I'd widen that to say if anyone with a legit sifu in Roger's area would invite him to join up, it would only help him regain his center and find less reason for petty jealousy, insults, and other trolling on internet forums.

You've been, as have most VTM people I've encountered, a courteous and interesting person to discuss the art with. I'd go on further, but I wouldn't want to stain Roger's trolling tangent with anything resembling intelligent discourse. Feel free to email me, however, any time you find me unclear.

RR

[taltos]

kewl then. no harm no foul.

[Rolling_Hand]

Usually when someone is delighted about something, one develops a thick skin and say to himself, "I'm so delighted to be here."

RR - You are so vulnerable that you cannot help being touched by your world.

Humm...

[Rolling_Hand]

How was the HFY workshop in Ohio?

[canglong]

The seminar was excellent! I have a deeper appreciation for kiu sao and a deeper understanding of its concepts and the principles behind the concepts relative to the hung fa yi system. Then 3 of the different timeframes of engagement were discussed in detailed which I consider a must read chapter for all practictioners from the forth coming book. Then a lot of knowledge and kung fu moduk was shared among many and it was all good.

[Savi]

Hi all,

I thought the seminar was way underpriced!!! There must have been MONTHS worth of information that was shared in those three days... Master Gee, Master Meng, Master Shulz, and Master Loewenhagen have given to us and the non-HFY members that attended, a landmark presentation on Kiu Sao, and the fundamental difference between Kiu Sao, Chi Sao, and Saan Da. We also have a much greater understanding of the process in learning and progressing through the Kiu Sao in the HFY system.

Many of the non-HFY members from other schools acknowledged HFY's uniqueness (some very enthusiastically) and found the levels of Kiu Sao 'experience' to be most efficient in response and delivery. We all had a terrific time experiencing Master Gee first-hand on how the system is taught, and answered a big question of why HFY consistently leaves no room for challenges or 'What if?' scenarios. The answers were truly efficient.

However, we all learned that to really understand and appreciate this is to experience the system first-hand (through direct interaction). There is simply no other way, and I'm sure all who attended can attest to this fact. Much History, Philosophy, and Combat were all given exclusive attention throughout the 3 day seminar. Not much time for sleep though :).... Thanks to all who attended.

-Savi.

[planetwc]

who is master shulz?

[desertwingchun2]

Planet WC - This is Sifu Shulz web site. I assure you he is a true gentleman and accomplished martial artist.

http://www.schulzkungfu.com/

-David

[Mckind13]

For those who attended we know Bloodgod is having some fun.

As a student of Wing Chun I found the material presented to be very interesting and presented in a fairly clear manner.

Though it took me a little while to get the language used by the HFY family to describe their art, I found it had a very standardized, comprehensive method that had a principle or rule to describe the way everything functioned within the HFY context.

While the focus of the HFY system may be different from other systems of WCK it is defiantly within the family.

I wish that the seminar might have had a broader range. Though the focus was on Kiu Sau and the ideas of Chi Sau and San Da were discussed, the latter two points were neither explored nor demonstrated in a manner that gave me a clear impression of how the art functioned as a whole.

I really must recommend that those that can travel to a workshop or even make an effort to meet one of the HFY instructors personally will probably be much better off then trying to grasp their language and art via the internet.

Furthermore everyone was very friendly and open. I was hopping to Chi Sau with Mike as we usually do at gatherings like this but we did not really have time.

Thank you to Sifu Meng, Loenhagen (sp sorry) and Sifu Gee for their openness and hospitality.

I hope that in the future if any of the new friends I made are in San Diego or LA they e-mail me so we can meet for tea or a workout.

David McKinnon
Master of the sleepy jetlag

[akalish]

Originally posted by Mckind13
For those who attended we know Bloodgod is having some fun.

As a student of Wing Chun I found the material presented to be very interesting and presented in a fairly clear manner.

Though it took me a little while to get the language used by the HFY family to describe their art, I found it had a very standardized, comprehensive method that had a principle or rule to describe the way everything functioned within the HFY context.

While the focus of the HFY system may be different from other systems of WCK it is defiantly within the family.

I wish that the seminar might have had a broader range. Though the focus was on Kiu Sau and the ideas of Chi Sau and San Da were discussed, the latter two points were neither explored nor demonstrated in a manner that gave me a clear impression of how the art functioned as a whole.

I really must recommend that those that can travel to a workshop or even make an effort to meet one of the HFY instructors personally will probably be much better off then trying to grasp their language and art via the internet.

Furthermore everyone was very friendly and open. I was hopping to Chi Sau with Mike as we usually do at gatherings like this but we did not really have time.

Thank you to Sifu Meng, Loenhagen (sp sorry) and Sifu Gee for their openness and hospitality.

I hope that in the future if any of the new friends I made are in San Diego or LA they e-mail me so we can meet for tea or a workout.

David McKinnon
Master of the sleepy jetlag


David,

Very glad to hear that despite the jet lag you made it back to San Diego safely. Although we didn't get an opportunity to train together, I really enjoyed talking with you at the seminar and over lunch.

I am glad that you found the workshop informative, especially since you travelled so far. You make a valid point about your preference regarding the breadth of the seminar. I am not speaking for Sifu Meng or Sigung Gee, but in my experience a single weekend is never enough time when you are talking about exposure to an entire system. So you have to decide how you are going to trade off between breadth and depth. If you go for breadth and sacrifice some details, people may feel that you were not being open or sharing enough detail. Even worse they may miss the deeper points that you were trying to make. Also, the broader the discussion, the more time required to get past the language/terminology issue of which you spoke. The quicker you get past this and on to communication via physical expression and direct experience the better IMHO.

My impression was that Sigung Gee's focus on kiu sau in depth allowed us to see (via specific detailed examples) how the Hung Fa Yi system explicitly take into account three-dimensional space, time, and energy. Isn't that what so many internet people have been asking for? I give you a lot of credit for travelling so far and being open to both sharing your Wing Chun and learning about ours. Rest assured that I will definitely look you up if I am anywhere near southern CA. Best wishes.

Andy Kalish
Rochester, NY

[Rolling_Hand]

--As a student of Wing Chun I found the material presented to be very interesting and presented in a fairly clear manner.
Though it took me a little while to get the language used by the HFY family to describe their art, I found it had a very standardized, comprehensive method that had a principle or rule to describe the way everything functioned within the HFY context.--Mckind13

**Unlike this jerk Bloodgod. You have a sense that you're there properly. Thank heavens you're flexible.

[Chango]

For those interested in honest and mature discussion. We must understand that insults and such post are just demonstrations of a lack of respect for the informations. This lack of respect stems from a lack of understanding. So instead of learning more a child like response is called up as a defense mechanism. This is evidence of suffering. Suffering in fact that is his own. :)

Dave thankyou for your input. I have to agree with Andy that there was a load of information presented that required various details called to the attention of the practitioners. Keep in mind part of the goal was to give those that attended a complete grasp of the progressions and an understanding of kiu sau. Chi Sao and Saan da will have thier very own set of specific details and progressions. With that in mind a single weekend would not be near the amount of time required to cover these subject. I'm sure these subjects will be covered in the future. It was a pleasure to meet you face to face. :cool:

[AndrewS]

Alright,

so for everyone involved with this seminar, what is the 'clear origin of HFY chi sao', which Chango claimed would be revealed at it?

BTW- Chango, as a totally neutral observer, you do far more damage to your cause with your discourse than you could by simply staying quiet. Bloodgod's offending post (since deleted), while abrasive in tone, raised some very valid questions about the lineage claims of your art in light of what is known about multiple other branches. Either plagerism or parallel evolution has taken place, and precious little evidence or even anecdote has been presented to support the latter's case.

Later,

Andrew

[Savi]

Originally posted by AndrewS
Alright,

so for everyone involved with this seminar, what is the 'clear origin of HFY chi sao', which Chango claimed would be revealed at it?

BTW- Chango, as a totally neutral observer, you do far more damage to your cause with your discourse than you could by simply staying quiet. Bloodgod's offending post (since deleted), while abrasive in tone, raised some very valid questions about the lineage claims of your art in light of what is known about multiple other branches. Either plagerism or parallel evolution has taken place, and precious little evidence or even anecdote has been presented to support the latter's case.

Later,

Andrew

------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew,
This past weekend's seminar which was held at the Ving Tsun Museum was primarily focused on the history, nature, and purpose of Kiu Sao. To understand the origin of HFY Chi Sao, you must first understand Kiu Sao. Kiu Sao predates the birth of the Weng Chun Tong in the Southern Shaolin Temple. 5 examples of Shaolin arts make use of Kiu Sao: Dragon, Mantis, Baak Mei, Chi Sim Weng Chun, and Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun. Each expression of Kiu Sao varies in accordance to its role in the particular style of combat.

There is a major distinction between Kiu Sao and Chi Sao. Kiu Sao addresses ARM structure and energy. HFY Chi Sao addresses WRIST position within the framework of the Time and Space Concept. Both have their own timeframe during combat.

The Time and Space Concept arose during the fall of the Ming Dynasty through the efforts of both Shaolin Scholars and Ming Military officers collaborating their knowledge of human physiology and combat stragety over time to design a system of fighting based on the Time and Space Concept in accordance with human structure. Once you understand the TSC it is very clear when Kiu Sao is neccesary, and when Chi Sao is neccesary. Unless you come up against a highly skilled fighter, Kiu Sao is all you will need. If your opponent can defeat your Kiu Sao then Chi Sao is neccesary.

The Time and Space Concept is solely unique to HFYWCK. Chi Sao did not exist before the formation of the Weng Chun Tong; only Kiu Sao. HFY Chi Sao evolved from Kiu Sao experience in the Time and Space Concept. Again, I am referencing HFY Chi Sao and NOT today's Wing Chun Chi Sao. Does this address your question properly?

Thanks,
-Savi.

[AndrewS]

Hey Savi,

to me, this sounds as if kiu sao refers to setting up a bridge, chi sao to changes which occur while you are making a bridge.

As much as technical questions interest me, my original point was historical, not technical.

If you want to distinguish between your chi sao and that of others, put up a couple of clips and show how you do it, and what structures you use. My understanding is that the tan/bong/ fook platform is a relatively recent development- something which many people have independantly asserted, and something which is born out by extant supporting information, comparing lines which have split off at various times.

Single arm chi sao is a Yip Man training innovation from his arrival in Hong Kong.

Formalized chi gherk was developed by Leung Sheung and others in Hong Kong.

My understanding is that you claim to have all these things in your art.

Where do they come from, when do they date from, who developed them, and who has learned them next to Garrett Gee?

My understanding is that HFY came off the Red Junks and evolved in isolation from the rest of Wing Chun. Is this a fair portrayal of your line's history?

Later,

Andrew

[S.Teebas]

Kiu Sao addresses ARM structure and energy. HFY Chi Sao addresses WRIST position

Isn't the wrist part of the arm?

[yuanfen]

The HFY discussion is sloppy and vague---because good teachers in any line will or should correct arm structure and wrist usage
of students anyway.
And time and space issues,arm structure and wrist positions rain on us all.
Kiu usually refers to the bridge arm- which of course has to be trained correctly as in chum kiu- otherwise the chi sao will be sloppy.
I am glad that the HFY posters enjoyed their own workshop-
but if the evolution or history of Garret Gee's art was discussed-
surely after the announcements and reports- a clear and understandable history and summary of the principles would emerge in the process- which is not yet the case. After all this is a
wing chun discussion list. By discussing we have come to know quite a bit about how different lineages in wing chun do things-
their similarities and differences. Nota 100% but quite a bit.

[Chango]

Hello Andrew,

<snip> BTW- Chango, as a totally neutral observer, you do far more damage to your cause with your discourse than you could by simply staying quiet. Bloodgod's offending post (since deleted), while abrasive in tone, raised some very valid questions about the lineage claims of your art in light of what is known about multiple other branches. Either plagerism or parallel evolution has taken place, and precious little evidence or even anecdote has been presented to support the latter's case.

-- From your post it is clear that you are not really a "totally neutral observer" LOL! I cannot see anything but the intent to insult HFY from his post. I think if you see the consistancy of the HFY system you will see how the information can speak volumes.

Yuanfen,

<snip> The HFY discussion is sloppy and vague---because good teachers in any line will or should correct arm structure and wrist usage
of students anyway.
And time and space issues,arm structure and wrist positions rain on us all.
Kiu usually refers to the bridge arm- which of course has to be trained correctly as in chum kiu- otherwise the chi sao will be sloppy.

--- first action of a lazy student is to blame the teacher! then he blame the subject matter! You will find Yuanfen that your statement "good teachers in any line will or should correct arm structureand wrist usage" demonstrates your lack of knowlege on the HFY system. This system requires precise experiences and understandings. this is why a teacher of HFY can correct students "structure and wrist usage" with only a reference to the formula. if that is not precision then maybe you can explain what is? LOL! Now as far as time and space let me say of course we all are affected by "time and space" that is the beauty of it. It affects everything in reality. Just so that the term isn't so vague for you I will say that HFY identifies the most focussed time and space for everything in the system. So yuan fen you can have what ever you want in your practice in what ever time and space you would like to have it in. But until you realize what the most focussed time and space is you will have the freedom to like and dislike what ever you want. As they say my friend ignorance is bliss! ( I don't mean this as an insult) If you do not know the anything is exceptable.

<snip>Kiu usually refers to the bridge arm- which of course has to be trained correctly as in chum kiu- otherwise the chi sao will be sloppy.

--- So if you do not have a precise frame of reference for your Chi sao then of course anything that envolves a bridge can be chi sao. in fact if you do not have precise criteria to define tan, bong, Fook etc... for example any out stretched hand with the palm pointing up is a tan sao. But in HFY the criteria is much more precise and demanding in structure, space, and preformed in only one focused time frame. Any thing less is cannot be tan sao. Sure you can have different tan saos in a less focussed state in refference to time and space. but it can be challenged and destroyed on those basis. So when we say kiu we me a particular thing my friend and it is very different then chi sao. Maybe not what you call chi sao but what I call chi sao is a very focussed in nature. Again when we say specific "time and space" you should be able to understand that it cannot be explained in a forum or a still shot or experienced via mpeg. You must experience it to understand exactly what is meant. But of course I know you will not except this. So we continue to go in circles about why you cannot experience something via the internet format. But lets just keep in mind we do call it Cyber space. As good as it has become the term "Cyber" does seperate this space from reality. If not then where do we sighn up for Cyber Tia chi my mother in law wants to improve her flexibility. LOL!

Saat geng sau !

also please reread the history of HFY you have missed the boat sorta speak. It did not come from the Red boats.

:cool:

[yuanfen]

Just so that the term isn't so vague for you I will say that HFY identifies the most focussed time and space for everything in the system.
))Chango- just repeating the same general terms(focus,time, space) doesnt make anything clearer but is justa form of spamming))

So yuan fen you can have what ever you want in your practice in what ever time and space you would like to have it in. But until you realize what the most focussed time and space is you will have the freedom to like and dislike what ever you want. As they say my friend ignorance is bliss! ( I don't mean this as an insult) If you do not know the anything is exceptable.

((Chango- I dont see how the above gibberish can be insulting))


But in HFY the criteria is much more precise and demanding in structure, space, and preformed in only one focused time frame.

((Again, just repeating the same assertion does not make it so))

Again when we say specific "time and space" you should be able to understand that it cannot be explained in a forum or a still shot or experienced via mpeg. You must experience it to understand exactly what is meant.

((Then why not keep the true HFY mysteries in the sanctum sanctorum rather than repeating the same stuff on the forum
if it cannot be explained on the forum?
And a group of HFY folks repeating the same thing doesnt help clarify things -right?)))

Onlya workshop can explain things

((Figured as much.)))

But of course I know you will not except this.

((Accept? What? The most serious and deepest of subjects
can have its basic epistemology stated though its content may take demonstration))

So we continue to go in circles about why you cannot experience something via the internet format. But lets just keep in mind we do call it Cyber space. As good as it has become the term "Cyber" does seperate this space from reality. If not then where do we sighn up for Cyber Tia chi my mother in law wants to improve her flexibility. LOL!

((Careful...good taiji folks have done a pretty good job explaining what they do- in addition to fairly openly showing it))



also please reread the history of HFY you have missed the boat sorta speak. It did not come from the Red boats.

((History? You mean the story?You must be directing it at someone else---because I said zilch about red boats. Other than San Francisco I dont know where HFY came from. Chango- I am not being difficult. You really have not done a good job in explaining things except for boring and bad attempts at sarcasm))

[canglong]

Yuanfen, is there a specific question you would like answered or is there some point or meaning to your post relative to the workshop?

