View Full Version : ATTN: Gwa Sow Chop

Kung Lek
08-22-2000, 10:20 PM
I have brought these posts to the attention of Si Fu Cameron. he thinks
this is getting out of hand and this is his reply:
Hello Gwa Sow Chop,
As my student Kung Lek has informed me of these posts, I feel it necessary
to respond, which is unusual, since I do not like to become involved in
> these discussion groups. However, the issues you have mentioned in your
> post to Kung Lek implicate myself and make indirect comment on my
> character ie. - and this was maybe not your intent (if it was not then
> please clarify). I have told my student that I learned Dragon System from
> my Teacher Si Fu Kudding and you say this is false. Now you can not
> comment with any authority on a situation/subject, when you were not
> there. I learned from Si Fu Kudding from 1974 to 1984. From 1978 to 1984
> I also learned privately from him as an 'inner door' student. It was
> during the private sessions that I learned forms 8, 9, 10 and Dragon. no
> one else was present, so no one - can comment - you just do not have the
> knowledge to... as you were not present. I have close to 30 years
> experience in Chinese martial arts and derivatives of Chinese martial arts
> such as Shaolin Kempo. I have seen many other styles in these years.
> With this amount of experience, I can safely say that the Dragon System I
> learned privately from Si Fu Kudding is most definitely Dragon of the
> Southern variety. It is not of the same lineage as your Si Fu, but
> 'Dragon' none the less. Now I am not discussing outer door forms such as
> 1 to 6 or even 7. Regarding these forms you seem to have a personal beef
> with Master Kudding - so please take it up with him and not I or my
> student. What I object to is your statement to Kung Lek, my student, that
> what I told him of Si F Kudding teaching me Dragon as being false or that
> Si Fu Kudding did not know it to teach it to me . This is a comment on my
> character, knowledge and experience and I most certainly do not appreciate
> it. If you think I do not know Dragon when I see it, then you also
> insult me. As I said, no one was present when I learned what I learned
> privately. My knowledge and skills speak for themselves as do those of
> your Si Fu, Neil McRitchie.
> Regarding your original post - you mention to come down for tea and then
> in the same breath you mention sparring.... so what is it - Tea?,
> Sparring?, Both? When done in this way, it could be viewed as a veiled
> challenge. All we wished to do was to clarify this point and i believe
> you have - Tea/discussion, thats all. By the way, it is really up to your
> Si Fu to make the invite, not you as a student, unless you have his
> permission.
> Now, I have met up with your Si Fu and my Kung Fu Brother, Neil and we
> have discussed this matter and agreed that there have probably been some
> misperceptions here that need to be clarified, which we have done. He
> will make a post re this and this is mine.
> Your Si Fu learned what he learned from our first Si Fu and I learned what
> I learned from him -- no one else has the right to comment on this except
> your Si Fu and I. So please, lets end this now.
> To Mo Ying - although I appreciate your defense of myself, please do not
> critisize my kung Fu brother, Neil. He is a most knowledgeable Si Fu and
> has most excellent sparring skills. We are Kung Fu brothers and did not
> spar years ago to 'best' each other.
> Sincerely
> Wes Cameron
> Si Fu, Shaolin West Kung Fu Kwoon

[This message has been edited by Kung Lek (edited 08-23-2000).]

Gwa Sow Chop
08-23-2000, 12:28 AM
Sifu Cameron:

Thank you Sifu Cameron for taking the time to post a response.

My original intent was never to question your integrity or ability. You are a Sifu teaching for 20 solid years, your reputation speaks for itself.You are right ...you learned what you learned. No one was there, during closed door sessions with yourself and your Sifu. Therefore if you state your sifu taught you dragon......then I believe it did happen, as I know you to be an honerable and honest man. I also do not believe you would willingly tell an un truth.

Thus I can not comment upon this. As you stated, this sifu taught dragon to you, and you are an experienced kung fu man....you know dragon when you see it. No contest. It was never an issue.You told your student the story of its origin and connection to the art called Shaolin Kempo.....as you were shown and told yourself by that instructor. It was not the story told to me by that same sifu. That was my problem......not with your student or yourself. I feel that when that Sifu that tells differant accounts of important points such as origin, and purpously misdirects his students.....that his honesty has to be questioned.

