Fight History

[mtod1]

Given the reason for the development of WC does anyone know of any actual instances where WC was used against the Manchus during the time it was being developed.

Or, was WC never actually put to its original use. I ask only because so many people across the web claim WC is difficult or useless as a fighting art (not my opinion).

I'm thinking that if there were any actual historical incidents where WC fighters demonstrated their skill it would probably be a good indication of the quality etc of WC when it was originally developed.

P.s my WC history is dodgey but i remember either the huns or the manchus were repressing the other at the time.

thankx in advance.
Seeya

[Marky]

Hi Mtod1,

The book Complete Wing Chun points out that Wing Chun was likely developed covertly and even for assassination purposes. If this were true, those who suppressed the Ming supporters might destroy records of "Wing Chun Awesomeness", while the supporters themselves would embellish on it. Most of history is ambiguous heresay. You would be hard-pressed to find a detailed description of the time Joe Wing Chun beat up Jim Manchu =)

[reneritchie]

Legends say the Manchu were oppressing the Han (Chinese majority) during the Qing dynasty, but legends are often romanticized. The truth is, after the initial invasion and succession, the Qing proved very good at some things (they helped restore and promote Buddhist temples, worked on education and the licentiates system, etc.) and not good or oppressive at others (as was the Ming or any other dynasty).

WRT WCK in specific, the earliest people we *know* who practiced WCK were the Red Junk actors of the mid 1800s in Guangdong. We also know they took part in what became known as the Red Turban Rebellion (named for the common folk who came out to support them wearing symbolic red turbans). Under direction of Lee Man-Mao (a white crane boxer), they took to the streets of Foshan to support (or take advantage of) the Taiping Rebellion of Hong Xiuquan.

Now, Qing forces weren't all (or even majority in that region) Manchu at the time, but an assortment of local people organized by the wealthy (there's an excellent book on all this called Enemy at the Gate). There were repeated clashes in Foshan, which the Red Junk people (and the WCK people among them) may have taken part in, but eventually the locals turned against them (some of the rebels proved more oppressive to them then the Qing) and they lost Foshan. In retaliation, Liangguang governor-general Yip Man-chan slaughtered the opera performers and burned down their boats and stages. The opera performers that survived joined 'outside' companies or fled and his in the local towns like Zhaoqing, Foshan, Guangzhou, and some taught WCK to the people there (Leung Jan, Fok Bo-Chuen, Fung Siu-Ching, Cho Shing, etc.).

There are *rumors* that people like Fok Bo-Chuen and Fung Siu-Ching, who worked for the Qing government as arresting officers (constables) used their position to engage in assasination of Qing officials (and not all officials of the Qing were Manchu, there were many Han as well), but not proof of this.

Others, like Leung Jan, egaged in Beimo, or challeng matches, and proved their fighting skill that way.

RR

[Watchman]

Rene:

I think you may have your rebellions confused. The Red Turban Revolution occured during the Mongol Yuan Dynasty in the mid-1300's.

The Red Turbans were responsible for overthrowing Mongol rule and ushering in the Ming Dynasty.

Here are a couple of links:

http://www.warriortours.com/intro/history/yuan/page4.htm

http://www.uglychinese.org/ming.htm

[rubthebuddha]

rene/watchman (good to see you again, watch),

wasn't it typical for the majority of chinese dynasties to kind of take over where the previous dynasty left off -- meaning, the while it's a different group doing the governing, was there all that much change from dynasty to dynasty, even in the more urban areas?

from what i've read, it seems that many of the dynasties changed little more than who was at top of the political food chain. am i off on this one?

[reneritchie]

Red Turban seems to have been a term used by several groups, latter ones perhaps as tribute to former. This one (Foshan) *was* called Red Turban Rebellion, and is rather famous (again, the book Enemy at the Gates is all about it). There was another group known as Red Turban in Foshan, for example, not involved with this rebellion. Check out Tiandihui by Dian Murray for more. (There have also been Yellow Turban, I believe, and White Turban has had other meanings, etc.)

You can also check out the second section of this article for some info on how it all ties together: http://www.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=229

RR

[passing_through]

The history of Wing Chun is definitely connected to revolution activity during the Qing/Ming transition and very much a part of secret societies. However, I wouldn’t expect any official records found as the Chinese open up the Qing historical records. The Qing government would never have promoted information about anyone that was successful in fighting against it. Reasonably, any resistance would be downplayed if it was even acknowledge at all. Most of the legends of famous Wing Chun fighters, such as Leung Jan, date from after the destruction of the Red Opera. However, these fighters became famous because their families of Wing Chun moved away from political objectives and secret society action. From the oral tradition, Leung Jan was a great fighter. Those challenge were more about testing skill within the martial arts community rather than life-and-death, politically motivated struggles.

As always, Rene has done a good job at collecting and presenting a wealth of information on Wing Chun dating from the Red Boat to today. VTM research has focused on what was before red boat. Here’s some of the information I've collected over the last year.

Wing Chun originates from the Southern Shaolin Temple. The Buddhist community was a part of originators of Wing Chun, acting through a secret society known as the Fut Paai Hung Mun (Buddhist Sect Hung Mun). The name of this society refers to Buddhist involvement in the Hung Mun, a very large and loosely organized secret society. The met, practiced and developed themselves and fighting systems in the Weng Chun Tong (Everlasting Spring Hall). This organization was founded by members of the Buddhist order and were given free access to the Southern Shaolin Temple. The goal of the Weng Chun Tong was to continue to develop the methods of Chan practice, health and fighting.

Out of the Fut Paai Hung Mun, another secret society was created in the Southern Shaolin Temple (among possible others), the Hung Fa Wui. The name of this society comes from two influences - Ming supporters outside the Buddhist order and members of the Buddhist order.

The word Hung means red and symbolized the founder of the Ming Dynasty. Zhu Yuanzhang fought and won against the Yuan Dynasty, which had been founded by the Mongols. He was the member of a secret society called the Hung Gun (Red Bandanas). The Han Chinese felt that they had been invaded by the Mongol and Zhu finally defeated the invaders. Using Hong for the name of the secret society called to mind Zhu’s historic battles against the Mongol invaders much like the anti-Qing revolutionaries fighting against the Manchu invaders.

The word Fa refers to the connection between the secret society and the Buddhist monks in the Southern Shaolin Temple. The Hung Fa Wui was open to both Buddhists and non-Buddhists but only had limited access to the Southern Shaolin Temple itself. The Shaolin Temple, being a Zen Buddhist temple, would be inappropriate as the headquarters for a purely political organization. Therefore, the Hung Fa Wui met in a place outside the temple, in a location called the Hung Fa Ting. Sifu Meng traveled to the Southern Shaolin Temple personally and was quite surprised and happy to learn that the only original building left was the Hung Fa Ting.

Within the Hung Fa Ting and Weng Chun Tong, one of the combat systems that were created was referred to as Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun. Outside the Hung Fa Ting, it was simply called Wing Chun. The name of the system referred to it’s roots: Hung – symbolizing the secret societies, Fa – symbolizing the Buddhist connection from the Shaolin Temple, and Yi – symbolizing righteous action: developing the self and defending society. The name HFY remained hidden because it was only used within the Secret Societies.

After the destruction of the Southern Shaolin Temple, the secret societies dispersed to areas outside the Temple. Among the survivors of the Wing Chun Tong/Hung Fa Wui, Cheung Ng was one of the only historically verifiable person, founder of the King Fa Wui Gun (aka Hung Fa Wui Gun). After a few generations, Wing Chun took a root in the Opera. One of the groups that was founded out of the King Fa Wui Gun, about 120 years later, was the Hung Syun (Red Boat).

During the Hung Syun era, a leader of the secret societies and a descendant of the HFY Wing Chun was known to have close connections with the Hung Syun, Hung Gun Biu.

In the HFY oral legend, the 4th generation was Hung Gun Biu. He was a high level leader in the secret societies, hence the nickname “Hung Gun” meaning red bandana. According to the HFY lineage, Hung Gun Biu had an influence on Wing Chun’s development within the Hung Syun. AT this time the secret society members continued to refer to themselves as HFYWC while non-secret society members referred to themselves as Hung Syun Wing Chun. Up until the last 50 years or so, much of Wing Chun was not open to the public. The major contributing factor of Wing Chun’s introduction to the public was due to the destruction of the Hung Syun as Rene mentioned. Over the years, many great martial artists have contributed to Wing Chun such as Leung Jan, Chun Wah Shun, Yuen Kay-San, Ip Man, Ng Chun So, and others… Each has developed loyal followers, part of the reason for so many expressions of Wing Chun. Going back to the original question about Wing Chun and fighting, within each of these families either the Grand Master himself or several of his students are great fighters. To use the Ip Man lineage (the largest family) as an example, Bruce Lee and Wong Shun Leung are synonymous with good Wing Chun fighting.