[yuanfen]

canglong: I was responding to Chango's long winded post.
But since you asked - how about anwering Andew S's question, which is:

so for everyone involved with this seminar, what is the 'clear origin of HFY chi sao', which Chango claimed would be revealed at it?

[Rolling_Hand]

When people enter the landscape to learn something, people are obligated, I think, to pay attention rather than constantly to post questions. In other words, What old or new places would you visit? Is Sifu Richard's school far away from Yuanfen's house?

[AndrewS]

Chango,

I'm going on the facts which have been presented- which are d*mn few admixed with a significant amount of propaganda. I politely reiterated certain questions which have been raised here by Bloodgod and in a variety of other forums. Polite questions are *not* insults unless you are conditioned to a belief system which views any questioning of its basic assumptions as a challenge. In this case you have repeatedly failed to meet that challenge.

Again- why does HFY, an art supposedly developed in isolation from the rest of Wing Chun, and much older, possess numerous drills and training methods which can be traced to time periods far later than it's putative origin. There is dan chi sao in HFY. Only Hong Kong Yip Man Wing Chun has dan chi sao, as I understand things. Where did your dan chi sao come from and when?

The method may be good, but the validity of a method is not support for its historical claims.

Southern Shaolin Temple? Look, I don't pay a lot of attention to history. It frankly bores the p*ss out of me, but weren't you initially claiming this stuff was from the Red Junks? What's the offical origin at this point in time? Point me to a link? Which article? Am I confused or has your origin story changed significantly in the last couple of years?

I'm not trying to insult HFY, just asking questions, which seem to receive progressively more belligerent and off-topic responses.

If you don't know the answer, say so. Trying to bullsh*t your way through something only hurts your case. Read one of your posts and substitute the name of another art. Consider how your discourse scans in that light.

Later,

Andrew

[Savi]

I guess my post was unclear, too detailed, or you just wanted a black and white answer.

Here's the black and white answer:

Kiu Sao- dates back before Shaolin

HFY Chi Sao- spawned from Kiu Sao in Weng Chun Tong (location: Southern Shaolin Temple) when Time and Space Concept developed

The gray-scaled answer has been posted already.

Rest assured, the truly interested participants of this forum expand their own research beyond this forum. The VTM members have done the research and distributed their findings out to the public via international magazines for the past 2-3 years. To view these articles many can found on www.mengsofaz.com under the academics section. and further information can be found on www.vtmuseum.org
Also, 200+ pg book on HFY history, combat, and philosophy will offer much more information which is scheduled for a 2003 release.

In response to the arm-wrist Kiu Sao/Chi Sao question: They are not the same thing. Arm is general, Wrist is specific in use. Please refer back to my previous post. If you feel they are, can you please tell us what is your detailed understanding of Kiu Sao?

[Savi]

Andrew,

side note:
According to your last post to my Sibok Chango, I must ask you who is being insulting or insulted? Chango has not come close to the language (despite the asteriks) you are using. Refrain from your abusive vocabulary to my Sibok, or any other participant on this forum. Also, Please remain respectful to others on this forum whether you feel they deserve it or not.

You asked me a question about the origin of Chi Sao, which of course implies a historical interest. Yet in your post to my Sibok, you say you are NOT interested at all. Regardless, My previous post addresses your questions and includes sources for you to research on history if your interest rises.

[canglong]

Hopefully the others at the seminar will see your post and answer for themselves but speaking only for myself I would say yes. It is clear that the hung fa yi chi sao originated from the hung fa yi kiu sao which was born in the weng chun tong of the southern shaolin temple in the late 17th century as documented by the Ving tsun museum.

http://home.vtmuseum.org/information/step_forward_a.php

[AndrewS]

Hey Savi,

don't even try to tell me what to do. If I've offended Chango's virgin ears by saying that it sounds like he's bullsh*tting rather than answering, tough.

And yes, history bores me, especially in martial arts. I know a good bit of it, but tend to view it as a 'he says, she says' collection of self-serving mythology. You can take that personally if you like, but it's really a broad generalization which reflects my views on human nature.

The history posted on on the VT Museum and Arizona sites raises more questions than it answers. No sources or references are posted (even oral histories can be referenced). At least a brief discussion of the reason and evidence that Jeung Ngh is the same person as Taan Sao Ngh is crucial to the whole history. The lineage presented from 1800 to 1970 seems to involve about 4 people before reaching Garrett Gee, which seems odd. Dates and places of residence might lend some support to this. The whole pre-Red Junk era is the most controversial portion of your history so what sources support it? What's the documentation on the Southern Shaolin temple? Is this an archeological dig being performed by the Chinese government? If so, it should have generated some publications which others can examine.

Show some primary sources if you want academic respect for a historical theory.

Now for the dan chi sao issue- so your claim is that dan chi sao was an original part of the art from the Weng Chun Tong of the 1600s which was lost in all other lines besides HFY, and re-invented by Yip Man in Hong Kong in the 1950s? What's the choreography of your basic dan chi sao patterns?

Later,

Andrew

[yuanfen]

Chango's posts are generally quite insulting without being informative. Heat 5. Light zero.

And, merely constantly repeating vague ideas is the basic ingredient of both marketing and propaganda.

If the statements claim as some have in the past that other wing chun including the Yip Man lines lack this or that and propaganda is all that is offered on this list- ofcourse one can expect responses.

Merely distributing one's opinions is hardly research.

[teazer]

The impression I get is of a group of people staring at a bright light. They can share the experience, but can't adequately describe it to others, or perhaps even to themselves.

[Chango]

Andrew,

Your words clearly express the limitations of this thread. Your mind is already made up.

<snip>And yes, history bores me, especially in martial arts. I know a good bit of it, but tend to view it as a 'he says, she says' collection of self-serving mythology.

--now all that is left is for you to put your fingers in your ears and begin repeating "I'm not listening! I'm not listening".

<snip> don't even try to tell me what to do. If I've offended Chango's virgin ears by saying that it sounds like he's bullsh*tting rather than answering, tough.

--your issues go far beyond this thread. "totally neutral observer"? ROFLOL My point exactly.


<snip>Now for the dan chi sao issue- so your claim is that dan chi sao was an original part of the art from the Weng Chun Tong of the 1600s which was lost in all other lines besides HFY, and re-invented by Yip Man in Hong Kong in the 1950s? What's the choreography of your basic dan chi sao patterns?

Yip man re invented dan Chi sao ? because it is not any where else in WCK? What technical information supports this claim? what historical account brought about the need to invent this platform? LOL! Well Andrew HFY has the Sup ming dim to suport the developement of the Dan Chi sao platform. This concept is only found in HFY. This is where focussed time and space are realized. Of course this is to broad for you. Andrew your argument runs the same course as having an argument with native Americans about who discovered America. It all depends on where you set. It is impolite of you to behave the way you do when the answer is not Christopher Columbus or Amerigo Vesputse. I don't think native Americans would bring you a european book or popular publication of history to satisfy you. But chances are they would have a better Idea of how America was not "discovered". No matter how much you insist that it was.

I know the answers may not fit in your confort zone. You want the answers to fit what you think you know. Don't attack me or insult my lineage because things do not seem to fit the frame work where you have already made up your mind. I have no problem agreeing to disagree. please just present your point and reframe from the antics it relects only on you. I offer my answers in a polite and respectable manor. If my answers are not to your liking challenge them with counter information. Any thing else is beneath me and not worth my time.

Chango (saat geng sau)


;)

[Savi]

Originally posted by teazer
The impression I get is of a group of people staring at a bright light. They can share the experience, but can't adequately describe it to others, or perhaps even to themselves.
Howdy Teazer,
Putting myself in the analogy you used, (me being a part of the group looking at the bright light) I would have to reverse what you said for it to be true for me.

We can't share the experience because that is a physical interaction. It is because of that fact that what we say to the ones that have not experienced what we have, may sound vague. However, the parties that have shared in the experience (whatever the experience is) can relate to what is being said.

Yuen Fan is at an impass with the HFY family. He refuses (or feels no inclination) to want to understand the HFY language, and because of this he feels justified in his claims of marketing. That's fine. But think of it this way: One cannot learn to speak Chinese via a forum. One has to hear the tones of sound AND THEN what is being read or even heard can be understood. HFY must be physically experienced through the senses of the body to understand its context. Unfortunately it may STILL come across as pure marketing to some, but we are not here to sell them something. Yuen Fan, your position is well recognized. We are not here to argue with you, although we do not agree with your position.

Andrew, you make many claims of where certain training methodologies originated from. Can you produce those documentations on this forum for us? Do you have Yip Man's diary? Did you ask them personally? Where is your proof to support your claims? Did you ask them personally? As you have said, everything you say is from your understanding only. It is good that you clarify that in your posts, but my ignorance brings me to read your approach as if you see your personal understanding as the universal truth. Just my impression, but I give you the benefit of the doubt. Back to your and Yuen Fan's original question; was it answered for you? This information is what was presented at the seminar.

Those who attended the seminar can see the relationship between Kiu Sao and Chi Sao, from Shaolin to the Red Boats, and from the Red Boats to today's versions of Wing Chun.

Andrew, I am taking your use of language as offensive to the HFY family which I am a part of. Your language could very well be taken as offensive if addressed to other families as well. If you point the finger, we can certainly point one back if you like. I am now ASKING you to respect others in a manner you would like to be treated.

Thanks,
-Savi.

[yuanfen]

Andrew your true colors are showing:)

((Typical Chango attempt to fill the vacuum of ideas with personalism. Poor logic))

--now all that is left is for you to put your fingers in your ears and begin repeating "I'm not listening! I'm not listening".

((Chango continues as above...absent logic and evidence))

This concept is only found in HFY.

((A concept should lend itself to communication- again what is the precious gold that no one has--if it is not pre owned vehicle sales pitch?))

But chances are they would have a better Idea of how America was not "discovered

(( The parallel imagery of HFY being like indigenous people greeting Columbus is unimaginative & mind boggling. The indigenous folks can show their early tangible pre European possession of land, corn, chile, potatoes etc etc... where is the HFY evidence except for self serving procaamations?))
etc

Any thing else is beneath me and not worth my time.

((But you do spend time repeating yourself))

[Savi]

But chances are they would have a better Idea of how America was not "discovered

(( The parallel imagery of HFY being like indigenous people greeting Columbus is unimaginative & mind boggling....... HFY evidence except for self serving procaamations?))
----------------------------------------------

Yuanfen,
Please keep your distaste for my Sibok off this forum. This forum is for information, not gossip. There are personal e-mail services for your interest in this field.

To answer your question, the proof is the system. Please forgive my directness, but to humor your marketing claim: try it before you bite it. If you don't want to try it, please don't bite it.

Again, the proof in the system.
-Savi.

[Savi]

andrew said:
At least a brief discussion of the reason and evidence that Jeung Ngh is the same person as Taan Sao Ngh is crucial to the whole history. The lineage presented from 1800 to 1970 seems to involve about 4 people before reaching Garrett Gee, which seems odd.
----------------------------------------------
Hi Andrew,
Master Gee is the 8th generation disciple of the HFY system. You are correct on there being people before his introduction to the system. He did not create it, nor does he call it "his" art (referencing previous posts/threads) as others have claimed. I hope this clarifies your query?

-Savi.

[Rolling_Hand]

--Yuanfen,
Please keep your distaste for my Sibok off this forum. This forum is for information, not gossip. There are personal e-mail services for your interest in this field.--Savi

**It's been a while since Yuenfen's been the object of competing affections. People already know that much about him...., but let himself enjoy the attention.

[Sandman2[Wing Chun]]

Ok, everybody calm down. Let's try and keep the personal comments and finger pointing to a minimum. If it occurs any more, this thread will be closed.

[Savi]

Originally posted by Sandman2[Wing Chun]
Ok, everybody calm down. Let's try and keep the personal comments and finger pointing to a minimum. If it occurs any more, this thread will be closed.

Wholeheartedly agree! Thank you...
-Savi.

[joy chaudhuri]

Savi- I responded and generally respond to what people say. Ergo, no distaste for Chango( dont know the person), you or the HFY chorus.
I think it is reasonable to point out when statements are vague but may be meaningful for a True Believer.

[Geezer]

Rolling Hand Wrote>

What old or new places would you visit? Is Sifu Richard's school far away from Yuanfen's house?

Savi wrote>

To answer your question, the proof is the system. Please forgive my directness, but to humor your marketing claim: try it before you bite it. If you don't want to try it, please don't bite it.

Wasn't there an open invite offered to Yuanfen to visit Sifu Lowenhagen's school on this forum about 1-2 months ago???, I thought HungKaiVun paid a visit and was quite impressed???.

Yuanfen/Joy did you ever take them up on the offer?,if not, "WHY"
if you did what was you're experiance??:confused:

[canglong]

Yuenfan, If you answered every vague post on this forum you would not have time enough to practice your WCK. When given the opportunity to visit the HFY kwoon you took a pass when given the opportunity to vist a HFY workshop you took a pass. However, you never pass on the opportunity to propagate your personal opinion on a HFY thread. If you practice wck please accept this as an invitation to have all you questions answered first hand at a HFY kwoon near you otherwise may I suggest you stop worrying about all the so called vague post they could ultimately cost you valuable time away from your kwoon.

[Geezer]

Canglong wrote>

When given the opportunity to visit the HFY kwoon you took a pass when given the opportunity to vist a HFY workshop you took a pass. However, you never pass on the opportunity to propagate your personal opinion on a HFY thread.


So he was offered a piece of the pie, turned it down, and then talked about how bad it tasted:confused:

[joy chaudhuri]

geezer, savi, canglong, chango and several others from hfy army on the list...
quite a solid and understandable phalanx of HFY "truths" and party doctrines. Generally on the list most posters are far more
individualistic except for a couple of notorious examples.
Basically, for me---the introduction to a subject must be important enough in the first place. The public discussions of HFY have fallen short of that mark. I have tried to deal with what is presented...
Chan doctrine, "science", history, etc... they have been assertions of "ideology" -not much else. If you enjoy your art, I have no problem with that. But if you assert that wing chun people lack "truths"- it merits comments not visits because this is very diverse list. I actually do visit when interested and and invite visitors when I choose to.

[AndrewS]

Chango,

a branch of an art emerges claiming to be the ur-Wing Chun, and the people who convert to it and start to popularize it unearth large quantities of information to support its claims, without citing primary sources, and you expect people *not* to look askance.

As to neutrality- I'm looking at the information I have available to me- the stuff up on the HFY websites, the various published articles, Rene and Robert's book, Leung Ting's book, and conversations with a variety of people. This is what any non-Chinese speaker has easily available, and is what you've got to produce evidence to address.

Looking purely at the data available, speaking from a viewpoint of intellectual neutrality, you aren't making a good case; there are way too many holes in it. If you've got what you say you do, fill those holes, and I'll give your lineage claims more credence.

The logical fallacies you make in your ad hominem attack on me by attempting to link my queries with western cultural imperialism are a shallow attempt to distract the onlooker from your inability to address the questions asked. They're worthy of a politician and demonstrate the level of mental acumen at which you aim to convince.

You state that HFY doesn't come from the Red Junks. Reading the documents up on *your* organization's website, HFY had a 'Red Boat' period, and it seems that it's after this period which the split occurs with the rest of Wing Chun with Tan Sao Ng as that progenitor?? of that line. Where does Chi Sim's Wang Wah Bo fit into this?

Basically, Chango, you come off as not even having an understanding of the research your organization is trying to present, but committed to defending it at all costs. You obfuscate, make ad hominem attacks, rant, and sidetrack discussion when dealing with very simple questions rather than say 'I don't know' , and all the actual information about HFY is coming from other members of your family.


Savi,

I have no problem with you or your family. Chango's attempting to have an intellectual discussion and hurting his head. While I realize you aren't in a position to call your senior an *ss in public (a place I've been), realize he's being one.

Back to facts- Yip Man's mainland students do not have dan chi sao- from Leung Ting, Rene- Kathy Jo has met them, perhaps she can chime in. Yip Man's classmates do not have dan chi sao- multiple SN/YKS lines have made this statement. Gua Lo has no dan chi sao. I see no dan chi sao listed among the Chi Sim methods- particularily interesting as that art would branch at least roughly contemporarily with HFY. Is there dan chi sao in Chi Sim, and if so, where does Andreas Hoffman consider it to crop up in the art?