You have taught traditional kung fu for over 20 years, and a man is known by his actions.
So, this was a misunderstanding, as I had no problem with what truths you transmitted to you student.

If I may clairify... you are correct in assuming my problem is with any Sifu that teaches hard working students material that is misrepresented (saifa 1-6), then tells them a fictional account of how it was passed down from some mysterious master. This was, unfortunately, the pattern for that previously mentioned instructor, towards his hapless, gullible students, that sacrificed much time, energy,sweat and blood for him. As you know, the early days were guts and sacrifice. It is my opinion that it is morally wrong to play students like pawns, and then ultimately lie and disrespect them in the end no matter how he feels about them personally.

I was merely trying...in a very clumsy way, to point out that sets 1-6 are karate (reconstituted), and have nothing to do with traditional kung fu whatsoever. (from whatever origin that they are said to come from.) Sorry for the confusion, with your student and yourself.

Once again, no malice was intended towards yourself, or towards your senior instructor, as I enjoy the harmony between our kwoons.

Kung Lek:
My dad can still beat up your dad :-)

08-23-2000, 12:36 AM
Most irritating... you people are like little children playing a game...
Always looking for insult around every corner...and it's seems like it's mostly from non-kung fu "Chinese derivatives like Shaolin Kempo" types. Easily offended is a sign of weakness....

No one in there right mind is going to listen to a kempo guys banterings about kungfu. Kempo is NOT kung fu. There is nothing in the kempo mentality that has any RESPECT. So you kempo tough guys needn't get all upset in your pretend world. No one is going to swallow this garbage, since the most insulting and disrespectful thing in this arena is the "deriving" and "modification" that is brutalizing authentic Chinese MA.

By admission, this "dragon" fragment was modified beyond recognition, filled out with Karate etc. The sad thing is that kempo peeps know so little about kung fu that they think it's all the same and no one is going to notice that it's NOT KUNG FU. Well, how wrong you are. MA in Canada may not be what it is in the coastal areas, but apparently our friend GuaSowChop has not only NOTICED, but made some very astute observations and has laid it all out with referrence and everything. All kung lek can do is go tell teacher. All teacher can do is embarrass himself with the above post.

SORRY, but this is a world wide web and no one really cares about pieces of fragments of mythical styles with no background modified by a kempo "master" and mixed with Karate and other bits of this and that and set out in numbered lines no-less and called some silly name that makes it sound like kung fu....

mantis boxer
08-23-2000, 01:03 AM
Gwa SOw Chap? In chinese it's said in the order of SOW KWA CHAP! =]

Mo Ying
08-23-2000, 12:11 PM
So sorry, hadn't mean't to insult your classmate, just didn't like Gwa Sow's attitude and wanted to show him back, how it felt to have one's Si Fu insulted. Having known both you and Neil - sorry again.
Gwa Sow's recent reply is a lot lot nicer.
As for Mo Q - he needs to do something about that Turettes Syndrom he has -GET HELP MO Q!

Ben Gash
08-23-2000, 02:08 PM
MOQ, you need to do your homework. Both the sifu who were sifu Kudding's students have moved on. Sifu Cameron teaches Northern Shaolin and Fu Jow Pai, and Sifu McRitchie teaches Southern Shaolin 5 animals and Choy Li Fut.

08-24-2000, 12:28 AM
Glad to see mere personal attacks at me than more defense of that ridiculous Green Dragon or Flying Dragon or whatever the kempo dude called it after he made it up.
I'm not going to do any "homework" on garbage like this, sorry. I HAVE seen McRitchies website in reference to some unrecognizable "Green Dragon" and I HAVE seen Cameron's website with an absolutely absurd lineage chart, Tam Tui in the advanced class and claims that Hung Ga derived from Fu Jow(which it's the other way around). I don't even care about that.

I must be mistaken as to the subject matter. I was thinking it was all about some kempo "master" makin' crap up and calling it something that it wasn't and advertizing it on a WWForum like it was real kung fu and a couple todei's comin' down on a guy who seem to see deeper into it than the usual "I mix and match cuz all MA are the same" kempo attitude...
If these other guys have moved on I know why...

Kung Lek
08-24-2000, 12:58 AM

the more you post, the more you discredit yourself.
You sir are a troll to the umpteenth degree and this is the final response I shall stoop to give you.