I know several articles are in the works at the VTM, covering Zen and Wing Chun connections as well as HFY symbolism, and a report wil soon be published on Master Meng's recent trip to China and the Southern Shaolin Temple. In addition, there is a trip being planned for the upcoming research trip to China.


As always, previously publised articles (http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/index.php) are available on the VTM website.

Also on the VTM schedule is a Wing Chun History symposium this year. The goal would be to gather and review the most current information available on Wing Chun history from several angles. There would be no charge for this event and it is open to the public. Details will be forthcoming.

Jeremy R.

[Watchman]

Thanks for the info, Rene.

[reneritchie]

Hey Jeremy,

Happy new year. Hope you all have a healthy, happy, and successful 2003. I think you guys do a great job collecting and writing down the oral stories, and look forward to seeing your completed book when it comes out. Personally, I find it very difficult work--how does one weigh and assess the contrasting stories of people like Gee sifu, Henry Leung, James Lacy, Doo Wai, the Tibetain WCK folks, the Leung Chun folks, etc., nevermind the Yip Man, Sum Nung, Gulao, Cho-ga, Chi Sim, etc. lineages. So, as you know, I've been researching the actual history and culture of the time, and while I very much enjoy the rich legends, their symbolism, and allegory, I've been trying to see what actually fits.

Contrasting to your group, Andreas Hoffmann, Yip Man, Pao Fa Lien, etc. who refer to Shaolin (northern or southern), Cho & Sum Nung who talk about a blend of Southern Shaolin White Crane and Miu Shun's system, the Wudang people, and the rest, I'm still conjecturing about WCK evolving aboard the Red Junks, with Weng Chun referring to the boxing of Fujian's Yongchun county, and Southern Shaolin a cover story used by the Hakka (much as Southern Mantis was). With migration patterns being what they were, and even the Tiandihui itself developing as the result of Tixi et. al's migration from Fujian, through Guangdong, into Sichuan, and back, there seems lots of material and potential connections to sort through.

As always, though, I believe its better when there's more than one theory out there, more than one voice. I think respectful disagreement leads everyone towards greater attainment. Just as all theoretically physics folks don't have the same ideas on black holes, and all historians don't agree on every nuance of WW2, and every American doesn't want to drive the exact same car, I think our art is made better by the VTM and by everyone else who looks at the material, finds something they feel is solid, and works it through.

Best of luck with your continued work,

RR

[t_niehoff]

Hi Rene,

Rene Ritchie wrote:

I find it very difficult work--how does one weigh and assess the contrasting stories of people like Gee sifu, Henry Leung, James Lacy, Doo Wai, the Tibetain WCK folks, the Leung Chun folks, etc., nevermind the Yip Man, Sum Nung, Gulao, Cho-ga, Chi Sim, etc. lineages. RR

Particularly when many folks from these many different branches *believe* -- in the absence of evidence -- that their legend is factual and everyone else's is mistaken. Perhaps the place to begin the "research" is throwing out all the **legends** and looking at what facts we do know. For example, we know that WCK abruptly appeared around 1850 on the Red Boats with Wong Wah Bo, Yik Kam, etc. and quickly moved off the boats. We also know that there is no *evidence* of WCK being practiced prior to this period. I think the conclusion is obvious. TN

I've been trying to see what actually fits. RR

I think this is also a good, independent approach -- looking at the "techniques", choreography, etc. -- or as the chinese approach categorizing martial art, how the principles define and determine the nature of a style in two major areas, namely, body use (Ti) and application (Yung). Thus we can look Shaolin and White Crane (two suggested "mother arts") and see if, in terms of ti and yung, or even superficial appearance, they appear connected to WCK. TN

I think our art is made better by the VTM and by everyone else who looks at the material, finds something they feel is solid, and works it through. RR

IMHO any conclusion is only as good as the "research", thought, rigor, etc. that goes into it. As such, folks that publish conclusions or fruits of "research" without telling us how they came to those conclusions or what that "research" involved, leave us with nothing of value as we have no means to evaluate for ourselves the correctness of their process or conclusion (so that is really just a form of argument by authority: believe me because I know). And publishing a lineage's oral legend as "historical fact" -- and suggesting it validates the effectiveness of their art -- (which btw several lineages do; interesting that folks like Sum didn't need to go that route -- which may tell us something about folks that do), IMHO only leads to skeptical folks seeing it as marketing fluff. TN

Terence

[Geezer]

Rene Wrote>

how does one weigh and assess the contrasting stories of people like Gee sifu, Henry Leung, James Lacy, Doo Wai, the Tibetain WCK folks, the Leung Chun folks, etc., nevermind the Yip Man, Sum Nung, Gulao, Cho-ga, "Chi Sim",etc. lineages.


Contrasting to your group, Andreas Hoffmann

I "thought" that the "VTM" had been researching "Chi Sim Weng Chun" and found it to be the mother of all WCK(the oldest of the old):confused:
Haven't they been working very closely with Andreas Hoffmann:confused:, from what I've read on the VTMs website and Kung Mag:confused:

Terence Wrote>

we know that WCK abruptly appeared around 1850 on the Red Boats with Wong Wah Bo, Yik Kam, etc. and quickly moved off the boats. We also know that there is no *evidence* of WCK being practiced prior to this period. I think the conclusion is obvious.

Jeremy Wrote>

As always, Rene has done a good job at collecting and presenting a wealth of information on Wing Chun dating from the Red Boat to today. VTM research has focused on what was before red boat. Here’s some of the information I've collected over the last year

So, from what I'm reading here ;) everyone else is doing a great job of researching "Post" Red Boat to present day and the VTM are working heavily on researching "Pre" Red Boat history.

Terence Wrote>

IMHO any conclusion is only as good as the "research", thought, rigor, etc. that goes into it. As such, folks that publish conclusions or fruits of "research" without telling us how they came to those conclusions or what that "research" involved, leave us with nothing of value as we have no means to evaluate for ourselves the correctness of their process or conclusion (so that is really just a form of argument by authority: believe me because I know).

Jeremy Wrote>

Sifu Meng traveled to the Southern Shaolin Temple personally and was quite surprised and happy to learn that the only original building left was the Hung Fa Ting.

Jeremy Wrote>

I know several articles are in the works at the VTM, covering Zen and Wing Chun connections as well as HFY symbolism, and a report wil soon be published on Master Meng's recent trip to China and the Southern Shaolin Temple. In addition, there is a trip being planned for the upcoming research trip to China.

Terence, this might be something that's open to people that have never been to China before??, Terence have you been before:confused:

Jeremy Wrote>

Also on the VTM schedule is a Wing Chun History symposium this year. The goal would be to gather and review the most current information available on Wing Chun history from several angles. There would be no charge for this event and it is open to the public. Details will be forthcoming.

"Terence", this seems like a perfect opportunity for you to go see for yourself and get a closer look at what's being presented:confused:, I'm sure you're going to be busy?? or make some excuse as to why you can't go??? or you're not interested???;)

Hopefully, no-one will take offence to this post so it gets erased, I just think I'm raising some valid points;)

Sheldon

[hunt1]

I have held off for a long time posting regarding claims made by so many Wing Chun "Historians".

To be short There is a book Titled " History of Guangdong Martial Arts" ISBN 7-218-00434-2. This was published in China about 20 years ago. It represented 10 years of research by 5 Historians with the help of over 100 others. It was not written to validate any particular family or style or claim. They went all over Guangdong looking for written records. Wing Chun is but a small part of the book yet many interesting things for example. There was no Jee Sim. No record of him existing at all. Many things about others though. Perhaps if one of the "Historians" wanted to act like one then they might read and translate this book and use the records as the basis for true research instead of putting questionable oral myths to paper and calling it history.