Where are Garrett Gee's classmates? How does their interpretation of HFY vary from his? From where do the similarities between William Cheung's art and HFY come? How long did Garret Gee train with his teacher? Given his background in the Fu family systems, and that shared background with Henry Leung?- the Buddha Palm Wing Chun guy on the east coast- does their Wing Chun come from a similar place? Can he support any of this?

It's times like this when I really miss the old netwars with Sigman and the masses.

Andrew

[AndrewS]

typo

'which you aim' not 'at which'

oops

Andrew

[Geezer]

Yuanfen/Joy Wrote>

geezer, savi, canglong, chango and several others from hfy army on the list...

I'm actually not part of their Army as you put it;)

Yuanfen/Joy Wrote>

I actually do visit when interested and and invite visitors when I choose to.

For a man that's completely not interested in HFY, you sure do rattle on about it.:confused:

So from now on I should take everything you say with a pinch of Salt, Me Ol China. ;)

[Savi]

Originally posted by joy chaudhuri
geezer, savi, canglong, chango and several others from hfy army on the list...
quite a solid and understandable phalanx of HFY "truths" and party doctrines. Generally on the list most posters are far more
individualistic except for a couple of notorious examples.
Basically, for me---the introduction to a subject must be important enough in the first place. The public discussions of HFY have fallen short of that mark. I have tried to deal with what is presented...
Chan doctrine, "science", history, etc... they have been assertions of "ideology" -not much else. If you enjoy your art, I have no problem with that. But if you assert that wing chun people lack "truths"- it merits comments not visits because this is very diverse list. I actually do visit when interested and and invite visitors when I choose to.

Mr. Chaudhury, three points:
1) the 'introduction' of a different family of Wing Chun to modern day is not "important enough in the first place" ? Did the HFY family knock on your door or break it down to receive such subjectivism?

2) 'ideologies' is all any audience will see without experiencing it. That's as far as anyone will ever get without first-hand interaction. Do you know what a particular couch feels like before you sit on it? If you don't, at most you will only have an idea.

3) HFY family NEVER stated that modern-day/Red Boat Wing Chun lacks truths. Those are your words. But my truth is not yours, and your truths are not mine. Different Wing Chun has truths unique to themselves. Old hat to you?

-Savi.

[Savi]

Hi Andrew,

about Yip Man's Wing Chun:
The VTM has met with 7 of the most senior students of Yip Man and all 7 have held seminars on their knowledge of Wing Chun from beginning to end, taught to them by Yip Man. That is documented. Are you more qualified to speak on the Yip Man lineage than the VTM?

about the Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun:
Your understanding does not match our documentation. Did you skim through the material, or take genuine interest in it with a clean tea cup? Just because we cite the Red Boat Period playing a role in our history does not mean that we originated from there. Before you question us, please make sure your facts are in order so we can give you an informed response.

Helpful hint: more objectivism goes a long way when doing your research.

-savi.

[[Censored]]

What have I learned about HFY on this forum?

It's about time and space.
It's very precise and scientific, and fundamentally different than YM WC.
It is impossible to describe any of these differences, except in very vague terms, which are in fact precise, but cannot be understood without first understanding them.
HFY contains lots of circles.

Did I miss anything? ;)

[Savi]

Originally posted by [Censored]
What have I learned about HFY on this forum?

It's about time and space.
It's very precise and scientific, and fundamentally different than YM WC.
It is impossible to describe any of these differences, except in very vague terms, which are in fact precise, but cannot be understood without first understanding them.
HFY contains lots of circles.

Did I miss anything? ;)

You made my jaw drop! I'd only clarify your last point about circles to be more precise: Everything in HFY is connected [to everything else in HFY]; balanced.

-Savi :):):)

[AndrewS]

Hi Savi,

The VT Museum has hosted seminars with senior Yip Man students, ok. Great. Post the transcripts. You're attempting to argue from authority, another flaw in basic logic.

Either present some data or admit you're taking Benny and Richard's word for this.

I read the material on your website. The time line states that there was a 'Red Boat period' of HFY. My read of the articles was that there were members of the Chinese opera who you are asserting were also members of revolutionary secret societies who carried the art onto the Red Junks, with Taan Sao Ng being a key player in the development of the 'public' lines of Wing Chun.

Chango at some point in this stated that HFY did not come from the Red Junks.

Are you claiming that there were members of your line on those crafts or an independant transmission?

Objectivism- I find Objectivism very useful in many elements of my research. Unfortunately, I can't find even the crafstmanship of a Peter Keating here, much less Howard Roark.

If you're refering to objectivity, it requires facts. All you're presenting is stories and assertions, soemthing obvious to objective viewing.

Again, does Chi Shim Wing Chun have dan chi sao? If so, why not?

What oral accounts, writings, pictures, etc. does the VT Museum possess that would argue against dan chi sao being a Hong Kong era Yip Man innovation? Were those seven guys asked that question?

Later,

Andrew

[AndrewS]

d*mn typos

'If not, why' not 'if so, why not'.

Andrew

[taltos]

The offical Chi Sim Website of Grandmaster Andreas Hoffman is http://www.wengchun.net. I did not find any mention of Chi Sau on the site, but it is a site seemingly designed to be a historical/topical introduction to the art and it's heritage.

On the VT Museum site at http://home.vtmuseum.org/genealogy/chi_sim/ (which was directed and sanctioned by Grandmaster Andreas Hoffman), there is mention of the use of Kiuh Sau. Based on that information, and the information that I was exposed to through direct face-to-face interaction with Grandmaster Andreas Hoffman, Chi Sim extensively utilizes Kiuh Sau, but (THIS IS MY UNDERSTANDING), they do not have a "Chi Sau" platform as either the Hung Fa Yi or Yip Man lineages would classify "Chi Sau." As such, I believe (AGAIN, MY UNDERSTANDING) that it would be safe to assume that without a Chi Sau platform that we would recognize, they would likely not have a Daan Chi Sau platform that we would recognize. However, it is certainly possible that there is another training device that they use that to address single hand bridges. I have never heard or seen enough conclusive information to be assertative, so I can only hypothesize.

I do know that in the past. Grandmaster Hoffman has asked that his family and lineage not be embroiled in discussions that seem (AGAIN, IN MY OPINION) similar to this one. As such, I only represent what I know and understand, and I respect Grandmaster Hoffman in that I will leave it at that and not presume to represent his rich and fascinating lineage. He has shown himself to be a true scholar, gentlemean, and warrior, and as such I honor his wishes.

If I have not adequately addressed the Chi Sim Daan Chi Sau questions, perhaps the most direct route to answers would be to petition Grandmaster Hoffman or an official representative of his lineage.

-Levi

[Savi]

Originally posted by AndrewS
Hi Savi,

The VT Museum has hosted seminars with senior Yip Man students, ok. Great. Post the transcripts. You're attempting to argue from authority, another flaw in basic logic.

<Andrew, the Museum has already done the research. I encourage you to do your own research. It does require effort on your part.>

Either present some data or admit you're taking Benny and Richard's word for this.

<No ultimatums please.>

I read the material on your website. The time line states that there was a 'Red Boat period' of HFY. My read of the articles was that there were members of the Chinese opera who you are asserting were also members of revolutionary secret societies who carried the art onto the Red Junks, with Taan Sao Ng being a key player in the development of the 'public' lines of Wing Chun.

Chango at some point in this stated that HFY did not come from the Red Junks.

Are you claiming that there were members of your line on those crafts or an independant transmission?

<Chango is correct. HFY did NOT come from the Red Boats, but it does not mean that the HFY did not play a role in the Red Boats.>

Objectivism- I find Objectivism very useful in many elements of my research. Unfortunately, I can't find even the crafstmanship of a Peter Keating here, much less Howard Roark.

<fact or opinion? Your response here is far from objectivism.>

If you're refering to objectivity, it requires facts. All you're presenting is stories and assertions, soemthing obvious to objective viewing.

<can you support YOUR accusation? Again I encourage you to do the research yourself.>

Again, does Chi Shim Wing Chun have dan chi sao? If so, why not?

<perhaps you should direct this question to the Chi Sim family if your interest is genuine.>

What oral accounts, writings, pictures, etc. does the VT Museum possess that would argue against dan chi sao being a Hong Kong era Yip Man innovation? Were those seven guys asked that question?

<You should visit the Ving Tsun Museum and experience first hand the artifacts and my family there. After all it is a museum.>

Later,

Andrew

My statements are inbetween <these>.
-Savi.

[AndrewS]

Savi,

you're showing a profound lack of understanding of the academic method. It's incumbent upon the party which makes a claim to support said claim, not others to disprove it.

I presented my sources for my present understanding. If Benny and Garrett want me or anyone else with anything like an academic background to accept the history they present, they'll have to support it.

All I'm getting from you and Chango is 'loads of research has been done. Loads. Really. A lot. So we must be right.' That's argument from authority and by assertion. You seem to be incapable of simply saying, 'I don't know and I take my sifu's word for it' which is a perfectly acceptable answer. Not everyone is a historian, and not every student an authority on the entirity of their art. If you do have data, facts, source, please, share them. If not your inability to say so reflects quite poorly on your organizations attempt to present itself as an academic endeavor.

Other matters- ok, simple yes or no- HFY guys on Red Boat, yes or no? You're arguing the definition of 'from' with me. Get a grip.

Objectivism- you really have no clue what this is, do you? Keyword- Ayn Rand. Objectivity is the english for what you've been trying to say.

Accusations- I'm not making accusations. I'm raising questions. You seem profoundly unable to answer them and quite unwilling to admit your inability to do so.

Chi Shim- I thought the VTM was involved in researching all aspects of Wing Chun and had hosted Andreas Hoffman a few times. This isn't that obscure a question- if no dan chi in the one line which seems to date from a similar time to HFY, then why?

For that matter, why is the HFY transmission over the last 200 years 'purer' than the others which have survived?

Later,

Andrew

[bglenn]

MY KUNG FU IS BETTER THAN YOUR KUNG FU BECAUSE ITS OLDER,NEWER,FROM FATSHAN,ETC. IS A SILLY ARGUMENT. LET IT REST!

[teazer]

Originally posted by Savi
HFY must be physically experienced through the senses of the body to understand its context..........
Also, 200+ pg book on HFY history, combat, and philosophy will offer much more information which is scheduled for a 2003 release.


Well, you guys are not the first to put forth the "it has to be shown" mantra. Possibly so. Possibly you underestimate some of the readers here. No doubt in a few years we'll find out if this way of teaching is effective with the new generation of HFY practitioners.

So, this book thing - I assume from what you've said that it can't convey that much info on the practical applications of the style, but it sounds interesting. Will it be authored by the VTM in general or has anyone in particular shouldered the burden of writing it?

[Mckind13]

Hi all,

I suggest you visit. Forget all the historical/marketing stuff and go see for yourself.

If you really want to see if they are any good go challenge them to a fight.

Or go say “Hi what’s all this HFY stuff about?”

HFY is neither completely unique nor is it completely different in its use.

The terms are different, and while I am glad they like to use certain terms it does not negate the existence of these principles in the WCK of other lineages.



David

[taltos]

With the genuine wish that this discussion steers back to a more productive nature, we all need to be on the same page in our expectations. In that vein...

The Western Regional Branch of the Hung Fa Yi, located in AZ, has several academic and technical professionals in its midst. There are over a half a dozen engineers, several social scientists (in fields ranging from history to anthropology to communication), several teachers, and at least one biologist. These ladies and gentlemen have degrees up to and including Masters level, and at least one is nearing the defense of a Ph.D. thesis. Does this mean that they somehow have a position of authority? No. Does it mean that any of these people are "more right" than anyone else in their assertions by virtue of their degree? No. I offer this up because it illustrates that several people, from several walks of life, have been exposed to the Scientific Method, and are considered by the US Department of Education to be satisfactorily "academically sound." It is not a claim to righteousness, but an offering of background in the spirit of openness.

From http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html, I found a very well stated introduction to the Scientific Method. Among other things, it states...

"What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved."

While I understand that we are here referring to the application of Western methods of Proof (or disproof) to Eastern Systems, this DOES seem to contradict the claim that "It's incumbent upon the party which makes a claim to support said claim, not others to disprove it." However, I concede that this quote was applied to the “academic method,” with which I am not familiar, rather than the Scientific Method that I am speaking to.

While the American LEGAL SYSTEM does hold that the burden of proof falls to the accuser, the Scientific Method does not. Admittedly, that does not mean that I can just state any claim I want and dare you to "disprove it." While technically that is a justifiable position in terms of the Scientific burden of proof (or disproof), it would certainly be more "gentlemanly" to offer up what tests have been made to disprove the theory WHICH HAVE FAILED, which is an indirect illustration of a theory's stability and strength. However, even in a gentlemanly discussion, the use of the Scientific Method in any way constitutes a two way street: One offers what cannot disprove, the other offers avenues to explore for potential disproof.

In essence, and open mid is required to limit personal bias, but some skepticism is required in order to attempt to disprove. I am not afraid of skepticism, nor am I afraid of considering differing views. If I were afraid of accepting something I had never been exposed to, I would never have tried Yip Man WC in the first place (and HFY later).

Going back to the quote "What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment." To a HFY practitioner, this is the key to successfully understanding the system, and is the core of what we informally call "reality checks" and formally call "Hau Chun San Sao" (as discussed in earlier threads, this phrase refers to the need to understand the principles and directly experience the manifestation). I can offer to anyone the fact that I have tested a particular concept 10, 100, 1000, or 10000 times, and have yet to see the results be different. Have I engaged in testing the predictive power of a concept? Possibly (if I have kept it as controlled and objective as possible, then certainly Yes). When I tell you that I have done that, can you accept it at face value? Maybe, and maybe not. If you know and trust the integrity of the person who told you, then yes. If you do not, then it is neither disrespectful nor a diversionary tactic to invite you to see, understand, and test the predictability of the concept yourself. If anything, it is an open invitation to disprove.

I am proud of my Yip Man heritage. I am proud of my Hung Fa Yi Heritage. I do not formally study Chi Sim, but I honor and acknowledge the breadth and depth of its wisdom. I can only hope that anything I say and do reflects upon me and me alone, since I am not a Sifu in any of the aforementioned systems, and as such am neither authorized nor qualified to completely represent them. If I offer up my understanding of something, and someone chooses to accept my limited, incomplete view as the law of the system without either attempting to understand it themselves or to seek that information from a qualified person who has achieved a system-wide, complete view, I cannot stop that from happening; I can only stress that I, and any other member of this discussion group who was not formally certified as a Sifu in the Hung Fa Yi lineage cannot claim to truly, completely represent the system.

As long as we can agree to these terms, there is no reason that we cannot share our understandings of things. However, it is impossible to make headway when we expect students to be teachers, and we decide that a person’s inability to adequately express the principles of an entire system that they have not yet finished is proof that the system is invalid. Perhaps if we agree (on both sides) to treat any information offered as the understanding of a student and not the official, definitive representation of a lineage, we will keep ourselves from talking in circles and falling back into semantic and subjective arguments.

-Levi

[taltos]

I apologize. I forgot to add in my earlier post about Daan Chi Sau that (as I understand) Chi Sim does not have Tan, Bong, an Fook per se, and that is why I think that they would not have a Chi Sau platform that the rest of the WC world would acknowledge (ours being based on those foundational hands).

-Levi

[planetwc]

To Chango and the rest of the HFY family.

I think where a lot of the problem here in this discussion stems from is that you are all well versed in the Yip Man system, and can one hopes offer discourse on that system.

Additionally, you have made reference to capturing the totality of Wing Chun knowledge of 7 Yip Man system masters as an additional body of reference.

Here you have many of your Yip Man bretheren asking for a comparision to Yip Man's system and you seem unable to provide ANY sort of comparision to it.

Why do you think that is?

Can you offer for example a description of Yip Man style Dan Chi Sao from say 2 of the 3 masters you have on record plus your own personal observations having studied Moy Yat's interpretation via Benny Meng a certified instructor in that style?

Perhaps then someone like Tom Kagan can chime in that your description matches what he believes to be the essence of how this is taught and performed within the Moy lineage.

Then can you offer the same kind of discourse on the Hung Fa Yi Dan Chi Sao platform and principles?

If not. Why not?

In previous communication on the subject of Hung Fa Yi, several Bai Si students of this lineage have made statements regarding the science of Hung Fa Yi, etc. If those sort of statements were held up to scientific scrutiny via a peer review process after publishing such comments, you would see similar questions to those I have posted above.

These are not personal attacks, they are questions asking for details to substantiate the assertions being made from within the Hung Fa Yi community to the Wing Chun community at large.