People change, let's hope you can keep from the inflammatory remarks towards anyone and anything as you are so wont to do.


Kung Lek

08-24-2000, 01:29 AM
I too have seen the hung gar comes from fu jow pai statement and i must also admit that i believe this statement to be false. I would be open to any discussion on this and i would love to see some documentation on the subject.

Peace /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by illusionfist (edited 08-24-2000).]

08-24-2000, 01:38 AM
Considering the fu jow pai being a predecessor statement, it doesn't seem likely because as one of the stories goes, Wong Bil Hung was already a learned hung gar practitioner under Wong Kei Ying and Wong Fei Hung way before he even learned the Hark Fu Mun, and that wasn't even until Wong Bil Hung went to the Hoy Tong. Supposedly an old monk taught Wong Bil Hung, he passed it on to Wong Moon Toy, and then he passed it on to Wai Hong. So that means the hark fu mun as we know it is only 3 generations removed. Seems kind of small to be a predecessor to hung gar.

Peace /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by illusionfist (edited 08-24-2000).]

08-24-2000, 01:50 AM
Kung Lek-

the more you post, the more you seem like a Kung Fu Expert.
You are so polite and I'm glad it's so simple to be an "umpteenth degree" in your style... What color belt is that? Please discontinue stooping to my level of commenting on the subject from my perspective, Mr. Expert.

I know people change because your last post was short and to the point and these other guys have stopped presenting "Shaolin" kempo and that fake dragon style as authentic. I'm sorry if I've inflamed any delicate tissue in my wonton remarks towards anyone or anything...

But... It IS kind of funny that you post all the BS you do and just can't imagine how it would be offensive to anyone. Well it IS, and ya turned around and did exactly the first line of my last post, but at least you didn't stoop to the level of the kung fu subject at hand and instead chose to soar to the heights of personal attack.

I'm sorry, I'm just playin'. I just can't take all this too seriously... It would be really depressing if I thought these 2 fake "dragon" threads weren't some kind of joke...

Kung Lek
08-24-2000, 02:45 AM
Regarding the Hung Gar, Fu Jow Pai, Black tiger and tiger systems in general connectivity, the line from Wai Hong has its history as does every style of Kung Fu.

The real underlying message is that styles such as Hung Gar, Shaolin Black tiger and others do not have a clear foundation and starting point beyond that they have their beginnings at Shaolin Temple.

The Shaolin temple had Tiger, Black tiger that is where the styles you have stated all owe their beginnings.
With the exception (perhaps) of Pak Mei, also a tiger style.

The statements regarding origins and development of black Tiger system, Hark Fu Moon, Fu Jow Pai and others within the article point to the fact that lines are unclear. There is no falseness in this statement or the article in its entirety.


Kung Lek

08-24-2000, 02:59 AM
"The Hung Family Fist (Hung Gar) is very close in flavour and technique to Hak Fu Pai and is perhaps a derivative of it. It must be made clear at this point that we are speaking of the Southern system of Black Tiger Fist."


Kung Lek
08-24-2000, 03:09 AM
ok- in a nutshell, wong fei hung learned from who??
what was it that the monk taught wong fei hung??

Hung Gar is a derivative of Shaolin southern black tiger fist or Hak(Hark)=black, Fu(foo)=tiger as well as the shaolin tiger systems.
Also, Hung Gar was further delineated after Wong Fei Hung and the system was further developed by various masters into it's present form of today under various lineages whereas Hak fu Pai and Hark Fu moon remain closer in flavour to the original shaolin styles.


Kung Lek

08-24-2000, 03:30 AM
You need to check your history because it's a lot more complicated than that when it comes to hung gar. What i am getting at is black tiger does not seem to be too old, while hung gar is. If you go by the hung hei gwun story he was at the shaolin temple when it was raised. Hung Hei Gwun is attributed as the founder of hung gar. Wong Fei Hung came way later but he is considered the modern founder of what is now considered hung gar.

Although they may all have their roots in the old shaolin tiger style, they are quite different.