[t_niehoff]

Sheldon,

Does taking tourist junks to China make one a "researcher"? Tell me, during all their trips to China, did they once visit their si-gung in HFY? TN

Sheldon writes:

I "thought" that the "VTM" had been researching "Chi Sim Weng Chun" and found it to be the mother of all WCK(the oldest of the old)
Haven't they been working very closely with Andreas Hoffmann, from what I've read on the VTMs website and Kung Mag . SG

You can "believe" (I think that's the operative word here) whatever you like. My post was about *evidence*not oral legend. No one legend, particularly in the face of the many different conflicting legends, is evidence in my book. TN

So, from what I'm reading here everyone else is doing a great job of researching "Post" Red Boat to present day and the VTM are working heavily on researching "Pre" Red Boat history. SG

If they truly are "researching", they haven't published what specifically this research entails, how rigorous it was, sources for information, etc. As I said in my post, "research" that doesn't let us judge for ourselves the correctness of the research procedure and the conclusions drawn therefrom is useless -- for anyone can claim anything (and for folks that drop the buzzphrase "scientific method", you'd think they'd know better). TN

"Terence", this seems like a perfect opportunity for you to go see for yourself and get a closer look at what's being presented, I'm sure you're going to be busy?? or make some excuse as to why you can't go??? or you're not interested??? Hopefully, no-one will take offence to this post so it gets erased, I just think I'm raising some valid points. SG

I also know of a symposioum on Bigfoot later this year, but don't plan to attend that. You see, before I spend my time (which is very valuable, and in short supply, *to me*) on something, I want at least some assurance it won't be a waste of my time; I'm sure that I'm not alone feeling that way. Perhaps folks that rely on "you need to actually see me/it/whatever to get an idea" might reflect on that. In any event, I've read the VTM articles on their "research" and their "conclusions". And IME if someone has substantive evidence to back up their claims, they'll produce it. And if the VTM had evidence that "nailed the lid on the coffin" w/r/t their position, they'd have produce it. I don't need to hear the same things orally that they say in writing to evaluate their claims. TN

Terence

[Geezer]

Terence Wrote>

You see, before I spend my time (which is very valuable, and in short supply, *to me*) on something, I want at least some assurance it won't be a waste of my time;

What do you consider a waste of time:confused:, seeing as this forum is for entertainment purposes, it seems you have plenty of time for entertainment:confused:
You have plenty of time to get on here but no time to go see for yourself:confused:
That's how "imho" it appears to me;)

Sheldon Wrote>

I'm sure you're going to be busy?? or make some excuse as to why you can't go??? or you're not interested???

Sheldon Wrote>

Hopefully, no-one will take offence to this post so it gets erased, I just think I'm raising some valid points

Sheldon;)

[Geezer]

Terence Wrote>

Does taking tourist junks to China make one a "researcher"?

Do What!!!!!

Jeremy Wrote>

and a report wil soon be published on Master Meng's recent trip to China and the Southern Shaolin Temple.

Jeremy Wrote>

Sifu Meng traveled to the Southern Shaolin Temple personally and was quite surprised and happy to learn that the only original building left was the Hung Fa Ting.

Terence Wrote>

Does taking tourist junks to China make one a "researcher"?

How did you come up with that:confused:, from what Passingthrough wrote, I didn't find anything about tourist junks:confused:

Sheldon:confused:

[Savi]

To Sheldon,
You do bring up some valid points Sheldon, and a great job at doing so! However, I'd like to point out that so do the other posters on this thread - based on what they can identify in what they've read. When you read something, you may see something others missed. When they read something, they may read something you have missed! They pointed out parts that they noticed to put in question. But, you also pointed out specifics which address Terence's and Rene's points effectively. I thought you did an excellent job without stepping on anyones' toes!

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

Terence & Rene,
With all due respect :), your points are clearly valid taken at face value, and your message is not lost on us. Most certainly facts are a neccesity when presenting new information. However, in the medium that the VTM staff is presenting the information - through a worldwide network of magazines and the internet, even with detailed accounts of their research excursions around the world - still what you read fact or fiction, is only an "oral account?" as you coin the term. Read being the operative word. Impossible to present the physical evidence through this manner of communication. The VTM recognize this fact, and have been consistently offerring invitations to the museum to share their findings in person.

Based on what I know from your postings, and my time here on the forum (which I understand is minimal), currently you have not been to the VTM to validate their findings. Are you looking for physical evidence? If so, visiting the VTM or going with them on their trips are only way to validate what the VTM finds or is presenting. However, they can only tell you what they have found so far, and where they are going next. People may call it marketing, but I find it the best and most accessible way to reach the public in a fast and efficient manner. If it is the job of the VTM to share its findings with the public, I'd think it be most appropriate that they pursue the most accessible route possible for the public.

One concrete source of evidence they provided with the public was the discovery of the Hung Fa Ting, recognized by the government of China, and solidifies the 'oral account' that the Hung Fa Yi family originated there. What effect does this bring to the other families that have laid claim to originate from the 'legendary' Hung Fa Ting? We know Chi Sim exists. We know Hung Fa Yi exists. Hung Fa Ting exists. All before the Hung Syun Era. BUT, of course skepticism is also neccesary when doing research, of any nature. The VTM also recognize this, and expect it. They did mention that future articles (and possibly photos included) will be forthcoming.

Personally, I currently am not part of the research team. I merely assist in the instruction of class at Mengs of AZ. One article I have recently read, found extremely enlightening, and full of information was Sigung Meng and Sisuk Jeremy's article entitled The Origins and History of Shaolin Weng Chun, which can be found under the articles section on the VTM web site. If you have not come across it yet, hopefully you have some time to read it.

Take care,
-Savi.

[reneritchie]

Hunt1 - good post.

Sheldon - Stop trolling.

[Geezer]

Rene wrote>

Sheldon - Stop trolling.

So it's considered Trolling to highlight things that are posted here:confused:,
If you want to call it Trolling then so be it, you are not the "Moderator" here and until I'm advised to do otherwise I will post freely!!!!!


Sheldon:p

[Geezer]

Savi wrote>

visiting the VTM or going with them on their trips are only way to validate what the VTM finds or is presenting. However, they can only tell you what they have found so far, and where they are going next.

Why does this make sense to me:confused:, if you find something so unbelievable why waste your time on it:confused:

Sheldon

[Savi]

I was puzzled by your assertion that the VTM does not inform the public how they conduct research. This link should help you understand the VTM better, and how they conduct their research.

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

I hope this helps in your quest.

Thank you,
-Savi.

[Savi]

Hi Mtod1, This link should shed some light in your direction. This is only one source, I understand, but it is relevant to your query:

http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/loewenhagen/myths.php

I hope this helps you in any way.

-Savi.

[Rolling_Hand]

Jeremy wrote:

As always, Rene has done a good job at collecting and presenting a wealth of information on Wing Chun dating from the Red Boat to today. VTM research has focused on what was before red boat.

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

VTM,

Two thumbs up!

Rene,

Hm....!!!



Geezer wrote:

So it's considered Trolling to highlight things that are posted here,
If you want to call it Trolling then so be it, you are not the "Moderator" here and until I'm advised to do otherwise I will post freely!!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------

Geezer,

Each of us, as we journey through life, has the opportunity to find and to give his or her unique gift.

TRene,

Yack!

[Chango]

Jeremy wrote: I know several articles are in the works at the VTM, covering Zen and Wing Chun connections as well as HFY symbolism, and a report wil soon be published on Master Meng's recent trip to China and the Southern Shaolin Temple. In addition, there is a trip being planned for the upcoming research trip to China.

--There is more information on the way! If you are want to know how the VTM does research go on the trip and find out first hand. "first hand" being the word of choice :)

Rene,
I think you should reread Jeremys post. (Please allow me to paraphrase here. Jeremy please feel free to add to or correct me if I'm wrong or in complete.) Jeremy simply states that based on these findings (the Hung fa Ting at the shaolin temple) the shaolin connection has been confirmed and Future information will be presented. I don't see why someone would feel this finding should be debated! Is the Hung Fa Ting at the site of the southern shaolin temple? Yes. Is the Hung fa ting mentioned in our kung fu's history? yes!These facts still remain! this is not a book that someone else has written or an opinion of some one else. Sifu Meng was standing at the site himself. This is why Jeremy makes a mention of up coming works that go into depth about this trip in the name of research. You can draw your own conclusions about any oral legend you would like. But the facts still remain.

Terence wrote:I also know of a symposioum on Bigfoot later this year, but don't plan to attend that. You see, before I spend my time (which is very valuable, and in short supply, *to me*) on something, I want at least some assurance it won't be a waste of my time

I did not know you are interested in big foot! Do you also spend your time posting on a Big foot forum?

:cool:

[reneritchie]

Since this thread has somehow once again been hijacked into "About the VTM" with associated trolling, anyone interested in further discussion with me on the topic is invited to email info@wingchunkuen.com. Other than that, I'm done.

Savi - Hopefully we can still have a civilized, individual discussion in the future.

Chango - Proctor Hoc Ergo Sempter Hoc is not a legitimate argument.

Geezer - Bollocks! ;)

RR

[Geezer]

Rene Wrote>

Geezer - Bollocks!