Gentlemen, YOU are stating (not non-HFY students) that Hung Fa Yi has such a degree of rigor in it's movements and expression and theories that it can be expressed as a literal formula, among other things.

Yet you cannot offer a comparision to something you are already grounded in (Yip Man) in terms of a comparision?

If so, then how rigorous and precise can it actually be?

Why is it that we could have the same kinds of discussion with students from the Chi Sim Weng Chun, Cho Family, Yuen Kay Shan family, Koo Lo family, etc. etc. in terms of comparitive differences, stances etc. but this discussion is seemingly impossible with Hung Fa Yi?

I understand that a book is being prepared on this topic, hopefully it will approach this in a fashion that allows a greater degree of comparision and detail.

regards,

David Williams

[yuanfen]

I see your genuine attempt at being "open minded".
The issue basically is that there should be a way other than "come to our workshop" for list members to discuss what they do with each other. Otherwise the forum will miss an important dimension of various wing chun folks discussing what they do.The personal remarks were by Chango and in my case by LH...you have to go back to see that. Water over the dam. You list several bachelors, masters and an abd as being mebers of your group. That is no substitute for substantial discussion between people ina martial art. With my wing chun hat alone, I have had wing chun students who have PhDs in Psych, Computer Info systems, Mechanical engineering, Environmnetal engineering...but all that is neither here or there. The key as you yourself point out ---there are different degrees of understanding the subject at hand. I have had pretty good students who are landscapers, heating cooling technicians and the gainfully unemployed. Sometimes they are better than the degree slingers
in doing and explaining wing chun. I understand that there are various levels of achievement. I dont speak for any one but myself either.
So HFY folks if they chose to discuss their system on the forum should be able to explain in a common language or style of communication their understanding or what they mean by a perfect tan sao, or time space relationships that they see, or an unique relationship to Chan and other things that HFY folks have referred to in the forum.

[desertwingchun2]

Joy - The points raised earlier by my Sihing Savi were neither vague nor sloppy. Quite conversely his explanation was very clear.
In the context of which you have written, good teachers have nothing to do with "correcting" arm position. Kiu Sao and Chi Sao are two separate and distinct entities. Quite simply stated the reason you cannot follow the discussion of HFY Kiu Sao is because you have no reference from which to begin your understanding. To many wing chun people, what we consider Kiu Sao is so close in appearance to Chi Sao one cannot make the distinction between the two. It is not solely arm or hand position but principles wherein lies the difference. Kiu Sao doesn’t exist unless you recognize it and obviously you don’t, can’t or won’t.

You are correct Kiu Sao does refer to an arm bridge. Let me ask you a question - in your system does Kiu Sao training exist in Chum Kiu or anywhere else? If so, please explain where and the principles and or concepts that govern it.

The HFY family were not the only ones who enjoyed the seminar. There were representatives from various wing chun families. The Wing Chun Do family attended with appx 10 -15 students and their head instructor. Students of Robert Chu, Dak Lam and Dr. Wu were also present. David Mckinnon posted earlier with some very positive comments, he is not from the HFY family. I honestly wish you will attend the next seminar held here in Chandler. If cost is an issue I will personally pay for your admission. Possibly then you will be able to offer a first hand experience point of view. Rather than dismiss all attempts of explanations from HFY family members.

Again and again you invite open discussion of HFY principles and history. This would normally lead to respectable conversation, but history has proven that you only seek to criticize any and all attempts. So again I extend an invitation to attend the next workshop here in Chandler at no cost to you. Maybe, just maybe, you’ll gain an understanding of the discussions that you have found vague and sloppy.

-David

[Miles Teg]

I dont want take sides here. I, like others, am interested in what you guys do. But YuanFen made a good point: if Tai Chi guys can explain there seemingly extremely complicated system in detail then why cant you? If it has something to do touch, feel, chi, internal energy etc then that can be explained, or at least an attempt can be made to explain. If taichi people can do it so can you. It doesnt have to be in detail. Perhaps some of the main aspects of the system could be explained besides the time space thing cause I dont understand that.

[kj]

Originally posted by AndrewS
Back to facts- Yip Man's mainland students do not have dan chi sao- from Leung Ting, Rene- Kathy Jo has met them, perhaps she can chime in.

Regretfully, I can't help out on this one. Our time with Lon Gi was limited and the exchange went no further than sharing of forms, at least while I was around. There may well have been some discussion about dan chi sau, but I would have missed it in Cantonese. (I've tried lip reading, but so far it hasn't helped much.)

All may not be lost, though. There was a student of Lon Gi posting here on the forum a few months ago. His handle is "narjar"; maybe he is still around. (I'm assuming it's a he.) Perhaps he can be summoned via PM, email, or special thread topic. Here is a link (http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13447&highlight=Lon+Gi) to the thread with his posts.


It's times like this when I really miss the old netwars with Sigman and the masses.

LOL. He's still out and about on the net if you ever get a hankering to revive old times. ;)

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[AndrewS]

Hey Levi,

there are two areas of HFY being addressed here.

The 'science' of HFY- its methods, training, and formulae. This is, to some extent, amenable to examination by the scientific method, and your comments regarding the scientific method are valid in that context.

The second area is that of historical claims. History is not a science. It is an area of scholarship. You assemble the evidence and present your organization of that evidence in your framework, and let others see what you've done with what you have to work with.

Does HFY chi sao come from a tan/bong/fook platform? Is this used in it's dan chi? You can look at the science of the techniques on the one hand, on the other, the question is raised of where this overlaps with other lines of Wing Chun. Based on when things branch off, commonalities and differences, one should be able to contrive a picture of the evolution of the various arts and their relationships.

Later,

Andrew

[yuanfen]

In the context of which you have written, good teachers have nothing to do with "correcting" arm position.
((Really. I We do have a disagreement. Correcting both sao and kiu
seems very important to me to make sure that both the hand shaping and the bridge work is correct))

Kiu Sao and Chi Sao are two separate and distinct entities.
((If so why not define the differences in detail. What does HFY mean by the terms?))

Quite simply stated the reason you cannot follow the discussion of HFY Kiu Sao is because you have no reference from which to begin your understanding.

((HFY folks have not provided much))

To many wing chun people, what we consider Kiu Sao is so close in appearance to Chi Sao one cannot make the distinction between the two. It is not solely arm or hand position but principles wherein lies the difference.

(( Does not apply to me.A publicly meaninful definition of how you use these terms would be a service to your sub style))

Kiu Sao doesn’t exist unless you recognize it and obviously you don’t, can’t or won’t.

((Problem of meaning- how used))

You are correct Kiu Sao does refer to an arm bridge. Let me ask you a question - in your system does Kiu Sao training exist in Chum Kiu or anywhere else? If so, please explain where and the principles and or concepts that govern it.

((Chum Kiu like many terms has more than one meaning but controlling bridges is certainly one of them. I correct the bridges of chum kiu whenever I am teaching chum kiu to anyone. In turn, I show them how to link the bridges and use them in chi sao. The chum kiu is full of short arm bridges as opposed to biu jee.
In chum kiu best to pass the opponent's incoming bridge from above. If the opponents bridge eneters your own bridge area-
you need to turn thr situation around rightaway...there is more but I hope that you get the idea.)))

I honestly wish you will attend the next seminar held here in Chandler. If cost is an issue I will personally pay for your admission.

((Sincere thanks for your generous offer. I will keep it in mind butI prefer first to be intrigued by HFY descriptions which is not yet the case. Iam not into BJJ but Renzo and another Gracie have writtena pretty clear book on what they are about. Taiji folks do a pretty good job on providing an intro to their subject. Seems like HFY should be able to do the same on the forum))

[taltos]

AndrewS,

Thanks for the response. What I was trying to re-iterate was any answers you get here are going to be incomplete by virtue of the person answering the questions having yet to complete the system. As has been proven the case before, with lineages other than HFY, there is a tendency here to take one person's understanding of something as represenative of the systematic truth of a lineage. In the Yip Man system offered at my school, Laahp Sau is first introduced a few months into your training. During that time, you are drilling the first section of Siu Nihm Tauh as well. If you were to ask someone who has been in the school two months about bong sau, they will look at you funny because bong sau does not exist to them yet. They have an incomplete picture. That does not mean that our system lacks that fundamental concept/structure/position.

Again, as long as we can agree on the reality of the exchange, there is no reason we can't discuss things from the perspective of OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING. However, some of the questions have been phrased to indiacte that Savi, Chango, and others are somehow certified to fully and conclusively represent the HFY lineage. This is not the case, and perhaps (I speak for no one but myself) any hesitancy to answer is because they do not wish to misrepresent a complete system with their own incomplete understanding.

I am not trying to be difficult, and I am certainly not trying to perpetuate any agenda or defend anyone in particular. I am not name calling, or pointing fingers. I hope I have addressed both sides of the equation equally, because I think that we can really start moving in positive directions once we get passed this. It would be a shame to see this thread closed.

So, having said that I am no expert or representative of HFY, I will attempt to answer some of your questions by directing you to complete answers...

--Does HFY chi sao come from a tan/bong/fook
--platform? Is this used in it's dan chi? You can
--look at the science of the techniques on the
--one hand, on the other, the question is raised
--of where this overlaps with other lines of Wing
--Chun. Based on when things branch off, commonalities
--and differences, one should be able to contrive
--a picture of the evolution of the various arts and
--their relationships.

http://home.vtmuseum.org/genealogy/hung_fa_yi/curriculum.php

Lists the descriptions of the HFY Daan Chi Sau platform, including the initials (which hand begins the skill challenge) and the response. Since this list was compiled under the guidance of Grandmaster Gee, it is safe to assume that it is representative of the HFY Daan Chi Platform as it relates to the rest of the system. If you have specific questions, system-wide answers are best found by asking a certified instructor rather than a student. I know some senior VTM members are in Hong Kong right now, so an answer may not be immidiate, but the VTM is approachable and open.

As for your history questions, I would again direct you to the Museum. Since I am not currently fluent in Chinese, any information I can give you would admittedly be based on my trust in someone else's translations of oral and written information.

On a final note, please, anyone, do not hesitate to let me know if I am ever disrespectful, deflective, or confrontational. I try very hard to be open and forthcoming, and I certainly want to know if I ever appear otherwise.

-Levi

[Chango]

Andrew,
In light of not adding to the personal attacks. I will allow you to paint the picture here.

<snip> Chango's attempting to have an intellectual discussion and hurting his head. While I realize you aren't in a position to call your senior an *ss in public (a place I've been), realize he's being one.

<snip>They're worthy of a politician and demonstrate the level of mental acumen at which you aim to convince.

<snip>Trying to bullsh*t your way through something only hurts your case.

This is your self portrate! I think your words say it all Picasso . I'm not interested in a P$$ing match with you. I would just get P$$ed off and you would just get P$$ed on. So I will just allow your words to make it clear why your post are not worthy of my attention. Understanding is not what you seek just a poor attempt to attack something that you refuse to understand. Maybe you do not have the campacity to understand. I realize that if you are not ready there is nothing I can do for you. I'm sorry that you suffer.

Yuan fen,
I think Levi has provided alot of the information that you seek in his last post. I think it is fair to say that I do not speak for the entire HFY lineage. You want me to go on this forum and say Yip man Dan Chi sau is etc.... and HFY Dan chi sau is etc.... Please let me explain the dificulty in this discussion. First we have to address the difference in languages. So at that point I would have to explain to you the HFY center line concept the 5 line concept the gate understanding, triagler theory, dimentional vs directional, one line three point concepts in all three dementions, 3 1/2 point concept, two elements, Half moon principle and a basic understanding of the 5 stages of combat and when Dan chi sau expressions are appropriate. Then once this is address I can start to address the first progression. Now I have to say that I'm interested in raising the awarness of the martial arts comunity of WCK. I'm happy to discuss all lineages (to the best of my knowlege) I'm even more enthusiastic about discussing WCK families that's history is shaolin is origin. But I have to say that I do this forum and other internet activities in my spare time for my own enjoyment. I'm not interested in providing a Internet corespondence coarse. I say that jokingly but really to get through the language barrier I think it would take far more information that is appropriate for this forum. I hope you take the time to come to a workshop or possibly pick up the book that is currently in the works. I'm not saying these will satisfy what you are after but those resources will at least bring you to a closer understanding of where I'm coming from and possibly help further our comunication. My goal is not to argue or to go incircles about this. I think it might be healthier to get a better format to display this load of information. It would not be appropriate to write page after page of the information that you request. Maybe in the future we can comunicate better. But I think we have met our limitations at this point.

Chango (saat geng sau) :cool:

[Mckind13]

Hi Chango

Allot of what you said came across as rhetoric.

When we met in person you were able to explain in detail the concept of time, witch I might translate as a combination of both timing the entry and finding a better (or best) position in relation to the technique and opponents attack (without getting too long winded :p )

Lets talk about the five stages of combat.

On one hand we have the Kiu Sau – Chi Sau – San Da progression. On the other we have the philosophy of wandering, discovery and focus (don’t have my notes here, don’t remember the exact words you guys use for the SMK)

At the top of the pyramid we have HFY’s/Sifu Gee’s 5 stages of combat.

Realizing that they may have several applicable definitions depending on time and space etc, what are the 5 stages of combat?

With warm greetings from So-Cal :confused::confused:

David

[Chango]

Hello David,
How are things? I understand why the time concept could come across as timing. It think you will apprecieate what is meant when I say the proper time for a techinque goes beyond timing when we understad that the proper time will also determine the appropriate focused technique. Now to understand the proper space you must apply the 10 bright points! (3D reference points) I know it is hard not be long winded on the subject.

The five phases of combat are Baai jong, Jit Kiu, Chum kiu, Jeui Ying, and Wui ma.

Again the terminology maybe the same as some but the meanings are very different. everything has a focus meaning and if it is not then HFY rejects it. Do you remeber the part of Sigung's Gee's lecture on the interpertation of the keun kuit? That each are very specific and require very specific experiences? this is the hurdle that I'm faced with when presenting information! the language problem is not just in reference to a thing but a specific experience. so to read these stages of combat or to hear them with out the precise HFY experience required it will all seem the same. Maybe you might be able to do better when explaining what you took in at the workshop. I find that this forum would not be appropriate to explain each and every experience to arrive at the questions being posted.

Chango (Saat geng sau) :cool:

[black and blue]

I had a look at the link you posted for your Kwoon's curriculum.

There is a description of bridging work....

"Sup Yee Mouh Kiu: Contains 12 concepts, 3 techniques for each concept, creating a total of 36 techniques."

I would very much like to know what these concepts and techniques are. If you have time, can you list them?

Many thanks

Duncan

[Savi]

Andrew, I had to do alittle research in order to understand you more. My findings are as follows:

Posted by AndrewS on 11-06-2002 03:57 PM: As much as technical questions interest me, my original point was historical, not technical.

>Perhaps you should reread the post.

Posted by AndrewS on 11-06-2002 11:41 PM: Look, I don't pay a lot of attention to history. It frankly bores the p*ss out of me

>It is not efficient to answer questions presented by someone not interested in their own question.

Posted by AndrewS on 11-07-2002 12:45 AM: history bores me, especially in martial arts. I know a good bit of it, but tend to view it as a 'he says, she says' collection of self-serving mythology. You can take that personally if you like, but it's really a broad generalization which reflects my views on human nature.

>I wonder Andrew if 1) history bores you, and 2)you have an opinion that seems to draw no line between history and 'self-serving' mythology, why should we participate in your game?

Posted by AndrewS on 11-06-2002 03:57 PM: Single arm chi sao is a Yip Man training innovation from his arrival in Hong Kong. Formalized chi gherk was developed by Leung Sheung and others in Hong Kong.
Posted by AndrewS on 11-07-2002 12:45 AM: The history posted on on the VT Museum and Arizona sites raises more questions than it answers. No sources or references are posted Show some primary sources if you want academic respect for a historical theory.

> Have Yip Man, Leung Sheung, and "others in Hong Hong" told you these things exclusively? Have they showed any documentation when they 'logged' dates, times, and places the 'innovations' occurred? Or are you taking someone else's word for it? Can you present your resources?

Posted by AndrewS on 11-07-2002 12:05 PM: The VT Museum has hosted seminars with senior Yip Man students, ok. Great. Post the transcripts.

>Do you like telling people what to do, if you yourself do not appreciate someone else telling you to be more respectful on the forum :)? Hmmm... Keep in mind I am not an archive of historical information. Unfortunately, I do not have the VTM archive at my disposal to hand out to somebody whose intentions I do not know. You will have to contact Master Benny Meng; the curator of the VTM, and Master Loewenhagen; the west coast director of the VTM for such a priviledge.