08-24-2000, 07:08 AM
I must agree with Illusionfist on this one.
Even though various Hung Gar linerages have their own history but to say that they all derived from Black Tiger is the first I ever heard of.
By the way which Black Tiger system are you talking about. If you are refering to the one from Sou Hak Fu ( one of the ten tigers of Canton), the system is Shaolin based and was named after Sou Hak Fu.
There is no way that Hung Ga can be a derivative of this Hak Fu Moon.
One reason being that Hak Fu Moon practioners punch with the elbow straight and lock while a real Hung Ga person will never do that. Also the Hak Fu Moon do not use sinking power in the bridge works while it is a major emphasis in Hung Ga.



08-24-2000, 09:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kung Lek:
Also, Hung Gar was further delineated after Wong Fei Hung and the system was further developed by various masters into it's present form of today under various lineages whereas Hak fu Pai and Hark Fu moon remain closer in flavour to the original shaolin styles.

Ok so what about this "Since Hak Fu Pai takes an area larger than an Ox to lie down to perform, it's forms (Kuen or Sets) have in all probability been modified from the original while at the same time maintaining its original techniques, flavour, logic and perhaps adding techniques which would complement the system."

I'm not trying to be a hardass about this, but you really don't know how preposterous a statement it is to say that hung gar comes from black tiger. Anyway, i just thought that i would point this stuff out, i didn't mean to change the subject of the thread. I won't argue about this anymore.

Peace /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by illusionfist (edited 08-25-2000).]

08-24-2000, 08:43 PM
I’m not trying to throw more fuel into the fire here… but I’m really confused. I can’t make heads or tails out of what’s being said in this thread. Hung Gar is tiger-crane right? Uhm, wouldn’t Shao-lin tiger boxing necessarily predate Hung Gar? Is this ‘Black Tiger’ stuff different from what I know as Shao-lin tiger boxing? My Sifu said that Hung Gar was partially developed from tiger boxing.

Anyone please?

08-24-2000, 09:43 PM
Hung Gar has the Fu Hok (tiger/crane) form but it is not the tiger/crane style. The tiger/crane system is derived from the hung gar form. The oldest form in the hung system is Gung Gee Fuk Fu (I shaped taming the tiger) which was developed by Hung Hei Gwun.

There is no doubt that hung gar has it's roots in the old shaolin tiger system. Hung Hei Gwun learned his tiger techniques from Gee Sin Sum See, who was well known for his tiger techniques.

Peace /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kung Lek
08-24-2000, 10:41 PM
Hi again.

there is a post on the kung fu forum that points to an interesting article regading the history and development of the Shaolin Martial arts and their ultimate dissemination to where they are now.

For the most part and with my knowledge and experience in the Shaolin Arts (which is not a whole lot i assure you but it is not "just a little" either) this article is pretty correct.

It will point out some stuff that has not been discussed here in this forum and will make some very cool tie ins for those of you who are missing a piece here and there.

enjoy! it's at http://pages.eidosnet.co.uk/kungfumaster/shaolin.html

And thanks to the poster tikwali for putting it there


Kung Lek

08-25-2000, 01:50 AM
Sadly, this Junior College report is compiled from several Internet sources and is full of misconceptions. The "author" of the site seemingly is a young British programmer.

The references to Fu Jow Pai are probably from a Fu Jow site, which is okay, but not meant to be an historical reference.

There's a difference between compiled reports from a variety of sources(anything can be posted on the Internet) and the history of a System from within a tradition.

The fact is no Traditional System would tread on another's turf or allude to a superiority, or insinuate a derivation. There's no real Hung Ga site that points out that the founder of Fu Jow/Hark Fu was a student of Wong Fei-Hung before he mysteriously learned this style from an unknown "mysterious" monk and set out on his own. Of course, THIS sounds more like Fu Jow/Hark Fu came from Hung Ga fairly recently doesn't it?

In order not to offend any more Hung Ga people, that particular reference to their system should be taken down...

mantis boxer
08-25-2000, 12:55 PM
Wong Moon Toy's anniversary book says it came from Hung Gar but is a little different. MOQ, I agree with you that you can't rely on internet sites as references. I agree wtih your kempo things as well.

08-26-2000, 02:42 AM
People seem to have a "concept" of Black Tiger being the original Shaolin Tiger Boxing style and maybe thats true.

The confusion comes from the fact that Fu Jow Pai hasn't much real history and only certain factions of it are simply CALLED "Black Tiger" for some extremely obvious reasons.