Rene, I'm not sure if you understand the meaning of "Bollocks":confused: but you talk about hijacking, and then you start insulting me:(
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't;)

[t_niehoff]

Hi Savi,

Savi wrote:

Most certainly facts are a neccesity when presenting new information. However, in the medium that the VTM staff is presenting the information - through a worldwide network of magazines and the internet, even with detailed accounts of their research excursions around the world - still what you read fact or fiction, is only an "oral account?" S

Saying one took a trip to China and uncovered information doesn't tell me anything specific -- to be able to evaluate the "information" for myself, I need to know its source, something of the source, etc. *including evidence to the contrary.* Let's consider the VTM's pre-Red Boat "history": where does it come from but for the oral traditions of Jee Shim and HFY? TN

Impossible to present the physical evidence through this manner of communication. The VTM recognize this fact, and have been consistently offerring invitations to the museum to share their findings in person. S

Please. This is nonsense. Physical evidence (or at least representations thereof) can be -- and is in every other discipline -- presented and positions communicated and explained via writing (as it is in every other discipline). One of my closest friends is a botanist at the Botanical Garden here and travels all over the globe collecting plant specimens. He publishes his researach. When he claims to have found a new species, he doesn't say "it's impossible to present the physical evidence of this new species through the print medium" and suggest that those persons who just don't take his word for it travel to St. Louis so that he can "share his findings in person." He'd be a laughing-stock in his academic circles. Complex physics and philosophy has been written about -- what makes HFY so unique? As I said, if someone has proof of a claim, they'll publish it; if they don't, that in itself is revealing. TN

One concrete source of evidence they provided with the public was the discovery of the Hung Fa Ting, recognized by the government of China, and solidifies the 'oral account' that the Hung Fa Yi family originated there. S

There is no doubt that the Hung Mun, Hung Fa, etc. all existed, and many legends of many different MAs draw on that fact; nor is it news that the Hung Mun, etc. tried to associate themselves with the Shaolin Temple, including adopting some name associations, for their own reasons. But the fact it existed doesn't in any way substantiate the claims of HFY (the Yip Man lineage claims lineage to Shaolin; does the fact that the Shaolin Temple actually exists prove YMWCK descends from there?). Or did, as I think is more likely, both HFY and YMWCK draw on pre-existing information to "fill out" their legends? The trouble is when we *want* to believe something, we can find all kinds of things that help us prove our convictions. TN

But I see that my initial question remains unanswered: in all of the VTM's "research", including the thousands of travel miles logged, trips to China, visits to all these people, did they ever visit their si-gung in HFY? Since it seems that the HFY oral tradition is being presented as factual, don't you think it makes sense to visit him (after all, certainly he can provide a great deal of info)? They visited Yip Man's grave to pay their respects but not their si-gung in HFY to pay their respects? That in and of itself IMHO is revealing. TN

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

And for Sheldon:

Sheldon writes:

Does taking tourist junks to China make one a "researcher"? TN

How did you come up with that, from what Passingthrough wrote, I didn't find anything about tourist junks. S

What makes their trips not toursit junks? How about when they write about the menus of meals they ate? ;) TN

Terence

[yuanfen]

"Is the Hung Fa Ting at the site of the southern shaolin temple? Yes. Is the Hung fa ting mentioned in our kung fu's history?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus , if someone says that what they do comes directly from the Northern Shaolin temple and here is such a temple- therefore
the style comes from there?.

QED?

Not so methinks- strange research logic.

BTW- I do think more than Rene that wing chun predates the Red Boat era- but lets face it- exact genealogies gets proportionately fuzzier each generation beyond leung jan for Yip man wing chun.

It seems to me that Rene is correct that the HFY folks seem to be interested in hijacking (and marketing).
We have no verfiable evidence of HFY lineage and practice with clear
linkages from now backward to even 4-5 generations, with the claim that it was all secret till now.

merely repeating something doesnt make it true.!!

From what little clear theoretical discussion on principles and structure we have had- I am unsure that HFY is even wing chun- though it may use the name and have some overlap in motions.

[reneritchie]

Geezer - It was a joke -- remember we had a discussion on favorite "English" terms? I assume'd you'd have the quote handy 8). Cor blimey, at least you didn't tell me to sod off! Now, once again, I leave this thread for the poncy little buggers what hijacked it...

[Savi]

Rene,
I am always open for any discussion I feel competent enough in discussing with anyone. I'm sorry you do not feel inclined to participate in further discussions here. I am uncertain as to what your definition of trolling is, whether it be an action or a person. I personally have been raised not to categorize people, rather, but to categorize their actions or behavior(s). So far on this thread I have not identified any comments as trolling. Certain comments borderline, yes, but not to the degree of trolling. Again, I am always open for discussion :).

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

Terence,
Has the link I provided to you clear anything up for you as to how the VTM conducts their research?

Also, WRT to your other questions - you did not understand my previous post, but more articles regarding your questions are in the works as stated before. Hopefully that 'reveals' more of the path to which you gaze.

On a serious note, non-related to this thread Terence, and I will only address this once: I request that you do not take any of the HFY family members hostage in your arguments. I find it extremely disrespectful, and down-right immature. Your conduct is crossing the line of diplomacy. Leave Sitaigung Gee's Sifu, and any persons of the HFY family out of your arguments. Can you respect this request?

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

Sifu Chaudhuri,
I respect your skepticism based on how much interest you show in the HFY.
I look forward to your continued input :).

Thank you,
-Savi.

[Chango]

uhhemm!

Fact- a few WCK systems have a very strong root in Chan
Fact- The same WCK has shaolin origins
Fact- Chan was at the core of everthing shaolin.
Fact- These same WCK mention the Hung fa ting in the history.
Fact- The Southern Shaolin temple has been discovered
Fact- The original building still standing is the Hung fa ting.

These facts stand! do with them what you want. If you choose not to acknowlege these facts that is your choice as well! But once again the facts still stand.


Yuan fen,
As far as claimes of marketing! I think it has been clear that this is not the goal of the VTM. It seems you have some sort of missunderstanding. This is your form of an attack on the VTM. But once again that misunderstand is yours. Once again the VTM has delivered information and great discoveries of historical value and some see it as a reason to attack. The truth is the truth rather you like it or not.

[yuanfen]

Chango sez:This is your form of an attack on the VTM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chango-I attack no one. A healthy skepticism on acceptance of new claims on history or science is fairly ingrained-in my perspective. This is not just in CMA matters. It applies accross the board.

Using the word "research" doesnt make it so. There are some fairly well known protocols for research even in the social sciences and humanities.

But Savi is correct- the discussions in this forum has not sparked an interest in HFY on my part.

When one sells a product and also claim research foundations-
tentative skepticism is not an unhealthy perspective to have..

[t_niehoff]

Savi wrote:

Terence,
Has the link I provided to you clear anything up for you as to how the VTM conducts their research? S

Not at all. Saying how something is done "generally" (in a fluff piece) and what was done to reach specific conclusions is something entirely different. I don't want to know how drugs are "routinely" tested by a drug company when a new drug is touted, I want to know specifically what tests were done, how they were designed, how they were done, what protocols were followed, etc. if I am to evaluate their claims. No such specificity is provided in VTM articles. TN

Also, WRT to your other questions - you did not understand my previous post, but more articles regarding your questions are in the works as stated before. Hopefully that 'reveals' more of the path to which you gaze. S

Savi, I don't have any position or opinion about WCK prior to the Red Boats since I haven't seen any substantive evidence that relates to that period. If someone has some, I'd love to hear/see it. Until then, I simply take it that WCK appears to have begun on the Red Boats. TN

On a serious note, non-related to this thread Terence, and I will only address this once: I request that you do not take any of the HFY family members hostage in your arguments. I find it extremely disrespectful, and down-right immature. Your conduct is crossing the line of diplomacy. Leave Sitaigung Gee's Sifu, and any persons of the HFY family out of your arguments. Can you respect this request? S

I'm not sure I understand -- I didn't open this can of worms. You see, the VTM position seems to be that HFY oral tradition is historically accurate (if you or they want to claim it's just oral tradition like everyone else's then there's no issue and I'll leave it at that). However, once they make that claim (especially with the VTM concerning itself with "researching the roots of WCK"), then I'd think that being able to substantiate simply one generation removed from Garrett Gee is an essential first step to proving the "history." (I can -- and I'll bet most everyone else can too -- in contrast, give you my sifu's and sigung's, Hawkins Cheung's, phone number; Hawkins teacher was Yip Man and I can provide photos of Hawkins and Yip together, other Yip Man students that rememer him, etc.; I even have videotapes of Robert, Hawkins, and Yip. Yip's teacher, Chan Wah Shun, was renowned and there are many folks that can substantiate his existence and that he taught Yip, including Chan's grandson (or physical evidence like the plackard in front of Chan Mui Yin's kwoon where Yip is listed as a sidai). And we can find his teacher, Leung Jan, buried in Gu Lao. Lots of evidence going back 5 generations). Yet, no one -- none of these "researchers" -- seems to have taken the very simple first step w/r/t HFY. Am I accurate is this regard? And if that first step hasn't even been reliably proven, how can you expect us to believe the second step (Garrett's teachers sifu), and so on and so on all the way back to the Shaolin Temple is factually accurate? TN

Terence

[Geezer]

Hi Joy,

Joy wrote>

I am unsure that HFY is even wing chun

Have you ever thought that Yip Man WCK may not be WC, every family that's studied under Yip Man, none of them look the same, where as from the guys at the VTM, they say that every motion in HFY WCK is precise and theirs no room for" I like to do it this way or I like to do it that way".