Posted by AndrewS on 11-07-2002 12:05 PM: You're attempting to argue from authority, another flaw in basic logic. Either present some data or admit you're taking Benny and Richard's word for this.

> Not so Andrew. This has nothing to do with authority. I was implying that they are presenting what they know BASED on their experiences with the grandmasters/masters of different lineages. Do you do the same? Though I do not claim to be perfect, the flaw is not on this side.

Posted by AndrewS on 11-07-2002 09:53 AM: As to neutrality- I'm looking at the information I have available to me- the stuff up on the HFY websites, the various published articles, Rene and Robert's book, Leung Ting's book, and conversations with a variety of people. This is what any non-Chinese speaker has easily available, and is what you've got to produce evidence to address.

>Do you consider conversations and recently published information such as books and articles to be historical documentation? Have you given the same treatment to the information on the HFY, VTM, MengsofAZ web sites? If it is so easily available to you, why ask me for everything? I, along with others have pointed you to information which you seem to have read with a grain of salt - not a neutral position on your part.

Posted by AndrewS on 11-07-2002 12:05 PM: Back to facts- Yip Man's mainland students do not have dan chi sao- from Leung Ting, Rene- Kathy Jo has met them, perhaps she can chime in. Yip Man's classmates do not have dan chi sao- multiple SN/YKS lines have made this statement. Gua Lo has no dan chi sao.

>Again you offer no documentation to support your statements. I am not fluent with the other lineages for I have not experienced them first hand. If you do have the documentation, I would like to have them FedEX'd to a particular address for which I can critically analyze, with the disposition that I do not care for historical artifacts to feed my own self-serving needs. Sorry :)

Posted by AndrewS on 11-07-2002 12:05 PM: If you're refering to objectivity, it requires facts. All you're presenting is stories and assertions, soemthing obvious to objective viewing.

> The above does not demonsrate that we must then be guilty of the same misgivings? In what format would you like the facts, other than letters on your computer screen?

Posted by AndrewS on 11-07-2002 01:01 PM: You seem to be incapable of simply saying, 'I don't know and I take my sifu's word for it' which is a perfectly acceptable answer. Not everyone is a historian, and not every student an authority on the entirity of their art.

> Let me open my mouth so you can put more predetermined words in it. I'm sorry Andrew, but I don't recall ever claiming to be these things either. If I have, can you post the post on this forum? By the way, the proper approach to analyzing the HFY system is to use the Scientific Method, which sir Taltos gracefully pointed out is to disprove what is presented through all possibilities. HFY's equivalent to this is Hau Chun Saan Sau. Another flaw in basic logic? Again, Hmmm... If you are putting the HFY on trial, are we not innocent until proven guilty according to the legal system? Make sure you know the process you follow before you point your finger again.

[yuanfen]

Chango sez: I think your words say it all Picasso . I'm not interested in a P$$ing match with you. I would just get P$$ed off and you would just get P$$ed on. So I will just allow your words to make it clear why your post are not worthy of my attention.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(( Chango-But you do give things your "attention" and do it in an awful way per sample above..
Much of the rest of your post is full of garbled jargon- which do not clarify key concepts - but like muddled overgrowth could use Occam's razor for clarity and simplicity))

[Savi]

Originally posted by yuanfen
Chango sez: I think your words say it all Picasso . I'm not interested in a P$$ing match with you. I would just get P$$ed off and you would just get P$$ed on. So I will just allow your words to make it clear why your post are not worthy of my attention.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(( Chango-But you do give things your "attention" and do it in an awful way per sample above..
Much of the rest of your post is full of garbled jargon- which do not clarify key concepts - but like muddled overgrowth could use Occam's razor for clarity and simplicity))

Mr. Chauduri,

Each of the concepts intricate to HFY whom Chango stated are not simple. Keep in mind that just this single question on the origin of HFY Chi Sao has gone this far on this thread. Each concept whom Chango noted are far to complicated to address unless ALL of us have gone through the Hauh Chun Saan Sao method. Mere visualization from words will not suffice to justice to both parties. The physical experience is just as crucial. Without it it will be garbled jargon.

-Savi.

[yuanfen]

Savu sez:Each of the concepts intricate to HFY whom Chango stated are not simple. Keep in mind that just this single question on the origin of HFY Chi Sao has gone this far on this thread.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Savi
Its gone on this far for the simple reason that the HFY folks on this forum throw out a word here and there or a label and then cannot or will not explain
the meanings to reasonably capable readers.

[taltos]

planetwc,

my responses are in [[brackets]]

I think where a lot of the problem here in this discussion stems from is that you are all well versed in the Yip Man system, and can one hopes offer discourse on that system.

[[ Thank you for the vote of confidence in our Yip Man System knowledge. Without restating what I posted last night, I can only say that since this particular thread was concerning a HFY workshop (which unfortunately I was unable to attend), and the arguements here seem to stem from the 'clear origin of HFY chi sao', making a comaprison to another lineage would not be directly addressing the issue at hand, and would really only open up the proverbial can of worms. I'll make the asumption here that everyone, on both sides, approaches this forum with an open mind and without preconceived notions, and with that I'll assume that negative comments made on either side, real or perceived, are just due to innocent misunderstandings. I understand that both sides have earned the ire of the opposite, and maybe a "compare and contrast" would be better served on a different thread, not one dedicated to a HFY workshop. Although personally, I don't think we'll collectively be able to keep it personable and friendly.]]

Here you have many of your Yip Man bretheren asking for a comparision to Yip Man's system and you seem unable to provide ANY sort of comparision to it.

[[ Again, this whole fiasco started with AndrewS' question (direct quote) ... "Alright, so for everyone involved with this seminar, what is the 'clear origin of HFY chi sao', which Chango claimed would be revealed at it?" No offense to AndrewS - it's a perfectly valid question (although maybe in the spirit of good will it could have beed phrased a little better) - but he wasn't asking for a comparison to any other system. He was asking for the HFY origin of HFY Chi Sau as presented at an HFY seminar. It's perfectly reasonable that the answer would be an HFY answer, in HFY terminology, and would be primarily relatable to the HFY system. To expect anything else would be to misunderstand the original question. ]]

Can you offer for example a description of Yip Man style Dan Chi Sao from say 2 of the 3 masters you have on record plus your own personal observations having studied Moy Yat's interpretation via Benny Meng a certified instructor in that style?

Perhaps then someone like Tom Kagan can chime in that your description matches what he believes to be the essence of how this is taught and performed within the Moy lineage.

[[ This is an argument waiting to happen. Let's say that we discuss how Sifu A and Sifu B teach Dan Chi Sau. Then Tom lets us know if that's how Grandmaster Moy Yat taught it. Will they be identical? Surely not. The question itself can't be answered because the question has too many variables to be directly addressed. An analogy: I ask Barry Bonds how was taught to bat, then ask Mark McGuire if that's how he was taught. If McGuire was taught different, does that mean Bonds learned wrong? No. It just illustrates that the question is poorly phrased and inherently unanswerable. ]]

Then can you offer the same kind of discourse on the Hung Fa Yi Dan Chi Sao platform and principles?

[[ Sure, but based on the question, the answer is "HFY does it this way because that's how HFY does it. HFY compares to itself with 100% accuracy." Something everyone already knows. ]]

These are not personal attacks,

[[ I know, and I did not take your comments as such. If anything, there seems to be genuine interest and a desire to atually listen and give the information it's due consideration. Again, I hope I'm not coming across as deflecting the issue. Maybe what we all need to do - and I do mean ALL, as in on both sides of the coin - is post well though out, well worded questions that are simple and direct. Face to face, it's easy to ask what you're thinking right now and through trial and error fine tune the information to actually answer the question. On a forum such as this, all we have is exactly what was typed, and with the time lag of not everyone here at the same time, it's virtully impossible to satisfactorily address vaguely worded, fifteen point, directed questions. Much easier is "in YKS WC, what methods are used to introduce a newbie to proper root?" While this exact question has never been posed to my direct knowledge, I do know that Rene Ritchie, a YSK practicioner, has been simple, direct, and elegant in his responses to simple, direct, and elegent questions about his lineage and training methodologies. Much harder would be "Hey dude, what's you Biu Ji, and why do you do it different?" Do you mean Biu Ji as in "darting fingers" or as in the form? And different from what? All I'm saying is the answer can only be as good as the question allows - we all need to stay away from the "do you still beat your wife" questions that can't e adequatey answered because they are (or seem like) a set up from the start. ]]

Gentlemen, YOU are stating (not non-HFY students) that Hung Fa Yi has such a degree of rigor in it's movements and expression and theories that it can be expressed as a literal formula, among other things.

[[ True enough, and in our tests, we have to express the formula in motion, with no words, so by the very nature of our training methodology, every HFY practicioner is taught from the very start that explaining the formula IS NOT the formula, you have to SHOW the formula. Explaination is the semantic "at this exact time in this exact space with this exact energetic and this exact structure, the HFY formula would be manifested as exactly XXX." Bu a nanosecond later, that explaination of the formula would no longer be 100% because something may have changed. Although I would like to add (and I apologize if I seem like I am nit-picking) that your post was addressed "To Chango and the rest of the HFY family." I am in the HFY family, and I never made the claims that you ascribed to me as said member. And as I said earlier, and my Sibok Chango agreed, we do not represent the HFY family. So, to anyone not explicitly following this post, without us saying anything, you are labeling us, in the eyes of the readers, as representative of the lineage. The question, however genuine and friendly, is a set up (intentional or not). If I answer, the answer comes from me as MY UNDERSTANDING, but the context of my answer is framed by your inplication that as a member of the HFY family, my answer is the HFY answer. It might be, but it might not, and I don't wish to have the science of HFY judged my my mental faculties. ]]

Why is it that we could have the same kinds of discussion with students from the Chi Sim Weng Chun, Cho Family, Yuen Kay Shan family, Koo Lo family, etc. etc. in terms of comparitive differences, stances etc. but this discussion is seemingly impossible with Hung Fa Yi?

[[ I definately think that we can, but I also think that MAYBE because HFY practicioners see HFY as so precise, that the questions must be precise in order for the answers to be precise. ]]

[[ I appreciate all the points that you have raised, and I think I understand where you're coming from, and your points are all valid. I honestly don't feel qualified enough to offer up anything other than my interpretation at this stage in my training. That's not avoiding the issue, that's respecting the people here enough to be honest and upfront. Although I am sure that other of my HFY brothers and sisters would be happy to oblige, if given the opportunity through clear, non-loaded questions. ]]

[passing_through]

Facts... yes... Interesting.

- Andrew S wrote:
1) Yip Man's mainland students do not have dan chi sao
2) Yip Man's classmates do not have dan chi sao
3) Gua Lo has no dan chi sao.
4) I see no dan chi sao listed among the Chi Sim methods- particularily interesting as that art would branch at least roughly contemporarily with HFY. Is there dan chi sao in Chi Sim, and if so, where does Andreas Hoffman consider it to crop up in the art?

I can't make comment on the first three facts, but the last fact you need to check. While I don't wish to discuss Chi Sim Weng Chun out of respect for Sifu Hoffmann's wishes, I feel I must make comment to some degree. Chi Sim does not train Chi Sau; they train Kiu Sau. Chi Sim Kiu Sau covers both single and double arm training – so part of your argument needs to be readdressed. Chi Sim does not have Chi Sau; Sifu Hoffmann and Sifu Meng discussed Kiu Sau vs. Chi Sau extensively on Sifu Hoffmann's last visit.

In Southern styles, Kiu means "bridge" and refers to the arm, from elbow to wrist. Several Southern styles make use of Kiu Sau training:
- Leung Yi Mo Kiu (dragon shape feel bridge)
- Chu Ga Tong Long (Chu family mantis)
- Baak Mei (white eyebrow)
- some branches of Hung Ga (hung family)
- and two branches of Wing Chun: HFY and Chi Sim.

The focus of Kiu Sau is different is each of these families:
- Leung Yi Mo Kiu making use of a grabbing /clawing energy and finger power
- Chu Ga Tong Long focusing on shocking power and trapping
- Baak Mei focusing on shocking/bouncing power and finger power
- Hung Ga focusing on attacking bridges, using each motions as both attack and defense;
- Chi Sim focusing on flowing through all ranges of combat: kick, strike, grab, and throw;
- Hung Fa Yi focusing on structure.

HFY is in a unique position, containing both Kiu Sau and Chi Sau, to understand both Chi Sim Weng Chun (that has Kiu Sau but not Chi Sau) and other families of Wing Chun (that have Chi Sau but not Kiu Sau).

- Joy wrote: -
So HFY folks if they chose to discuss their system on the forum should be able to explain in a common language or style of communication their understanding or what they mean by a perfect tan sao, or time space relationships that they see, or an unique relationship to Chan and other things that HFY folks have referred to in the forum.

And who defines the "common language"? Should I bow to you or you to me? Communication is a two way street. You have to make the effort to understand what is offered rather than demand that the world be handed to you on a silver plate. I can give you the words but does your experience allow you to understand the words without experience of their meaning? No. Ask David. His ideas about HFY are different now that he's experienced a taste of it as compared to before his experience. David, what were some of your thoughts/"conclusions" before and after your visit? Was there something that you had idea X before the workshop and then realized we meant Z afterwords?

- Joy wrote: -
Correcting both sao and kiu seems very important to me to make sure that both the hand shaping and the bridge work is correct

You are lost in the terms. Sau and Kiu are terms for the body, yes (sau=hand and kiu=forearm). But that doesn't explain Kiu Sau. Trying to use your own frame of reference to understand something new is very difficult. You look at your understanding and don’t see what we’re trying to share. This is why Hou Chyun San Sau is necessary. Without direct experience of the topic under discussion, understanding will never be clear.

- Joy wrote: -
Kiu Sao and Chi Sao are two separate and distinct entities. If so why not define the differences in detail. What does HFY mean by the terms?

Ah, now you want to learn HFY? Are HFY students your Sifu? You're funny, Joy.

Kiu Sau refers to a specific timeframe. Before you can talk about Chi Sau or hitting (Saan Da) you have to address the Kiu Sau timeframe (timeframe – frame of time, sort of like a range in fighting but not quite; I’m still mulling over how best to communicate this concept). Chi Sau requires contact - but how is that contact initiated? How much is this a focus other Wing Chun families as a whole? Grand Master Wong Sheung Leung once said something to the effect that you don’t try to chi sau, you try to hit the guy and if he puts something in the way, then chi sau takes over to continue the attack. The mindset of trying to hit without regard to self-protection is alien to HFY (that is what Grand Master Wong’s comment seems to be saying – is there another understanding from members of his family?). I don’t go out of my way to kill you. For me to hit you, you have to really enter my space – this was the last topic discussed (briefly) at the workshop on Sunday (and also plugs into Chan, but that’s a more involved discussion).

Kiu Sau addressed how to engage with an opponent when making initial contact. Several styles make use of different approaches to Kiu Sau (see above) but HFY approaches the issue looking at human structure before looking at energy. If you don't have structure, there is no discussion of energy. If you play energy for energy, that’s ultimately a speed and power game. If I have the right structure, you can’t bounce/shock/grab/grasp me – you have no leverage for energy or grabbing.

Looking at structure, when I touch this guy, am I protected? Can he hit me or not? I want to find the position where I have maximum protection. From there, you learn to roll to maintain the proper range and find structure against changing energy. Can I hit my opponent at the range of Kiu Sau? Potentially. Is that the focus? No.

Grand Master Gee had several people demonstrate their reaction to different scenarios. In each case the person attacked without regard for the other person’s ability to react. In each case, Grand Master Gee demonstrated HFY’s response by finding the body structure that offered maximum protection without escalating the situation. Each position he demonstrated offered an immediate ability to escalate the threat to the opponent but always removed the possibility for the opponent to escalate the situation.

Kiu Sau <=> Chi Sau <=> Saan Da is the logic. You can also skip Chi Sau and move directly to Saan Da if the situation is right.

- Joy wrote: -
If the opponents bridge eneters your own bridge area - you need to turn thr situation around rightaway...there is more but I hope that you get the idea.

In your statement above, you’re referring to your opponent’s forearm entering the area of your forearm. In the Chi Sau timeframe, you’re right – you had best turn the situation around immediately!

However, this has nothing to do with Kiu Sau from the HFY perspective. If you enter my space and I break your structure with Kiu Sau, there is no need for Chi Sau. If I meet a thief on my doorstep, should I invite him in to the house before I beat him? Jokes about the law aside, if I want to maintain maximum safety, I want to address the threat as far away from my body as possible. Suppose I’m attacked by a knife – do I want that knife slashing around close to me or further out?