Whoever called this unfortunate attention to these details should not have boasted against the well esablished Hung Ga.

Kung Lek
08-26-2000, 09:48 AM

There has been NO boasting AGAINST any "established art".

hung gar is a great Traditional Martial Art.
In it's current state,There is one set remaining from it's founder that is based historically, orally, traditionally and otherwise in Shaolin Tiger system. All other sets came later such as Tit Sen Kuen added later, fu/hok added later and so on.

so the point of the article was that who is to say which was the predecessor. In all likely hood in many opinions, Tiger Systems and Black Tiger systems were being propogatd from Shaolin Temple Monks before the emmergence of The Hung Gar style as it is taught today most definitely and as well as the Shaolin Tiger based system which was the Original Hung Ga.

The system that I practice also includes original five animals or Four Lower Tigers system.
As a precursor to learning this system we are taught Hak Fu Pai, (not the Sou Hak Fu) but Black Tiger system of the Toisan district as well as Bak Sil Lum.

Admittedly, there are several very well established styles of CMA particularly those based in Shaolin methodologies and principles.

But because a system is well established does not give it any more validity as a system than any other system that owes it's heritage to Shaolin in a true sense.

This is where history differs. Once again Hung Gar is a great and formidable martial art derived and developed from a foundation of Shaolin Tiger.

The same is true of Hak Fu.

As well Fu Jow Pai has strong foundations by all measures in the systems of the Shaolin temple.

I think to discount any of these by rising any above the other is to lose something overall.

Perhaps any of them could be a derivative of each other or something else entirely.

The key word being "perhaps".

Rumination upon a line of study is not a waste of time.


Kung Lek

bean curd
08-26-2000, 10:30 AM
the post although i find it of interest, in the respective opinions of all those that have spoken, i must say that i find it of most interest that the origin of hung gar is being relaited to hak fu mun, or fu chau pai.

it is easy to say that these systems are reliated, due to there closeness with the use of fu ying, and that chee sin sim si was also a player of fu ying, however the history of hung gar is rather clear in its lineage down to the present day sifu's.

the inferance that hung gar has been changed due to the developement through wong fei hung, and for this reason hung gar (of canton, which i again have never heard being used until the late 90's)is not similiar to what it used to be, is most concerning.

the mou (postures) and faht (techniques), of the style where known to wong fei hung from his father, who it is genereally agreed to was trained mainly by lok ah choi.

however before hung hsi gwan passed away at the age of 90, in hua sien county, in kwantung province, lok ah choi was also trained with and by hung as well as chee sin sim see.

wongs meetings with many sifu's of differing styles due to his fathers' great ability, is also to be mentioned, then to say that wong fei hung would have changed the art so much that it would not or did not relate to the original style from both hung hsi gwan and lok ah choi, both having the same teacher chee sin sim si, is absurd due to the tradition of the day, and the respect to the art that wong fei hung would have had, for the art and the chinese tradition of respect.

this idea, seems to be a growing issue these days,how unfortunate.

lam tsai wing made it perfectly clear that what he taught was from wong fei hung and the sui lam gee , and those forms that he brought into the style later, when he opened his own gwoon and with the jin wu association where an addition, not a change of direction.

tang fang was also of the same calabire of thought, to that end, he was known to have said he would not teach what he had not learned from wong fei hung.

tang fang only went to lam tsai wing out of curiosity to see what he was doing, and learned some of these extra additions that lam tsai wing was doing , but also made it clear that they where not from the original siu lam gee carriculm that wong fei hung had taught. others also taught by wong fei hung, like dang yi , are known likwise to have made similiar comments.

lets not get confused with the thought process of modern day thinking people,and the ways of the elders,and there belief structre and processes they did in those days.

yes wong fei hung created extra forms, but no he did not create the postures of faht that are in these forms, they came from siu lam gee and witht the name of hung gar, but there origins are from chi sin sim si.

the postures of tit sien kuen, even though differing from those of tit kiu sams lineage, are still with the same intent, movement and postures.

to that end, if the issue of what came first, the chicken or the egg, then speculate on this, if you wish; but do not bring the names of the elders into question, and there contribution to the arts


[This message has been edited by bean curd (edited 08-27-2000).]