Sheldon

[t_niehoff]

Chango wrote:

Fact- a few WCK systems have a very strong root in Chan - C

Many WCK systems don't. And if it does have strong leanings toward Chan, how do we know these weren't adopted in recent history? TN

Fact- The same WCK has shaolin origins C

How do we know? Perhaps someone in the lineage who was a Chan devotee adopted the Shaolin origin as part of the legend (all legends had to be made up by someone) or the Shaolin legend existed and a practitioner of that lineage became later became a Chan devotee and now the two are meshed? TN

Fact- Chan was at the core of everthing shaolin. C

Lots of MAs claim Shaolin lineage -- some that even look Shaolin -- but haven't adopted Chan; and there are many Chan practitioners that haven't adopted MAs. Having a MA that says it comes from Shaolin and also purports a Chan philosophy doesn't logically follow that it came from Shaolin. TN

Fact- These same WCK mention the Hung fa ting in the history. C

See my discussion with Savi regarding the Hung Mun adoption of Shaolin, its terms, etc. TN

Fact- The Southern Shaolin temple has been discovered C

Actually, I think there is still much academic dispute. TN

Fact- The original building still standing is the Hung fa ting. C

Was this the "Southern Shaolin Temple" or some temple or something else? Again, if we want to believe something, we can find evidence of it. TN

Terence

[yuanfen]

Sheldon- precision is an instrumental value- its meaning depends on what one is precise about.

Shotokan folks are pretty consistent- I will take the diversities in
Yip Man's and leung Jan and related wing chun over it any day.

((Though not all wing chun is co equal))

[Rolling_Hand]

Yuanfen wrote:

But Savi is correct- the discussions in this forum has not sparked an interest in HFY on my part.

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

Yuanfen,

Then, why are you here???

Why not go home and say hi to your Sifu Augustine Fong?

[Rolling_Hand]

Joy wrote>
quote:I am unsure that HFY is even wing chun

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


There are over a dozen of Augustine Fong's students currently studying HFYWCK at Sifu Lowenhagen's school.

Are you personally hurt by this just because HFY is not attracted to you???

[wingchunalex]

I still believe that ng mui created wing chun kuen. in the way we do wing chun at my school it seems probable that w.c.k was created by a woman.

choh ma (sitting horse, turning stance)- this techniques would let a woman use her whole body to generate power. and difuse power. the way the hip looks like it is sitting down looks like it would fit the curve of a woman's body.

mobility- a woman couldn't stand toe to toe with a man, for example a woman of the same level as a man in hung gar or karate would be at a great disadvantage if they tried to fight the same way a man would naturally (usings upper body strength)

Iron forarms- this would be a great equalizer against a man that did not train iron forarms, she could injure a man with the block and the strike.

bil jee- the focus on eye jabs is a very basic women's self defence technique, it's an equalizer against a man.

softness- not meeting force with force. our blocks forcus on deflecting and redirecting attacks, never absorbing them. many shaolin movents only absorb for in hope that your are stronger than the opponent. techniques from lohan, tiger, and tam tui for example are quite hard.

speed- wing chun is based on use of hand speed and not strength, women have naturally faster hand speed i think. i've seen it in those warp speed chi sau competition.

to compare, if one compared wing chun with for example hung gar, which would you think was developed by a woman?

I definately see the shaolin influence in wing chun. (three prayer to buddha). I don't agree with the idea that wing chun is based on the movements of the human body. I definately see the snake and crain influence in wing chun. bong sau is definately not a natural movement for people.

on the issue of wing chun still having a chan influence- when ng mui taught yim wing chun, yim wing chun may not have been a chan buddhist, most lay people are not involved in dificult spiritual principles like chan. also the performers on the red junk may not have been buddhist. or if they were buddhist they may not have understood chan, but they did know wing chun.

what about other styles that have religious roots. there is shaolin tam tui, but tam tui was created by muslims, does that mean a tam tui stylist should learn islam or buddhism or both along with the martial side of the art from their sifu?

I mean no disrespect. the discovery of the southern shaolin temple, the hung fa ting, and the area around the souther shaolin temple is all very interesting. I very much enjoyed the recent article on the souther shaolin temple in the jan/feb issue of kung fu mag.

[mtod1]

Thanx goes out to those that replied to my questions.

Seeya ;)

[Chango]

Terence's logic

<snip> They visited Yip Man's grave to pay their respects but not their si-gung in HFY to pay their respects?TN

--Terence did you read anything on HFY? I know you are more intelligent then this! Do you have any knowlege of what a secrete society is? Do you hear your self? come on So let's go and find a secrete agent and ask him questions about all of his missions. Yeah and by the way who are your superiors?

Terence Your question was a pointed question showing your true intent. If this is not your intent then you hobviously lack knowlege of what is meant by secrete societies. Here read this it will help you understand what they have to do with kung fu.

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

<snip> However, once they make that claim (especially with the VTM concerning itself with "researching the roots of WCK"), then I'd think that being able to substantiate simply one generation removed from Garrett Gee is an essential first step to proving the "history." (I can -- and I'll bet most everyone else can too -- in contrast, give you my sifu's and sigung's, Hawkins Cheung's, phone number; Hawkins teacher was Yip Man and I can provide photos of Hawkins and Yip together, other Yip Man students that rememer him, etc.; I even have videotapes of Robert, Hawkins, and Yip. Yip's teacher, Chan Wah Shun, was renowned and there are many folks that can substantiate his existence and that he taught Yip, including Chan's grandson (or physical evidence like the plackard in front of Chan Mui Yin's kwoon where Yip is listed as a sidai). And we can find his teacher, Leung Jan, buried in Gu Lao. TN


-- once again you fail to realize what the term secrete society means. see url above.

--so by your logic Leung Jan invented WCK! there is no evidence of Wong wah bo or anyone else before Leung Jan! no grave sight or written word or picture for that matter!just oral legend as you call it! However Cheung Ng has been documented as a major player in the opera societies as a matter of fact even in a few writings (from opera historical documents) he was held in high regards for not only his intellect but also for his martial skills!

<snip>"it's impossible to present the physical evidence of this new species through the print medium" and suggest that those persons who just don't take his word for it travel to St. Louis so that he can "share his findings in person." He'd be a laughing-stock in his academic circles.TN

--Man you are really showing your lack of information here. Terence we can only agree that you do not have enough information on this subject to be so aggressive. You have no understanding of HFY beyond one segment of a friendship siminar. Since you have dismissed HFY so quickly please entertain us with your written discription of HFY. I think we all can conclude that you do not have any idea of what you are talking about. please let's not barrow from others to create your own. ;) * I think you know what I mean by this* ( obi wan has taught you well young skywalker)


Now let us review your challenge to the facts :)

1.Fact- a few WCK systems have a very strong root in Chan - C

Many WCK systems don't. And if it does have strong leanings toward Chan, how do we know these weren't adopted in recent history? TN

--- umm Terence those with shaolin origins have shaolin beginings and that tells us that it is chan. Shaolin is a form of Chan. Remember the little bald guys? I believe they call them monks. Refering to thier status in thier practice of Chan. So the goals and practice of shaolin monks are all based in or simply are a form of Chan practice.

2. Fact- The same WCK has shaolin origins C

How do we know? Perhaps someone in the lineage who was a Chan devotee adopted the Shaolin origin as part of the legend (all legends had to be made up by someone) or the Shaolin legend existed and a practitioner of that lineage became later became a Chan devotee and now the two are meshed? TN

--- Well Terence I think from this answer it is clear that you do not have an understand of why someone would practice Chan. Here goes Terence logic at work again. Terence you are saying in order to eliminate illusion someone practicing Chan creates more illusion to identify with practices that soul purpose is to eliminate illusion? I mean do you read your own post?