Chi Sau serves as insurance. If you have the skill to cross my Kiu Sau, Chi Sau comes on-line to restore my position and/or destroy your position and attack. These are two different technologies and trained two different ways. Each has a progression, set of experience, guiding Kuen Kiut, strategies/tactics, and Saam Mo Kiu experience. However, Chi Sau and Kiu Sau have different natures and can't be mixed. Kiu Sau focuses on structure while Chi Sau deals with the formula and maintaining/breaking structure to hit (in a general sense).

- Joy wrote: -
Much of the rest of your post is full of garbled jargon- which do not clarify key concepts

Chango’s comments on the prerequisites of are entirely appropriate and completely clear.

Without knowing the context of HFY, a clear answer cannot be given that you can digest. Great precision is offered but you have to be qualified to understand the answer. That’s not ego, that’s reality. How many years of math are required to understand Calculus? Chango’s listing of terms is neither garbled nor jargon. At least not in the sense of “obscure and often pretentious language marked by circumlocutions and long words.” I have the feeling that you were attempting to mean. The terms used are the most appropriate and the closes to the Chinese terms. If you sincerely wish to understand, quit kvetching like a child about how things are offered and sincerely make an attempt to understand.

Jeremy R.

[taltos]

Chadhuri Sifu, my comments are in [[ brackets ]]...

I see your genuine attempt at being "open minded".

[[ Thank you. ]]

The issue basically is that there should be a way other than "come to our workshop" for list members to discuss what they do with each other. Otherwise the forum will miss an important dimension of various wing chun folks discussing what they do.

[[ I agree. I hope that my post prior to this opens the door to that, althought admittedly the forum can only go so far, but much further than it currently has. ]]

Water over the dam.

[[ Again, thank you. If everyone could do that - start with a clean slate - I think we'd be amazed at what we could learn from one another. I can only hope it's not too late. ]]

You list several bachelors, masters and an abd as being mebers of your group. That is no substitute for substantial discussion between people ina martial art.

[[ Agreed. I was only trying to assure AndrewS that several of our members were familiar with academic methodology. I was not trying to imply that a degree somehow equals smarter. I thought I made that point, but it's certainly possible I wasn't as clear as I could have been. My Grandfather never graduated High School, and everytime I talk with him I learn something profound. And surely our WC ancestors were not all engineers and chemists. ]]

in doing and explaining wing chun. I understand that there are various levels of achievement. I dont speak for any one but myself either.

[[ Again, if we could all agree to speak only for ourselves... ]]

So HFY folks if they chose to discuss their system on the forum should be able to explain in a common language or style of communication their understanding or what they mean by a perfect tan sao, or time space relationships that they see, or an unique relationship to Chan and other things that HFY folks have referred to in the forum.

[[ Agreed. I hope my prior post helps this along. Thanks for the insights. Your points are well taken. ]]

[[ -Levi ]]

[AndrewS]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chango
[B]Andrew,
In light of not adding to the personal attacks. I will allow you to paint the picture here.

<snip> Chango's attempting to have an intellectual discussion and hurting his head. While I realize you aren't in a position to call your senior an *ss in public (a place I've been), realize he's being one.

<snip>They're worthy of a politician and demonstrate the level of mental acumen at which you aim to convince.

<snip>Trying to bullsh*t your way through something only hurts your case.

This is your self portrate! I think your words say it all Picasso . I'm not interested in a P$$ing match with you. I would just get P$$ed off and you would just get P$$ed on. So I will just allow your words to make it clear why your post are not worthy of my attention. Understanding is not what you seek just a poor attempt to attack something that you refuse to understand. Maybe you do not have the campacity to understand. I realize that if you are not ready there is nothing I can do for you. I'm sorry that you suffer.

Chango,

you seem to confuse attacks on your horrible communication skills and imperfect understanding of HFY history with attacks on HFY. Let me make this clear- anyone reading what you write will rapidly come to the conclusion that you don't know what you're talking about and will do anything to avoid admitting that. I have no respect for that sort of intellectual dishonesty. It's bullsh*t, and I have no problem calling it that in public.

Religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel, compassionate one.

Andrew

[Geezer]

Desertwingchun2 Wrote>

I honestly wish you will attend the next seminar held here in Chandler. If cost is an issue I will personally pay for your admission. Possibly then you will be able to offer a first hand experience point of view.

The man gave you a free chance to see it:eek:

Desertwingchun2 Wrote>

So again I extend an invitation to attend the next workshop here in Chandler at no cost to you. Maybe, just maybe, you’ll gain an understanding of the discussions that you have found vague and sloppy.

How can you turn this down, something you spend so much time talking about and you still question it:eek:

Yuanfen/Joy Wrote>

Sincere thanks for your generous offer. I will keep it in mind butI prefer first to be intrigued by HFY descriptions which is not yet the case. Iam not into BJJ but Renzo and another Gracie have writtena pretty clear book on what they are about. Taiji folks do a pretty good job on providing an intro to their subject. Seems like HFY should be able to do the same on the forum

Turned it down again but still wants to talk about it:eek:

Yuanfen/Joy Wrote>

Its gone on this far for the simple reason that the HFY folks on this forum throw out a word here and there or a label and then cannot or will not explain

Why don't you take him up on his offer, all it's going to cost you is the gas to get there, unless you're in walking distace:confused:
Atleast then you can then come back and in you,re own words tell everyone what you experienced;) Me Ol China

[AndrewS]

Hey Jeremy,

thanks for the very informative reply. The historical stuff needs answering at some point, but as I've said elsewhere history generally bores me.

Kiu sao- ok, so the idea is from precontact to control contact by making contact with the most mechanically advantageous structure as compared with the opponent's structure as opposed to bridging with an attacking bridge? Fair statement? An approach reminiscent of Xing Yi? I presume going directly to san da means moving in covered and safe and just hitting the other guy without touching his arms (bridging).

From this, I take it that in precontact as you are presented with different positions you will adjust your structure accordingly to maximize your advantages.

In my understanding of fighting, the most useful skill is to change as one moves in, changing to adapt to the opponent's changing position. Responding to a jab to frontleg takedown conversion requires significant change in body positioning. Is this part of your kiu sao idea.

Later,

Andrew

[taltos]

AndrewS wrote...

you seem to confuse attacks on your horrible communication skills and imperfect understanding of HFY history with attacks on HFY.

[[ Why attack someone for not being perfect? It can't open honest dialogue - it can only put someone on the defensive, besides being illogical because since no one is perfect, the implication is that it's perfectly acceptilble to attack EVERYONE for ANYTHING since they can't possible be perfect. If you have the opinions you stated, no one is going to tell you you're not entitled to them. But isn't fighting fire with fire, force against force, contrary to most WC? Is there perhaps a better way to go about getting answers, if that's really what you want, than by attacking the person your asking? I'm not even sure of the question anymore. Are you asking Chango about HFY Dan Chi Sau, HFY History, Chi Sim Dan Chi Sau, or if he has imperfect communication skills, or if he has an incomplete understanding of HFY history? If you ask question A, and get an answer you don't understand or one that does not address your question, perhaps you could ask question A again, in a slightly different way, rather than criticizing trait B or asking C and D and E. Without addressing the primary question, we'll all just keep going around in circles. ]]

Let me make this clear- anyone reading what you write will rapidly come to the conclusion that you don't know what you're talking about and will do anything to avoid admitting that.

[[ What if we come to a different conclusion? Like the conclusion that there have been misunderstandings on both sides - for whatever reasons - and instead of trying to go back to the beginning and re-addressing the core issues, we are instead going around in circles? What can be said of me, having made such a conclusion that does not fit into your definition of what ANYONE would conclude? This is the point I was trying to make earlier about loaded questions. The outcome has already been pre-determined, so any variance from that is an affront to expectation. ]]

[[ -Levi ]]

[AndrewS]

Hey Levi,

I've been trying to ask the dan chi sao question for the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread. What I've picked out seems to be that 'it was there all the time', with no explanation for it's absence in other lines. Ok, it's an unanswered question. There are a lot of unanswered questions on the table.

As far as why I'm teeing of on Chango- I have little patience for bullsh*t artists. Either you know something, you don't know it, or you have this educated guess based on this information. People who fail to answer questions in that paradigm I view as liars and bullsh*t artists and I don't suffer them lightly. I've seen that sort of behavior kill people before and hence despise it.

Later,

Andrew

[Grendel]

Originally posted by Savi

Each of the concepts intricate to HFY whom Chango stated are not simple.

Simplicity, though, is characteristic of Wing Chun.


Keep in mind that just this single question on the origin of HFY Chi Sao has gone this far on this thread. Each concept whom Chango noted are far to complicated to address unless ALL of us have gone through the Hauh Chun Saan Sao method. Mere visualization from words will not suffice to justice to both parties. The physical experience is just as crucial.

How can you function at all thinking the art is so full of complexity?
How do you reconcile the fact that the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man's first generation students say there are no secrets?


Without it it will be garbled jargon.

With or without, apparently.

Regards,

[Savi]

Originally posted by Grendel

Simplicity, though, is characteristic of Wing Chun.
[B]
How can you function at all thinking the art is so full of complexity?
How do you reconcile the fact that the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man's first generation students say there are no secrets?
[B]
With or without, apparently.

Regards,

So Grendel fully understands HFYWCK. Please enlighten us as to how the most foundational and universal equations of life became so simple? Use of concepts and principles may sound simple, may in application be simple, but these things are NOT born from simple understanding.

I also never claimed there were any secrets. Feel free to prove me wrong. :)

WC did not come from simple minded people.

-Savi.

[yuanfen]

Ah, now you want to learn HFY? Are HFY students your Sifu? You're funny, Joy.
-----------------------------------
((1. Not really 2. not really 3. Mirth is not a bad quality in life- if not harmful- and forum discussions are not generally harmful
and my intent is curious but benign))
------------------------------------
The mindset of trying to hit without regard to self-protection is alien to HFY
--------------------------------------------------
((( Alien to lots of folks besides HFY- which per the statement above by Jeremy, seems to be reinventing the wheel=repackaging the known))
------------------------------------------------------------------In your statement above, you’re referring to your opponent’s forearm entering the area of your forearm. In the Chi Sau timeframe, you’re right – you had best turn the situation around immediately!
-------------------------
((Surely))
--------------------------------------------


However, this has nothing to do with Kiu Sau from the HFY perspective. If you enter my space and I break your structure with Kiu Sau, there is no need for Chi Sau.
----------------------------------------------------------------
((Again, seem to be reinventing the wheel. So what is new.
Just learning that hitting without being hit is a good idea?
What remains is the bridge structure and in WC families their are some differences in the details of structures. The details of HFY structure is likely to have its unique qualities(on centerline issues for instance.))
-------------------------------------------------------------

((Jeremy-Cheers! you have been more specific than the others!-HFY per your points sounds like a re-packaging of ideas scattered in wc and southern arts- despite the "in" language
involved !. The fog clears .Happy Days are Here again))

[taltos]

AndrewS, Here's my answer based on my experience...

I study HFY and Yip Man Wing Chun. Both use Daan Chi Sau. I have no direct, real experience in any other lineage of WC except Chi Sim (said experience is VERY limited), so I don't know why they do or do not have Daan Chi Sau. As for Chi Sim, we have already covered that. I wasn't there when the training tools were invented/eliminated/rediscovered (if at all), and as I said earlier, I'm not fluent in Chinese, so I can offer no information other than that above that comes from anyone or anything other than my direct physical exposure to said training tool. I do not presume to speak for ANY branch of ANY art, so I am certainly not the person to ask about any other lineages if you want an "official" answer. I can't explain it's potential absence in other lines because I don't study those lines directly. Anything I offer would be hearsay.

QUOTE:As far as why I'm teeing of on Chango- I have little patience for bullsh*t artists. Either you know something, you don't know it, or you have this educated guess based on this information.

Is it possible that your assertion concerning my Sibok Chango's artistry is simply your "educated guess based on this information" (said information being the discussions on this forum)? Is it remotely possible that because you (presumably) did not train under Yip Man, Jee Sim Sim Si, Yuen Kay San, Cheung Ng, or Ng Mui (to include all possibilities), that any information you offered earlier on branches of WC other than your own are also "educated guess based on this information?" If this is the case, then would it be possible that you were guilty of the same crime (stating an educated guess as if it were a fact, repeating what someone else has told you without having directly been exposed to the experience yoursefl) that you are accusing my Sibok Chango of? Since "People who fail to answer questions in that paradigm I view as liars and bullsh*t artists," and in your earlier post you simply restated what others have told you (which, without direct experience would be nothing more than an "educated guess based on this information"), would that not put you into the same catagory?

Just in case anyone thinks I have an ulterior motive, I'll be clear. I do: We are all in the same position here unless we are Grandmasters, and from a technical, sematic perspective, any accusastions we make about the legitimacy of anyone else's knowledge can be applied directly to ourselves as well. Can we drop the jockeying for position and get back to WC discussion? I don't mean this to be rude (but sometimes honesty is viewed as such), but I am WAAAAAAY more interested in your personal views on Kung Fu and your lineage and your personal insights into the art than what you think of me, or my Sibok Chango, or the Pope, or President Bush. There are probably forums for that elsewhere. There's a saying I really like, and maybe we could all benefit from it. "What someone else thinks of me is really none of my business." Maybe if we realize that we're all in the same boat here (no pun intended), we can drop the bickering and actually turn it into discussion.

So on a final note (and please let me know if I have misinterpreted you), you think my Sibok Chango is BS-ing. OK. Everybody knows that. It's crystal clear. I doubt actually saying it has changed anything. I doubt either of you are fundamentally changed, or are going to lose any sleep over it. Can we move on now. Please?

-Levi

[taltos]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Grendel

How do you reconcile the fact that the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man's first generation students say there are no secrets?



I can't, because we're not talking about the Yip Man System. We're talking about HFY. Although I don't recall anyone saying there was "secret Yip Man" stuff in this thread. Another unanswerable question because of the context in which you expect an answer.

-Levi

[Chango]

As I reread this thread I see why it is clear "Hauh chun saan sao" must be used to pass this precise knowlege. this method requires direct face to face interaction between the two parties. I understand the frustration of those interested. I have excepted the fact that this information cannot be passed on in this format. I know some refuse to face that. Some choose to blame the system some blame the people sharing the information. Blame only points to suffering on the part of those doing the blaming. Some insist that this information can be passed via the internet and even more so a forum designed for short post. I very much disagree. however I have no issues with those that continue to attempt this. It is not appropriate to take it personal when I do not use the language familiar to the person attempting such a task. I feel even less inclined to help those that attack me for offering information. It is almost hilariarious that one would accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about becuase they do not understand I refuse to use terms less accurate to the subject at hand. I say to them do the home work! Anyone who has had face to face interaction with myself will attest to my genuine willingness to forward understanding. I do not take it personal I realize it takes patients on both sides. I do not feel the need to lash out if I'm uncertian. I cannot expect everyone to do the same. I can only offer compassion to those that feel the need to do so. Some have alot of emotion attachted to these threads. If the answer is not to your liking then please reword it or make clear where the misunderstanding could be. Again this all could be eliminated by just attending a HFY workshop or visiting the HFY Kwoon in Safrancisco or the VTM at any of the locations. I think it will be clear that we are very open a willing to share.

Chango (saat geng sau) :D

[Grendel]

Originally posted by Chango
Again this all could be eliminated by just attending a HFY workshop or visiting the HFY Kwoon in Safrancisco or the VTM at any of the locations. I think it will be clear that we are very open a willing to share.

If I were to pay a cordial visit to the HFY Kwoon in San Francisco, what would I be shown---could I see your sets? Would I be able to participate in chi sao, or at least watch an advanced class. Would someone help me in my understanding of how and why HFY considers itself different from other branches of Wing Chun?

I'm willing to take you up on this offer if you believe this will result in my gaining an understanding which I could take away.

Regards,

[Chango]

Hello Grendel,

I think a visit would not be a bad idea. I can not guess what subject matter will be covered and what classes you would be able to attend or the level of participate in such classes. I would first say that you should give them a call a discuss what you are interested in and make sure someone is at the kwoon to help you. You will find that you will gain a much better prespective of exactly what HFY is.

Chango (saat geng sau) :D

[AndrewS]

Hi Levi,

-QUOTE:As far as why I'm teeing of on Chango- I have little patience for bullsh*t artists. Either you know something, you don't know it, or you have this educated guess based on this information.