08-26-2000, 02:33 PM
My First Report,
"Hark Fu/Fu Jow Moon/Pai and it's relations to Hung Ga"

The history of the Hark Fu Moon or Black Tiger System is hidden in secrecy and has been passed down to us without any written documentation as with most kung fu systems.

Its name remained unexposed to the outside world until the establishment of the C.Y.A.C. Inc. in the City of New York in 1957.

One day Wong Bil Hong(Born in 1841, Wong Bil Hong studied Hung Gar Kung Fu with Wong Kay Ying and later Wong Fei Hung, eventually becoming a master of this system) met a monk who had separated from Shaolin and entered Hoy Hong Temple, who taught him Shaolin Black Tiger style.

Unfortunately this Monk's name was never divulged. The Monk's anonymity was the result of the Manchurian's hostility toward those monks in the Shaolin Temple.

Wong Bil Hong worked hard to master the Black Tiger System and he eventually became a master in this powerful kung fu system. In his lifetime, Wong Bil Hong taught this system to only 2 individuals, his servant and his nephew Wong Moon Toy.

The Black Tiger System of Kung-Fu that originated in "Shaolin Temple" and was preciously kept by the monks was RENAMED by the First Generation Grand Master Wong Bil Hong to the Fu-Jow Pai before his death on 1934.

On the death of his master, Wong Moon Toy came to America and brought this system with him. In 1957, Grand Master Wong Moon Toy was asked by his disciples to expose the system to the public. With his authorization and supervision, the Chinese Youth Athletic Club, Inc. was formed but only Hung Gar and Mi Chung I were taught. The doors to Fu Jow Pai were still not open to anyone.

When Wong Moon Toy passed away in 1960, he left seven disciples, one of whom he designated as his successor which he had taught Fu Jow Pai. Grand master Wai Hong, the Third Generation Successor, is considered the "Father of Fu Jow Pai"...

This is as close as Hark Fu Moon/Fu Jow Pai is ever going to come in claiming precedence over Hung Ga.

All info from various Hark Fu Moon/Fu Jow Pai Websites.

[This message has been edited by MoQ (edited 08-27-2000).]

08-27-2000, 02:03 AM
Ok i know that i said i would not post anymore about this, but some things have to be said.

There are a lot of things in hung gar that are still intact when referring to shaolin teachings. Just because we have gung gee fook fu kuen as the oldest form that does not mean that any of the other sets are not based in deep traditions. It is quite well known that Wong Fei Hung developed the Fu Hok Seung Ying Kuen, but it was not anything new. Wong Fei Hung had CONSOLIDATED all of the techniques that he had been taught and made it into Fu Hok, that's it. They were there the whole time.

Kung Lek, even on your own website there is a statement that refutes your whole argument which i have posted earlier, buy yet you haven't commented on it.

The point is this- BLACK TIGER IS NOT A OLD SYSTEM THAT IS ANYTHING CLOSE TO ORGINAL SHAOLIN (whatever that is) AND IT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING A PREDECESSOR OF HUNG GAR. Given the description that you have put on your website in regards to the forms being able to be performed in the space of an ox lying down, almost no system could abide by this. Gung gee fuk fu kuen is one of the oldest forms out there and it does not abide by this rule. If that rule was the case, only wing chun and possibly bai mei would be considered "original." Not even ha say fu fits this description, no matter how close it may be.

You stated in regards to hung gar, "In it's current state,There is one set remaining from it's founder that is based historically, orally, traditionally and otherwise in Shaolin Tiger system. All other sets came later such as Tit Sen Kuen added later, fu/hok added later and so on." Do you practice hung gar? IF you had, you would know how dumb a statement that just was. All the forms in hung gar are built upon one another. The beginning section of gung gee is found in Sup Ying Kuen and Tiet Sin Kuen. Many parts are replicated with different intents. So all of the forms have gung gee in them, in some way, shape, or form. All of the forms have deep roots and THEY ARE CONNECTED traditionally, historically, theoretically, etc etc. So please, don't be the spokesperson for hung gar unless you know what you are talking about.

Simply and clearly there is no argument. As was stated earlier by bean curd, hung gar has a clear lineage history all the way up to it's present day sifus and lineage holders. There is documented proof, nuff said.

Ok i am done with my rant...

To each his own /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by illusionfist (edited 08-27-2000).]