3.Fact- Chan was at the core of everthing shaolin. C

Lots of MAs claim Shaolin lineage -- some that even look Shaolin -- but haven't adopted Chan; and there are many Chan practitioners that haven't adopted MAs. Having a MA that says it comes from Shaolin and also purports a Chan philosophy doesn't logically follow that it came from Shaolin. TN

---psst Terence if you don't tell anybody you said this I won't say anything either. But to state the hobvious Shaolin cannot be be judged by a "shaolin look" and if you practice shaolin it would have to be Chan (remember the little bald guys?) So shaolin is a form of Chan practice. I in no way say that Chan is shaolin. (please reread) I said that Shaolin- (created by Chan monks) is a form of Chan practice. for the fiftith time. :rolleyes: can you hear me now?

4.Fact- These same WCK mention the Hung fa ting in the history. C

See my discussion with Savi regarding the Hung Mun adoption of Shaolin, its terms, etc. TN

--- please see notes above.

5.Fact- The Southern Shaolin temple has been discovered C

Actually, I think there is still much academic dispute. TN

--- please show it to me! I mean written and published. (as you say it) What grounds are these disputes based also how do you explain the artifacts already collected? or do you even know about these artifacts? :) later to be presented!

6. Fact- The original building still standing is the Hung fa ting. C

Was this the "Southern Shaolin Temple" or some temple or something else? Again, if we want to believe something, we can find evidence of it. TN

--- I see what you mean here you must have a mound of information that disproves this site as the shaolin temple! please entertain us all with your facts. I think we can also say if we choose not to face the truth we can come up with many reasons why we shouldn't.

In Qi gung kung fu magazine ( the one with Leung Ting Sifu on the front) there is an article listing a mound of evidence 10 things if I remember. This does not even discuss what the VTM has to offer with the recent trip and future trip! Terence YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE WEAK and come from a even weaker platform lacking any shred of logic. I mean come on the Chan/ shaolin and the realtionship of the two was a bit much even for you.

WingChunAlex,
If your conclusions satisfy you about "Ng mui" and the connection of your experiences of WCK to a women's logical method of combat. Then I don't see a point in trying to change your mind. I can only say that I very much disagree. I also ask a few questions. How many Shaolin nuns were there at the male living quarters and practice in the early 1600's? Also and why would Ng mui risk life and limb and even slow death torcher teaching such an illegal art to Yim Wing Chun giving away her nun status and illeagal status? I mean the legend says it was taught to her becuase of social issues! again I'm not trying to change your mind I'm just asking you the questions I had myself once I began to look further into history.

Wingchunalex wrote:
<snip>I don't agree with the idea that wing chun is based on the movements of the human body. WA

-- if not human movements how can it be more efficient?

Just some questions I have in regards to what you offered. I mean no disrespect to you. I'm just presenting a few of the many issues I have with the Ng Mui story.

Good day fellas!

Chango (saat geng sau)

:D

[Chango]

Yeun fen,
Congrats on 2052 post!! Man when do you train or teach? Or have you just been posting for that long? yeah but even so 2052!!!!!

on another note!

Joy wrote: precision is an instrumental value- its meaning depends on what one is precise about.

--- Joy HFY has a precise method of preserving and defining what is a perfect Tan, Bong, fook etc.. and a criteria to test it. Do you? is yours even the same as your Sifu's? and how do you know yours are at maximum effieciency if you do not have a precise method or a way to test it. Please give me a precise discription on a technique and how it can be passed down and tested. To disprove my point here.


Joy wrote: Shotokan folks are pretty consistent- I will take the diversities in
Yip Man's and leung Jan and related wing chun over it any day.

--- wow you seem to not be able to distinguish the differents between application and form. Yes the art must be consistent with the physical realities of the human body and 3D space and time. Diversities is gained through the proper control of these variables for every action the proper reaction. I hope you see what I mean here. I'm looking forward to #2053!!!!!


Chango (Saat geng sau)


:cool:

[t_niehoff]

Hi Chango,

I'll be the first to admit that my info on HFY is very limited (to personally seeing Garrett demonstrate HFY and listening to him lecture/answer questions; reading published materials; and speaking with WCK brothers that have attended HFY seminars). Personally, I don't care much about it as I'm very satisfied with what I'm doing. If it provides what you are looking for, then I'm very happy for you. TN

You do need to understand, however, that if the VTM or HFY contends that HFY's oral tradition (history) is factual as opposed to legend, that inevitably leads to the issue of proof (how do you know?). For me, and I'll bet many others, appeals to "because Garrett Gee says so" (i.e., HFY oral tradition) doesn't meet any criteria of reliability. Anyone can claim (and perhaps honestly believe themselves) to be related to George Washington. If they do, the next step is to find out *with certainty* who their father is, who that person's father is, and so on all the way back to GW; we don't rely on simply their say-so or their name dropping. Being able to point to *some* folks that actually existed in the past and calling them ancestors without being able to genuinely "connect the dots" doesn't provide certainty either (anyone can do that). TN

Your suggestion that Garrett's teacher, and I suppose any recent lineage of HFY, can't be "researched" due to his status as a "secret agent" (and leaving aside for the moment the logic of that argument) puts HFY and the VTM in a quandry: how can you (or they) suggest the lineage is factually accurate when it can't be -- according to you -- reliably proven? Any claim that can't be proven can't IMHO call itself "factual" or "true" (it may be true, it may be false -- in either case, we don't *know*). So, it comes back to accepting what Garrett says as true because he says so. Again, that may be fine for you; but you need to understand that it is not for some us. TN

You are correct that I can, for example, only "connect the dots" of my lineage with certainty as far back as Leung Jan. His claim of learning from WWB is corroborated to some degree by other lineages, unrelated to LJ, that claim WWB as their progenitor (and the similarity in what they do) and by other lineages that list WWB as a teacher of WCK on the Red Boats. Prior to that period, there is no corroboration or reliable evidence to support any "theory" (although there are many legends). I think this just shows, as Joy pointed out, the difficulty in proving WCK's pre-Red Boat history *if any.* While we can trace back with certainty to the Red Boat many lineages of WCK, HFY hasn't been able to even do that. And if that can't be done, how can you take the next giant step of tracing it reliably (so that you can call it "fact" or "true") all the way back to Shaolin? TN

And BTW, your syllogism of "Garrett says HFY is from Shaolin" and we practice Chan in HFY, and we know Chan comes from Shaolin, so this proves HFY comes from Shaolin is blatantly fallacious. TN

Terence

[Savi]

Terence,

Sibok Chango does bring up some valid points. Earlier you pointed out some Wing Chun greats such as Wong Wah Bo and Leung Yi Tai, however, to date there is no verifiable proof that they ever existed. No historical documentation, no grave site(s), no personal items of theirs anywhere. Merely the oral passing of legends. I do not see how you can, with certainty, connect the dots. I'd like to know what proof you have, if any, which might prove the contrary. There is however, documented proof of Cheung Ng (Tan Sao Ng), which is in HFY history.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And BTW, your syllogism of "Garrett says HFY is from Shaolin" and we practice Chan in HFY, and we know Chan comes from Shaolin, so this proves HFY comes from Shaolin is blatantly fallacious. TN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terence, to make the above statement as you did, is in its entireity - inaccurate. You have admitted to NOT understanding HFY. You do not have even a basis of knowledge to judge HFY, and therefore make such a statement. Your limited experience in HFY cannot take you to the level of expertise [on any level] on HFY which you seem to exude. You judge things without even knowing, and expect us to do the same to our own family? Unlike you, that is something I cannot do, and you still have not demonstrated an understanding of the nature of secret societies. Just because something (anything) is not known to you, does not mean it doesn't exist. Hence, the reality/process of learning.

Regards,
-Savi.

[Geezer]

Terence Wrote>

in all of the VTM's "research", including the thousands of travel miles logged, trips to China, visits to all these people, did they ever visit their si-gung in HFY? Since it seems that the HFY oral tradition is being presented as factual, don't you think it makes sense to visit him (after all, certainly he can provide a great deal of info)? They visited Yip Man's grave to pay their respects but not their si-gung in HFY to pay their respects?

Savi Wrote>

On a serious note, non-related to this thread Terence, and I will only address this once: I request that you do not take any of the HFY family members hostage in your arguments. I find it extremely disrespectful, and down-right immature. Your conduct is crossing the line of diplomacy. Leave Sitaigung Gee's Sifu, and any persons of the HFY family out of your arguments.

Terence wrote>

I didn't open this can of worms.

Chango Wrote>

Yeah and by the way who are your superiors?

Terence wrote>

You are correct that I can, for example, only "connect the dots" of my lineage with certainty as far back as Leung Jan.