-Is it possible that your assertion concerning my Sibok Chango's artistry is simply your "educated guess based on this information" (said information being the discussions on this forum)?


Yup. My *educated* guess. I'm a critical care MD, I deal in uncertainty and educated guesses for a living. Often I have to base my decisions on the information others provide me. If I spend half the time getting half as much runaround from someone when I ask them a question as I have with Chango, I put the information I get from them in the 'highly questionable' category. The reason I do that is very simply because listening to those folks gets people dead more often in my experience.

- Is it remotely possible that because you (presumably) did not train under Yip Man, Jee Sim Sim Si, Yuen Kay San, Cheung Ng, or Ng Mui (to include all possibilities), that any information you offered earlier on branches of WC other than your own are also "educated guess based on this information?" If this is the case, then would it be possible that you were guilty of the same crime (stating an educated guess as if it were a fact, repeating what someone else has told you without having directly been exposed to the experience yoursefl) that you are accusing my Sibok Chango of?

No, I listed the sources for my information and have, in fact, presented *no* guesses about HFY. I pointed out that while Bloodgod was being abrasive, he raised some real and significant questions about HFY which are *still* unanswered in this thread. Perhaps no one here has the expertise to answer those questions, perhaps no one has thought about them. The immediate reaction to questioning was evasion and obfuscation.


-Since "People who fail to answer questions in that paradigm I view as liars and bullsh*t artists," and in your earlier post you simply restated what others have told you (which, without direct experience would be nothing more than an "educated guess based on this information"), would that not put you into the same catagory?

No. I stated what I thought and why. No more, no less, no bullsh*t.

-Just in case anyone thinks I have an ulterior motive, I'll be clear. I do: We are all in the same position here unless we are Grandmasters,


Speaking as a WT guy, I don't buy someone's history just because they're a 'Grandmaster'. Leung Ting's 'Roots and Branches' is a good collection of information on Wing Tsun, but I certainly don't take his statements within it, editorial decisions, or conclusions as absolute truth or untainted by ulterior motive. I don't consider that to be behavior unique to him.

If you're ever of a mind, spend a few years following the taiji lineage wars. Those folks have much better records than we do, and better and more varied academic attempts at writing a history. Despite all this, there are some people who still claim (based on a committee meeting decades ago) that the root style of taiji, Chen, is actually a separate art and not that from which Yang and Wu styles evolved. Chutzpah at its worst.

>So on a final note (and please let me know if I have misinterpreted you), you think my Sibok Chango is BS-ing. OK. Everybody knows that. It's crystal clear. I doubt actually saying it has changed anything. I doubt either of you are fundamentally changed, or are going to lose any sleep over it. Can we move on now. Please?

I think we're headed in that direction.


Later,

Andrew

[taltos]

[[ Again, my comments are in brackets. ]]

Yup. My *educated* guess. I'm a critical care MD

[[ I would imagine an extremely stressful yet rewarding profession, but still just an educated guess, just like anyone's. ]]

- Is it remotely possible that because you (presumably) did not train under Yip Man, Jee Sim Sim Si, Yuen Kay San, Cheung Ng, or Ng Mui (to include all possibilities), that any information you offered earlier on branches of WC other than your own are also "educated guess based on this information?" If this is the case, then would it be possible that you were guilty of the same crime (stating an educated guess as if it were a fact, repeating what someone else has told you without having directly been exposed to the experience yoursefl) that you are accusing my Sibok Chango of?

No, I listed the sources for my information and have, in fact, presented *no* guesses about HFY.

[[ I did not imply that you had made guesses about HFY. I simply pointed out that you are restating what other people have said, just like many others have done. No better, no worse. Just trying to find an equal footing and drop the jockeying for position. FWIW, the following link (http://home.vtmuseum.org/information/committee/index.php) lists the current members or contributors to the VT Museum. Any information has either come directly from one of those members or was researched/discovered/whatever by said member. Is that a sufficient citing of sources (please do not take what I say as abrasive, I only ask because the sources you gave were in the same vein - names - and both yours and mine can be contacted)? If it is not sufficient, I am sure the Museum would be happy to try to accomdate your inquiries. I'm trying my best to get resolution to things so we can step past them. If I can't answer directly, I can only point you to resources beyond my ability. ]]

I pointed out that while Bloodgod was being abrasive, he raised some real and significant questions about HFY which are *still* unanswered in this thread.

[[ I was unfortunate enough to log on after his post was removed, so I don't know what those questions were. I can only accept second hand information from others who saw it. ]]

-Since "People who fail to answer questions in that paradigm I view as liars and bullsh*t artists," and in your earlier post you simply restated what others have told you (which, without direct experience would be nothing more than an "educated guess based on this information"), would that not put you into the same catagory?

No. I stated what I thought and why. No more, no less, no bullsh*t.

[[ Then can we agree that whenever anyone posts, that's what they are doing as well? Anything anyone says is just what they think, and is not representative of anything in it's entirety, and, as such, is not BS. You have set the precedence: are we permitted to play by the same rules? ]]

Speaking as a WT guy, I don't buy someone's history just because they're a 'Grandmaster'. Leung Ting's 'Roots and Branches' is a good collection of information on Wing Tsun, but I certainly don't take his statements within it, editorial decisions, or conclusions as absolute truth or untainted by ulterior motive. I don't consider that to be behavior unique to him.

[[ Point taken. I admit that on this you have changed my mind. I should have said that only those who have finished a system are qualified (or POTENTIALLY QUALIFIED) to speak intellegently on the entire system. Admittedly, History could definately be separarted from system knowldege. ]]

[[ Thanks for the productive discourse. I agree that we finally seem to be heading in that direction. I only ask clarifying questions to head off misconceptions. ]]

[bglenn]

FOR ONLY $19.95 I will reveal all the secrets!This subject is wearing thin.

[Grendel]

Originally posted by taltos
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you reconcile the fact that the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man's first generation students say there are no secrets?



I can't, because we're not talking about the Yip Man System. We're talking about HFY. Although I don't recall anyone saying there was "secret Yip Man" stuff in this thread. Another unanswerable question because of the context in which you expect an answer.


Levi,

I thought you were talking about Wing Chun. Once again, you HFY cultists have failed to meet the challenge of giving a direct answer to questions.

Apparently you are all only interested in attention, but haven't got the goods to share.

If you don't care to stick to the subject of Wing Chun, why not take your drivel somewhere else? (BTW, don't bother obfuscating---that's only a rhetorical question.)

With all due respect,

[taltos]

The second line in the first post of this thread was "Hung Fa Yi Sixth Public Workshop." That means that the thread is about HFY.

The first question asked after the seminar was "How was the HFY workshop in Ohio?" That means the thread is STILL about HFY.

AndrewS' original question was "what is the 'clear origin of HFY chi sao." The thread is STILL about HFY.

etc. etc. etc.

But I'll go ahead and answer your question...

How do you reconcile the fact that the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man's first generation students say there are no secrets?

There is nothing to reconcile because, again, no one ever claimed that there were Yip Man secrets. If you want to know about WC, ask about WC. If you want to know about HFY, ask about HFY. By asking about "the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man's first generation students," you are asking me about what Yip Man gave his first generation students. That's not WC, that's Yip Man's WC. Just like what Yuen Kay San gave his first generation is YKS WC. If you ask a specific question, you get a specific answer. I thought I was "sticking to the subject," since the subject of the thread was a HFY workshop and the subject of your question was "the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man's first generation students."

I'll rephase the question...

How do you reconcile the fact that the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man's first generation students say there are no secrets {IN WING CHUN ANYWHERE, INCLUSIVE OF ALL LINEAGES}?

My answer...

I honestly don't see that there is anything to reconcile. That's what they were taught, and that's what their experiences re-iterated to them. I don't know what their life's experiences have given them, so I won't presume to speak for them. Again, no matter how many times I state that I SPEAK FOR ME AND NO ONE ELSE, any answer I give is automatically "the HFY answer." How many times do I have to say I DO NOT SPEAK FOR ANYONE BUT ME. I DO NOT REPRESENT ANYONE BUT ME. When Chadhuri Sifu mentioned earlier that he only speaks for himself, everyone seemed to be able to accept that. (And Chadhuri Sifu, I apologize in advance for potentially bringing your name into this. I am illustrating a point, but it is certainly possible that my words are going to be garbled into me somehow speaking for you or claiming that you somehow are in league with me. WHICH I AM NOT DOING.) Yet when I speak for myself, I am automatically speaking for all HFY practicioners, everywhere. Since WC is just WC, and we are just talking about WC, why am I not speaking for all WC people everywhere? Since I also study Yip Man WC, why am I not speaking for all Yip Man WC people everywhere? Since my Yip Man lineage is through the Moy Yat family, why not Moy Yat WC people everywhere? Or any combination therein? Why the distinction here? I didn't claim it, so why decide it?

I'm sorry that "I can't" is not direct enough. I always though that it didn't get any more direct than "yes" or "no." I am also sorry if you feel that I am somehow representative of a "cultist" in any capacity. I again invite the court of public opinion to let me know if I am behaving in the close-minded, I'm-never-wrong, incapable-of-admitting-error manner that generally characterizes "cultists." Just like you thought that a thread about an HFY workshop was somehow about all of WC, I thought a question that referenced the exppierences of Yip Man WC would be about Yip Man WC. There. We both made errors and did not understand what the other was after. I am not so full of righteousness that I cannot admit my share of culpability in a miscommunication. I do not presume to speak for you, so we'll leave your response where it should be: in your hands.

-Levi

[Grendel]

Hi Levi,


Originally posted by taltos
The second line in the first post of this thread was "Hung Fa Yi Sixth Public Workshop." That means that the thread is about HFY.

Let me remind you that this is the Wing Chun forum. Isn't it your contention that HFY is some form of Wing Chun Kuen Kung Fu? I'll assume a "yes."


The first question asked after the seminar was "How was the HFY workshop in Ohio?" That means the thread is STILL about HFY.

Passing Through posted the original thread 10-09-2002 11:24 AM. The workshop was held Nov. 1 - 3. The thread wound through many topics, mostly involving the inability of the HFY seminar attendees to describe in a credible way what transpired at the seminar. Since the thread started off with Rene's allusions to Wolverine comix, I hardly think that I went off track at all. :D


AndrewS' original question was "what is the 'clear origin of HFY chi sao." The thread is STILL about HFY.

And we're still waiting to hear the clear answers to that and inumerable other questions.

It's about time,
it's about space,
It's about the dawn of the human race....



etc. etc. etc.

Indeed.


But I'll go ahead and answer your question...

This will be a first.


How do you reconcile the fact that the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man's first generation students say there are no secrets?

There is nothing to reconcile because, again, no one ever claimed that there were Yip Man secrets. If you want to know about WC, ask about WC.

I thought I had. See above.


If you want to know about HFY, ask about HFY. By asking about "the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man's first generation students," you are asking me about what Yip Man gave his first generation students. That's not WC, that's Yip Man's WC. Just like what Yuen Kay San gave his first generation is YKS WC. If you ask a specific question, you get a specific answer. I thought I was "sticking to the subject," since the subject of the thread was a HFY workshop and the subject of your question was "the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man's first generation students."

My question related to the claim that HFY had some secrets that only they shared. You can claim it, but you can't explain it apparently.


I'll rephase the question...

How do you reconcile the fact that the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man's first generation students say there are no secrets {IN WING CHUN ANYWHERE, INCLUSIVE OF ALL LINEAGES}?

My answer...

I honestly don't see that there is anything to reconcile. That's what they were taught, and that's what their experiences re-iterated to them. I don't know what their life's experiences have given them, so I won't presume to speak for them. Again, no matter how many times I state that I SPEAK FOR ME AND NO ONE ELSE, any answer I give is automatically "the HFY answer." How many times do I have to say I DO NOT SPEAK FOR ANYONE BUT ME. I DO NOT REPRESENT ANYONE BUT ME.

That's fine to say, but throughout this thread and the forum in general, your HFY brethern jump in and out of conversations. I wasn't addressing only you when I asked my questions.


When Chadhuri Sifu mentioned earlier that he only speaks for himself, everyone seemed to be able to accept that. (And Chadhuri Sifu, I apologize in advance for potentially bringing your name into this. I am illustrating a point, but it is certainly possible that my words are going to be garbled into me somehow speaking for you or claiming that you somehow are in league with me. WHICH I AM NOT DOING.)
Joy Chaudhuri speaks for himself. You speak for yourself. I speak for myself. I get it. Everyone gets it, okay? Just the same, Joy, Andrew S, PlanetWC, and others have asked very patient and excrutiatingly detailed questions relating to analyzing the claims of the HFY posts. Start 'splaining, Lucy, or give up convincing anyone that you're not a group of self-deceiving brain-washed cultists.


Yet when I speak for myself, I am automatically speaking for all HFY practicioners, everywhere. Since WC is just WC, and we are just talking about WC, why am I not speaking for all WC people everywhere? Since I also study Yip Man WC, why am I not speaking for all Yip Man WC people everywhere? Since my Yip Man lineage is through the Moy Yat family, why not Moy Yat WC people everywhere? Or any combination therein? Why the distinction here? I didn't claim it, so why decide it?
Sorry. I don't mean to appear dense, but are you being sarcastic? I can't tell.


I'm sorry that "I can't" is not direct enough. I always though that it didn't get any more direct than "yes" or "no." I am also sorry if you feel that I am somehow representative of a "cultist" in any capacity. I again invite the court of public opinion to let me know if I am behaving in the close-minded, I'm-never-wrong, incapable-of-admitting-error manner that generally characterizes "cultists."

I think the jury is in on that point.


Just like you thought that a thread about an HFY workshop was somehow about all of WC,

The thread is a month old. It's fine if you want to rehash all the questions which left the questioners unsatisfied with the prevarication, obfuscation, and outright obstinence of the answers. Just don't expect me, speaking for me, I guess, to sit on my hands while watching the majority of resources on the forum go into this one arguably, off-topic thread. I thought I was asking a pertinent question. You didn't have to answer....


I thought a question that referenced the exppierences of Yip Man WC would be about Yip Man WC.

You're right. I haven't been keeping my tongue to the roof of my mouth and standing on one foot while grasping my hands behind my back. No wonder I missed that this thread was solely and exclusively the property of HFY.


There. We both made errors and did not understand what the other was after. I am not so full of righteousness that I cannot admit my share of culpability in a miscommunication.

I am usually not one to criticize someone's communication skills, but in the case of this thread, the sinuosity of the posits have led me and others to address how you write and reason.


I do not presume to speak for you, so we'll leave your response where it should be: in your hands.

And it is that sentence which inspired my latest diatribe. If the time comes that someone is truthfully willing to explain HFY theory and practice, I will be all ears.

Regards,

[Chango]

Hello Grendel,

I think there is a failure to comunicate. I know that you feel that those who have HFY experiences are to blaim but you may feel like you have valid reasons to be frustrated. That is ok but the cultist remarks are really uncalled for.

<snip>And it is that sentence which inspired my latest diatribe. If the time comes that someone is truthfully willing to explain HFY theory and practice, I will be all ears.

I personally do not think this is possible via a forum of this nature. I have to admit when I first heard about HFY information. I was very frustrated becuase the terms used had been very much the same and my other WCK experience was somewhat simular. However the differences had really made this system a different beast all together. You assume that we have a comon language. This is where the frustration begins. Keep in mind on every level of HFY there is a precise measurement that makes it what it is. This is a system so as we build on every small detail a precise measurement. We will find that every step we will find that we move further and further way from the common ground. So I will say yes you will find some of Yip man in HFY but you can not find HFY in Yip man only subtle simularities. Of course I can only speak from my experinces having finished the Yip man system.

<snip>My question related to the claim that HFY had some secrets that only they shared. You can claim it, but you can't explain it apparently.

Lets not say that "HFY had some secretes" the entire system was kept under wraps as a whole so let's not say that it is all of the other lineages plus Blank. No HFY is a system on to it's self. Just as I said before we have the same words but not the same definition. I will try to explain. but you will see this information in the VTM article http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/meng/jeung_ngh.php
You do not have to agree with the article's contents to find a understanding in it's explination of Tan sao!

So to answer your question I will use tan sao. In HFY there is only one Tan sao. we define every aspect of the art as well as tan sao with very specific criteria. To achieve Tan sau it will have to be at a exact (hieght), with a exact hand elbow to shoulder relationship (width) at a particular distance from the body (depth) and it can only accure at a precise time frame. Or you are no longer doing HFY tan sao. This is what is known as the focused state. Sure you can do your tan at different Hieght, depths, and widths, at what ever time frame you want. With some degree of affectiveness. however something will be lost in the process. So when I say tan sau I mean in the context of these variables. How do you define tan sau. what is your criteria? I hope while addressing this you see why patience is needed for this discussion and nothing is gained by insults. If I'm not clear on this please forgive me. I'm trying to make this as direct and simple as possible. Keep in mind I still do not think it is possible to deliver this information via this format. but I'm willing to help any one who is willing to try.