Terence wrote>

I can -- and I'll bet most everyone else can too -- in contrast, give you my sifu's and sigung's, Hawkins Cheung's, phone number; Hawkins teacher was Yip Man and I can provide photos of Hawkins and Yip together, other Yip Man students that rememer him, etc

Terence, you're able to connect the dots on the Yip Man side, what about the Gu Lao WCK:confused:

Now, I don't think this is a flame in any way shape or form, the question I just asked is no different to what you(Terence) asked of the VTM;)

I'll wait and see if this post is erased:)

Sheldon

[yuanfen]

Chango sez:Joy HFY has a precise method of preserving and defining what is a perfect Tan, Bong, fook etc.. and a criteria to test it. Do you? is yours even the same as your Sifu's? and how do you know yours are at maximum effieciency if you do not have a precise method or a way to test it. Please give me a precise discription on a technique and how it can be passed down and tested. To disprove my point here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chango- I dont have to give you anything. I generally by pass "true believers" and ideologues who just repeat the same things-in this case about the perfect tan. To get out of this boring rut you may wish to describe in
public language - what you are calling the perfect tan.

Good wishes in your own hitherto secret newly released art

My "imperfect" tan has been tested often enough.

[Geezer]

wingchunalex Wrote>

I still believe that ng mui created wing chun kuen. in the way we do wing chun at my school it seems probable that w.c.k was created by a woman.

Why is it then that it seems there are a larger amount of Male WCK practioners than Female:confused:

wingchunalex Wrote>

softness- not meeting force with force. our blocks forcus on deflecting and redirecting attacks, never absorbing them.

I think you may find that's across the board, not just WCK, have you ever READ the "Art Of War":confused:

Sheldon

[Chango]

Hello Joy,
No you don't have to do anything! but the lack of substance in your response says it all. no need to repeat that over and over huh? time for me to do my morning training. looking for 2054 maybe?!! :D

[Savi]

Originally posted by yuanfen
Chango sez:Joy HFY has a precise method of preserving and defining what is a perfect Tan, Bong, fook etc.. and a criteria to test it. Do you? is yours even the same as your Sifu's? and how do you know yours are at maximum effieciency if you do not have a precise method or a way to test it. Please give me a precise discription on a technique and how it can be passed down and tested. To disprove my point here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chango- I dont have to give you anything. I generally by pass "true believers" and ideologues who just repeat the same things.........Good wishes in your own hitherto secret newly released art


Sifu Chaudhuri,

I'd like to pose the same question my Sibok asked you. Perhaps you won't perceive the question as hostile if I ask? I am quite interested in what is your answer. I think it'd be a great discussion.

Regards,
-Savi.

[Rolling_Hand]

--Good wishes in your own hitherto secret newly released art--Yuanfen

**Are you talking about your Sifu Augustine Fong's wooden dummy?

--My "imperfect" tan has been tested often enough--Yuanfen

**Please don't make me laugh.

[black and blue]

Yuanfen says:


My "imperfect" tan has been tested often enough.

That it worked makes it perfect. Shouldn't this be the criteria, everyone?

Tan Sau = palm up. A perfect Tan Sau would be a palm up deflection that stopped me getting hit. Idiots like me 'have' to keep it simple.

Geezer says:


Why is it then that it seems there are a larger amount of Male WCK practioners than Female

Hormones. As a rule, guys seem to like the idea of punching and kicking each other in the head. Most women would rather give it a miss :). I met a female kickboxer when I was working abroad, and I asked her why she did it. She said something to the effect of: "When you grew up you'd get into fights in the playground and punch. Girls just pull hair. I wanted to feel what it was like to be punched in the stomach and face."

Despite the fact she was quite pretty and wearing red leather trousers, that girl kinda scared me :)

[Chango]

Hello Terence,

<snip> I'll be the first to admit that my info on HFY is very limited (to personally seeing Garrett demonstrate HFY and listening to him lecture/answer questions; reading published materials; and speaking with WCK brothers that have attended HFY seminars). Personally, I don't care much about it as I'm very satisfied with what I'm doing. If it provides what you are looking for, then I'm very happy for you. TN

This says it all. You have to be able to look outside your own world to see reality. Not Terence's reality or the world according to Terence. Your cup is full. I can say that I have seen alot of what you are learning. You have seen very little of what I'm learning. Yet you are the one ready to step up and make judgements on your assumptions. All kiding aside maybe an open mind and a more insight is needed here on your part. I mean this sincerly just plan take the time and plan a trip. I will give you a weekend of my time. If not me someone from the VTM staff. If you find that you still have issues. No problem but atleast you will be coming from a informed point of view. Instead of hear-say or your own assumptions. :D

<snip>You do need to understand, however, that if the VTM or HFY contends that HFY's oral tradition (history) is factual as opposed to legend, that inevitably leads to the issue of proof (how do you know?). For me, and I'll bet many others, appeals to "because Garrett Gee says so" (i.e., HFY oral tradition) doesn't meet any criteria of reliability. Anyone can claim (and perhaps honestly believe themselves) to be related to George Washington. If they do, the next step is to find out *with certainty* who their father is, who that person's father is, and so on all the way back to GW; we don't rely on simply their say-so or their name dropping. Being able to point to *some* folks that actually existed in the past and calling them ancestors without being able to genuinely "connect the dots" doesn't provide certainty either (anyone can do that). TN

--Terence allow me to say first that giving a family tree of a system is not "name dropping" as you call it. The subject of the post by Jeremy only brings to light the discoveries within the southern shaolin temple! Once again the VTM has up coming works to provide you and others with more information on history. You will have to wait Terence. You cannot offer reasonable answers to the facts that I listed before. Those facts are the things that we are discussing here. If you really want more information on HFY's history you can call the VTM.

<snip> Your suggestion that Garrett's teacher, and I suppose any recent lineage of HFY, can't be "researched" due to his status as a "secret agent" (and leaving aside for the moment the logic of that argument) puts HFY and the VTM in a quandry: how can you (or they) suggest the lineage is factually accurate when it can't be -- according to you -- reliably proven? Any claim that can't be proven can't IMHO call itself "factual" or "true" (it may be true, it may be false -- in either case, we don't *know*). So, it comes back to accepting what Garrett says as true because he says so. Again, that may be fine for you; but you need to understand that it is not for some us. TN

-- are you reading this post? first of all the discussion is on the preredboat era! secondly if you knew more about HFY you will see that the art it's self is the artifact. I know you will not understand this but those who have at least a base level understanding of HFY will know what I mean by this.

<snip> You are correct that I can, for example, only "connect the dots" of my lineage with certainty as far back as Leung Jan. His claim of learning from WWB is corroborated to some degree by other lineages, unrelated to LJ, that claim WWB as their progenitor (and the similarity in what they do) and by other lineages that list WWB as a teacher of WCK on the Red Boats. Prior to that period, there is no corroboration or reliable evidence to support any "theory" (although there are many legends). I think this just shows, as Joy pointed out, the difficulty in proving WCK's pre-Red Boat history *if any.* While we can trace back with certainty to the Red Boat many lineages of WCK, HFY hasn't been able to even do that. And if that can't be done, how can you take the next giant step of tracing it reliably (so that you can call it "fact" or "true") all the way back to Shaolin? TN

once again you don't have enough information. Fact remains
1. Cheung Ng did exits
2. He was known as Tan sau ng
3. HFY has a precise method of teaching proper time and space via Tan sau.
4. The Hung fa ting has been discovered
5. Hung fa ting is a intrigal part of HFY history

<snip>And BTW, your syllogism of "Garrett says HFY is from Shaolin" and we practice Chan in HFY, and we know Chan comes from Shaolin, so this proves HFY comes from Shaolin is blatantly fallacious. TN

-- See Savi's post above :)

Chango (Saat geng sau)

[t_niehoff]

Chango wrote:

This says it all. You have to be able to look outside your own world to see reality. Not Terence's reality or the world according to Terence. Your cup is full. C

There is all kinds of nonsense in the world, and we filter that noise from genuine information based on our intelligence, knowledge, experience, etc. I've been doing WCK for as long as your sifu. I've looked (at Garrett), listened (to Garrett and others), and thought about HFY. At this time I don't see the need to spend more valuable time investigating further when so far I've seen nothing to suggest that it would be profitable *to me* (perhaps it is to you, and if so great!). It's not a case of a "cup being full" (otherwise I wouldn't have spent the time that I have so far) but rather the case of choosing to spend what little, valuable time I have on what I think will provide *me* the most benefits. TN

I can say that I have seen alot of what you are learning. C

What, WCK? LOL! TN

-- are you reading this post? first of all the discussion is on the preredboat era! secondly if you knew more about HFY you will see that the art it's self is the artifact. I know you will not understand this but those who have at least a base level understanding of HFY will know what I mean by this C