Chango (saat geng sau)



:D

[Zhuge Liang]

Hi Chango,

I have a question. How do you determine what the correct height, width, depth, and time is? I assume these variables will be different for each person since body types differ, but how do you determine what is optimal for each person? Someone mentioned the six gates. Are the optimal values of these variables determined by the spatial coordinates of these six gates? How? (for instance, 45 degrees from the center of gate 1, x=1 foream length, y = 1/2 upper arm length, z = 1 fist distance) Or is it something else?

What about timing? How is optimal timing determined?

I am genuinely curious about this. A friend of mine recently asked about how one determines the optimum. It would be interesting to see how HFY determines this.

Regards,
Zhuge Liang

[Chango]

Zhuge Liang,
Thank you for a breathe fresh air sort a speak. Your question is valid and I will direct you to article on the punch for further clearity.

http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/meng/wingchunpunch.php


I will clip your post to make sure I address all of your questions.

<snip>I have a question. How do you determine what the correct height, width, depth, and time is? I assume these variables will be different for each person since body types differ, but how do you determine what is optimal for each person? Someone mentioned the six gates. Are the optimal values of these variables determined by the spatial coordinates of these six gates? How? (for instance, 45 degrees from the center of gate 1, x=1 foream length, y = 1/2 upper arm length, z = 1 fist distance) Or is it something else?


Yes each person will differ on from another. But all of us being human we all can find our own optimal stucture from our own body measurements. keep in mind we are semetricle beings and the size of our body parts are in proportion to each other. So with this in mind our reference point I cannot use a approach using 45 degree or 4" and so on. As a example when I say put your right palm on your shoulder (which is not a HFY thing) I can say that your elbow will be in the middle of your chest from a horizontal point of view. This is true for humans 350 years ago and true for humans in Asia, Africa, UK, The Americas etc... so at this point we find the constant for human space. there are challenges on every level of HFY to prove one's proper space and time!


<snip>What about timing? How is optimal timing determined?

time is not the same as timing in the HFY discussion. This is a real challege to even begin with out some type of face to face experience. However I think I can use a example I us in many classes. What is better a boot knife or a hand grenade? Well most people say a hand grenade. the I say are you sure? I mean we are standing in a phone booth! As we understand more about focussed time and space it is as easy to see as the grenade versus the knife in a phone both. In the focussed state you reduce the possiblity of self destruction. So with this in mind and we understand how positions such as range,body positions relivant to the other person have a direct effect on the proper time of a technique. the proper time for a particular technique to get the maximum effect with the least amount of energy used (maximum efficency) is only a blink of the eye. this will express the precise nature we must have in regards to time. Again HFY provides precise challenges and references to make us aware of the proper time. This I cannot be begin to put in the written form. I don't think it is possible. I hope this helps you understand what is meant. Please check the punch article out if anything else you will also see the consitancy through out the system.I hope this post helps.

Chango (saat geng sau)
:cool:

[yuanfen]

Of course I can only speak from my experinces having finished the Yip man system. (Chango)
---------------------------------------------------------
The above statement speaks volumes on comparative ignorance combined with arrogance.(Yuanfen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets not say that "HFY had some secretes" the entire system was kept under wraps as a whole so let's not say that it is all of the other lineages plus Blank. No HFY is a system on to it's self.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The attempt to legitimize HFY's roots by reference to Chan is spurious. Chan is diffuse enough in Chinese history the claim of a specific link is spurious.

The long running lineage claim is also spurious- there are no known major counterparts in China.

Good Chinese kung fu requires long close and regular tutoring.
The story of secret history including creation story, temple name dropping then suddenly exploding from SF to Dayton and Chandler in workshops is different from the quality control one generally associates with great kung fu.

The claims of science and related terminology is "modernist" verbiage injected backwards in time.

Taltos- this boring thread is long overdue for the garbage bin.
taltos and grendel- if memory serves our troll in residence and
sometimes friend of HFY(RH) initially stimulated the question on the workshop BEFoRe passing through and others reported on the workshop. The HFY chorus then chimed in...giving rise very naturally to a variety of questions that has been responded to
often with arrogance and sarcasm and mostly little light.

Related newbies are often impressed with athleticism, mistaking ot for skill and kung fu.

The tradition should be continued and HFY should be kept a secret.

[taltos]

Hi Grendel,

I'll take to heart your points and I'll look at my past postings to see where my words could have been interpreted as having sinuosity. I though that my earlier statement that "I honestly don't feel qualified enough to offer up anything other than my interpretation at this stage in my training," would sufficiently create the framework of my answers to avoid misunderstanding my responses, but I certainly could have been wrong. I wasn't trying to be the expert, and I wasn't trying to dodge any questions. I was only trying to state what I thought (from my own experience), and to point out how maybe we all could try to ask better questions and answer the questions we were presented with without unrelated tangents or personal attacks. I'm the first to admit that it's sometimes hard to judge tone and intent from written posts, and it's sometimes very easy to completely misread something. Point taken, I'll refine my technique. Thank you.

It's unfortunate that your questions aren't being answered to your satisfaction. It seems that the line has been drawn (for whatever reason) on this thread and it's degenerated into something that probably won't allow friendly discourse. No blame to anyone, no pointing the finger. If anything, we're all involved. I really do regret that the thread has reached such a state, but there's nothing I can do about it, so I wash my hands and walk away. I look forward to the future, and I hope there's no bad blood. We've treated each other courteously and respectfully before, and I hope that has not changed in your mind. Maybe down the road the original intent can be revisited and resolution can occur.

Thanks to everyone who made the thread interesting without name-calling. You gave me an example to observe. Happy posting!

-Levi

[Zhuge Liang]

Hi Chango,

Thanks for the reply. I'm still not sure, but it looks like I was on the right track. If you don't mind, I have a follow up question. (If other HFY members can answer, please feel free to chime in) Now that we have a general idea of how HFY defines optimal for an individual, how did it determine what the optimal was? For instance, for argument's sake, let's say we have technique X, or X sau. Also for argument's sake, let's say X sao's optimal position is to be aligned with line 4, 1 fist distance from the rib cage, with a spade hand. My question is, how did HFY or HFY founders determine that this was X sau's optimal in the first place? How did they know it should be 1 fist distance instead of 1.5 fist distance? How did they know aligning with line 4 is better than aligning with line 2? And if lines 1 through 5 are taken as optimal lines, how was it determined that these 5 lines were optimal? Why is a spade hand more optimal than a fist? As modern day practitioners, how do you verify that they are in fact optimal?

If we were talking structural engineering, we can calculate stress loads at different joints. With calculus, we can calculate optimal. But how was optimal discovered in HFY?

Thanks in advance,

Regards,
Zhuge Liang

[Savi]

Originally posted by Zhuge Liang
Hi Chango,

Thanks for the reply. I'm still not sure, but it looks like I was on the right track. If you don't mind, I have a follow up question. (If other HFY members can answer, please feel free to chime in) Now that we have a general idea of how HFY defines optimal for an individual, how did it determine what the optimal was? For instance, for argument's sake, let's say we have technique X, or X sau. Also for argument's sake, let's say X sao's optimal position is to be aligned with line 4, 1 fist distance from the rib cage, with a spade hand. My question is, how did HFY or HFY founders determine that this was X sau's optimal in the first place? How did they know it should be 1 fist distance instead of 1.5 fist distance? How did they know aligning with line 4 is better than aligning with line 2? And if lines 1 through 5 are taken as optimal lines, how was it determined that these 5 lines were optimal? Why is a spade hand more optimal than a fist? As modern day practitioners, how do you verify that they are in fact optimal?

If we were talking structural engineering, we can calculate stress loads at different joints. With calculus, we can calculate optimal. But how was optimal discovered in HFY?

Thanks in advance,

Regards,
Zhuge Liang

Your "what is optimal" question is very interesting. I will try to answer this question to the best of my capability by addressing range (depth). The "Optimal Line" question I guess someone (anyone) will address later. Let me start off with a common reference for all; what HFY calls the "Wing Chun Range" or optimal range. Optimal [to me] refers to the distance where the opponent's body is precisely at the half point of the forearm at arm's reach (my own words) from the body. There is another way to address this measurement/range:

You mentioned the 'fist distance.' This is known as the Triangular Theory (how to find it).

1) Place your elbow one fist (your own) away from your rib cage directly above the same-side hip and point the elbow to the floor.

2) Center your fist between the bottom of your nose and your diaphragm on the centerline, (we call this the "locking position")

3) Extend your other arm completely and you should find that the middle of the extended forearm should match laterally with the opposite fist.

When your opponent's body is as close to your knuckles in the locking position, that range allows for penetrating reach for your weapons on contact. That is known to us as Optimal Firing Range. Anything further away constitutes more time and space for the opponent to react/counter attack. Anything less than that and you jam the elbow to the body taking your reaction time, and defensive/offensive effectiveness.

How this was realized and tested then, I cannot say for I wasn't there. How we test it today is through levels of skill challenges. At every level of learning in HFYWCK exists the skill challenge level where:

1) Time is spent internalizing basic movements (body mechanics) into reflexes. (physical factor) In other words, practice the moves until you can do it without thought but with accuracy.

2) Time is spent internalizing the scientific detail, concepts and principles (technical knowledge) to reinforce understanding of the movements.

3) Testing the end result of #1 and #2 combined, by a partner challenging your application/structure/energies of given technique (skill challenge).

Through the skill challenge method the practitioner tries to prove or disprove the subject at hand by testing it against live opponents. Through these experiments each student can prove to themselves if/when each technique works at the 'preset optimal' positions in space already determined by the designers of the system.

This is my understanding of how optimal range was discovered. The optimal positions in space are also defined by the Time and Space Concept. That will have to go on a different post (or by another HFY practitioner) because I am running out of time. Gotta go eat!

Let me know if you need any more clarification...

Peace,
-Savi.

[Rolling_Hand]

--Taltos- this boring thread is long overdue for the garbage bin.
taltos and grendel- if memory serves our troll in residence and
sometimes friend of HFY(RH) initially stimulated the question on the workshop BEFoRe passing through and others reported on the workshop. The HFY chorus then chimed in...giving rise very naturally to a variety of questions that has been responded to
often with arrogance and sarcasm and mostly little light.--Yuanfen
-----------------------------------------------------------

It seems like everyone but Yuanfen has an idea of what he should be doing. So what does that say about our troll in residence Yuanfen? humm.....!?!?

Each of us, as we journey through life, has the opportunity to find and to give his or her unique gift. Identify one talent you posses that has enriched the lives of others. Thanks to everyone!

[Zhuge Liang]

Hi Savi,

Thanks for the reply. It's very informative. So essentially what I'm hearing is that the optimal positions have already been predetermined by the designers of the system, and that you verify that these positions are optimal by testing them. If they work (eg. you can defend or uproot), you're getting closer to optimal. If they don't, you're not optimal enough (eg. you can't defend or are uprooted). Other than that, there's no real way to "prove" optimal positions in the way structural engineers or mathematicians prove or calculate optimal values.

Does anyone in the HFY family have information on how the founders discovered the optimal values, or is that information lost? What I'm trying to determine is whether they also found them through experience or whether they actually found them through geometric calculations, or any other type of calculations.

Thanks again for your time. This has been very informative for me.

Regards,
Zhuge Liang

[yuanfen]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
need to prove anything to rh?
nozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
poor chap-feel sorry and pity for his isolation?
yezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Rolling_Hand]

--zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
need to prove anything to rh?
nozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
poor chap-feel sorry and pity for his isolation?
yezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz--Yuanfen
------------------------------------------------------------

Evaluate your attitudes toward those things, like the ZZZ, that you cannot control. Are you usually negative or positive?

[Chango]

Hello Zhuge Liange,

<Snip> Does anyone in the HFY family have information on how the founders discovered the optimal values, or is that information lost? What I'm trying to determine is whether they also found them through experience or whether they actually found them through geometric calculations, or any other type of calculations.

I have to say this is a excellent question. I have to admit I have never asked exactly the method in which these refences had been realized. I cannot say that I know exactly the methodology of discovery. I can say that Chan as well as military influences are evident in every aspect of the system. However I cannot say that I know exactly the method at which the system was realized.

Chango (saat geng sau)

[Grendel]

I think Zhuge Liang is pulling our collective legs. How did an ancient Chinese tong lay claim to calculus and nanotechnology in formulating its contribution to Wing Chun? Why is there no record of this in China? Why is there no manifestation of similar science in other Kung Fu families? Why does my cat sleep all day? Was there a Schroedinger Wong, Einstein Tse, or Isaac Nu Ton of the Manchu period?

----------------------------------------------------------

If I were a detective like a young Chief Moose :)

"Now, Mr. Chango, you claim here that you've been studying this kiu sao, chi sao, and san da thing from Wing Chun Kuen since last year, but here in this other thread you say it was Hung Fi Yi. You also say that you practice
this--how do you pronounce it, Hung Fi Yi?--I'm Italian and I don't even speak Italian, so you can imagine my Chinese isn't too great--anyway, you say you do this Hung Fi Yi stuff, but I talked to some boys down at the lab who practice Wing Chun, and they say what you do looks more like what this guy named William Cheung does. This has me confused--can you explain that? I hope you don't mind my asking--it's just routine procedure,
you understand--my boss is a young guy, and he's a stickler for detail, so I have to have this for my report. Well, that's really all I wanted to ask sir--I'll leave you alone now, sorry to interrupt your Hung Fi Yi. . .
[starts to leave. . .walks out door. . .Chango turns his back. . .]
"Oh, sir?--excuse me! Sorry to bother you again. Just one more thing. . ."

[yuanfen]

Grendel: Sho-dinga will get you for that. Everyone including Seuss knows that the cat is in the hat- not in the box and not asleep. I think I saw your cat go by early this am in my time and space.

Yes- cyclical theories of history are understimated.
Toe out not pronated stance, center line-S, critical distance,
special transmission, original wing chun, ancient roots-mix of things repackaged and the show is on the road.

BTW, hung gar has emphasis on bridges.Many southern arts emphasize bridges. Wing chun does too-
chum kiu when properly done includes learning appropriate bridges in appropriate contexts....relative to other bridges.

[Geezer]

Grendel Wrote>

I think Zhuge Liang is pulling our collective legs. How did an ancient Chinese tong lay claim to calculus and nanotechnology in formulating its contribution to Wing Chun? Why is there no record of this in China? Why is there no manifestation of similar science in other Kung Fu families? Why does my cat sleep all day? Was there a Schroedinger Wong, Einstein Tse, or Isaac Nu Ton of the Manchu period?

Have you ever read or watched anything on the Great Wall of China and how it's made up, I think you're find it's quite amazing how advanced the Chinese were at that time:confused:

[Grendel]

Originally posted by Geezer
Grendel Wrote>


Have you ever read or watched anything on the Great Wall of China and how it's made up, I think you're find it's quite amazing how advanced the Chinese were at that time:confused:
LOL! Not mathematically! The Chinese, advanced in so many ways, rounded Pi to three back then. Obviously, this would screw up all the HFY formulas. ;)

Regards,

[Grendel]

Hi Yuanfen,


Originally posted by yuanfen
Grendel: Sho-dinga will get you for that. Everyone including Seuss knows that the cat is in the hat- not in the box and not asleep. I think I saw your cat go by early this am in my time and space.
He was in this box when I got him. He's been here in his box the whole time, but that doesn't mean you didn't see him. :) Heisenberg has one just like mine, but his is different.


Yes- cyclical theories of history are understimated.
Toe out not pronated stance, center line-S, critical distance,
special transmission, original wing chun, ancient roots-mix of things repackaged and the show is on the road.
You can't talk that way to Columbo! He's just a simple country detective, not big-city like Chief Moose. I hates to admit, I match the profile.... No one should read too much into that. :)


BTW, hung gar has emphasis on bridges.Many southern arts emphasize bridges. Wing chun does too-
chum kiu when properly done includes learning appropriate bridges in appropriate contexts....relative to other bridges. Chum Kiu, like all three sets of Wing Chun contains many profound insights. If any real intellectual types (hint, hint) get the notion, it would make a great academic study and the results should be published, not secreted in seminarys. :D