Yes, the discussion is on the pre-Red Boat era. But how do you get to the pre-Red Boat era if you can't even trace your lineage post Red Boat? There's no point talking about how George Washington was your great ancestor and began some tradition in your family if you can't even prove who your daddy was! And to suggest that HFY itself proves the lineage is rediculous. TN

once again you don't have enough information. Fact remains
1. Cheung Ng did exits
2. He was known as Tan sau ng
3. HFY has a precise method of teaching proper time and space via Tan sau.
4. The Hung fa ting has been discovered
5. Hung fa ting is a intrigal part of HFY history C

Without even going into how the above "facts" prove nothing, let's assume for the sake of argument that they are all true. How do you get to Garrett being related (lineage) to Cheung Ng other than by his say so? George Washington existed too. If someone claims him as a relative, don't they need to prove it (to be "true")? TN

Terence

[t_niehoff]

Hi Savi,

Savi wrote:

Sibok Chango does bring up some valid points. Earlier you pointed out some Wing Chun greats such as Wong Wah Bo and Leung Yi Tai, however, to date there is no verifiable proof that they ever existed. No historical documentation, no grave site(s), no personal items of theirs anywhere. Merely the oral passing of legends. I do not see how you can, with certainty, connect the dots. I'd like to know what proof you have, if any, which might prove the contrary. There is however, documented proof of Cheung Ng (Tan Sao Ng), which is in HFY history. Savi

I said that I can only "connect the dots" w/r/t my lineage to Leung Jan and perhaps arguably Wong Wah Bo. Prior to that, all we have is legend. I've no problem saying that (and I do say that). But the VTM and HFY are promoting their legend as factual history. That is the significant difference between us. And yes, Tan Sao Ng existed. And yes, he is part of HFY legend. But that in itself doesn't prove all HFY history is accurate or that he was actually a HFY practitioner. What does proves that he was a HFY practitioner is being able to reliably trace a lineage from GG back to him. You can't, however, reliably trace HFY past GG. (I could, for example, make up a lineage that includes the names of all kinds of genuine historical figures but unless I can prove a connection to them, it all remains unproven). TN

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And BTW, your syllogism of "Garrett says HFY is from Shaolin" and we practice Chan in HFY, and we know Chan comes from Shaolin, so this proves HFY comes from Shaolin is blatantly fallacious. TN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terence, to make the above statement as you did, is in its entireity - inaccurate. You have admitted to NOT understanding HFY. You do not have even a basis of knowledge to judge HFY, and therefore make such a statement. Your limited experience in HFY cannot take you to the level of expertise [on any level] on HFY which you seem to exude. You judge things without even knowing, and expect us to do the same to our own family? Unlike you, that is something I cannot do, and you still have not demonstrated an understanding of the nature of secret societies. Just because something (anything) is not known to you, does not mean it doesn't exist. Hence, the reality/process of learning. Savi

Perhaps you should be more concerned with the rules of logic (which Chango routinely violates). You can't use, for example, a claim as proof of its own validity. But anyway, FWIW, I don't need to understand in its entirely many things to see problems in logic, flaws in "research", recognize fluff from substance, etc. TN

I'm not trying to belittle GG or HFY or the VTM. But I take exception with anyone or any group that touts their oral tradition (history of WCK) as "factual" -- suggesting that the rest of us should accept it as well -- when they can't even prove the most simplest of things. TN

Terence

Terence

[Savi]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Yes, the discussion is on the pre-Red Boat era. But how do you get to the pre-Red Boat era if you can't even trace your lineage post Red Boat? TN

How do you get to Garrett being related (lineage) to Cheung Ng other than by his say so? George Washington existed too. If someone claims him as a relative, don't they need to prove it (to be "true")? TN

Terence

Terence,
No one said that we couldn't trace the HFY roots Terence. You're losing the forest for the trees.

Here's another link. I did some research for you. Unfortunately, it comes from the same website you perceive as "fluff." But should there be any other place in the world to have this info aside from the HFY family? No.

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

***Dare anybody ask you to prove your daddy is yours? How audacious is your behavior! I'd like a blood sample of yours and your father's... Fed Ex'd to me, please. Then I can test yours and his for myself. Kidding yo. Kidding.

-Savi.

PS: Not interested in HFY Terence? Are you in the same Red Boat as Sifu Chaudhuri (no offense intended)?

[Jim Roselando]

Hello,


I know this is none of my business but since this is a public forum I will add my two cents!

Why not just locate Wang Ming sifu (or some of Garrette Gee sifu's other classmates) and bring them over for a seminar or visit them in China? This is year 2003 and many arts that were at one time or another associated with the Secret Societies (or other private organizations) are out in the open and since HFY is now out in the open by its headmaster it cant be such a big deal.

My Kung Fu family used to be extremely private and if you were not a Koo Lo native would have had no chance of learning it but now we are more public and the grandmaster/village head is even found on video on the net. 50 years ago that would never had happened!

As for the historical debate? Well, lets start one generation back before we debate about 6 generations back. Either way it doesnt effect me (since I am a neutral party) but I thought this might be a good place to start and it can help satisfy some outsiders questions that keep getting asked of your clan. Well, thats enough out of me for this and perhaps we can all get past this WC family bickering. We are all WC and should work together to help each other develop/research.


Cheers,

[Geezer]

Terence, you should give a little, you can't always take, take, TAKE!!!!!!!!!

Sheldon Wrote>

Terence, you're able to connect the dots on the Yip Man side, what about the Gu Lao WCK

That was from a post by me on page 3, I'm a poet and I don't know it, "to get trust you must give it"

Sheldon

[yuanfen]

Savi sez:PS: Not interested in HFY Terence? Are you in the same Red Boat as Sifu Chaudhuri (no offense intended)?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
No offense taken- I havent checked the color of my boat lately
but I it floats fine- I dont need to board a leaky Hung FY boat.
Jim R refers to bickering- no bickering on my part anyways.
Ever so often the HFY folks push their wares. Bottom line in marketing-
its better to be talked about than not to be talked about..

[Savi]

Welcome Mr. Roselando!

You can definitely relate to our situation! That brings great relief to me that someone understands the nature of privacy. You have brought more light to this thread, are most welcomed here!

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

Terence,

Nothing can be proven over the internet. We can show you how things are done, have been done, and still you will say "It proves nothing!" We can show you our family tree, and you will say "Your 'fluff' is mere imaginary 'research' to which you 'historians' are forcing us to believe!" Is this not what has been going on?

You ask someone of the impossible. The only thing that can occur on the internet is the passing of information. That's IT! Nothing can be proven over the internet other than the internet, and things of its nature work. Perhaps I am ill-informed and you can help me understand how to prove something over the internet? You want us to prove our roots? Would you like birth certificates? Blood samples? Photos prove nothing with respect to what you are asking. We've displayed our family tree online without restriction to the public. That's all we can do.

Keep in mind a system based on Chan Philosophy is based on reality, not legends. The only thing that seperates us from the answers we require is time, and that will pass. Do not let disbelief and ill feelings feed your aprehension about the HFY family. We only share what we know, even if only on an individual basis. Please continue to look for future articles by the VTM staff.

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

Sifu Chaudhuri,

Your choice of words begin to insult me personally, but still I understand your position. Enough said. Our boat is just fine and has been floating for 350+ years without any alterations. Thank you.

-Savi.

[Rolling_Hand]

Terence, you should give a little, you can't always take, take, TAKE!!!!!!!!!

Sheldon Wrote>
quote:Terence, you're able to connect the dots on the Yip Man side, what about the Gu Lao WCK

That was from a post by me on page 3, I'm a poet and I don't know it, "to get trust you must give it"

Sheldon

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

Sheldon,

You are the lamp to lighten the Gu Lao (Koo Lo) WCK.

Where did Robert Chu's Koo Lo WCK come from???

Is this Robert Chu's world or the real world?

[Rolling_Hand]

Sifu Chaudhuri,

Your choice of words begin to insult me personally, but still I understand your position. Enough said. Our boat is just fine and has been floating for 350+ years without any alterations. Thank you.

-Savi.

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

Savi,

Yuanfen has had been insulted the VTM, HFY and TWC families for a long time.

For the man who is without shame,

Impudent as a crow,

A vicious gossip...

Please stop calling him *Sifu*

Humm.....

[Geezer]

Roger Wrote>

Where did Robert Chu's Koo Lo WCK come from???

I'm sure "someone" will call "FOUL" on this, and I look for this thread to disapear without any answers to yours and my question:confused:

I think that's a question we need to ask "Mulder";)

Sheldon

[t_niehoff]

Savi wrote:

Nothing can be proven over the internet. We can show you how things are done, have been done, and still you will say "It proves nothing!" We can show you our family tree, and you will say "Your 'fluff' is mere imaginary 'research' to which you 'historians' are forcing us to believe!" Is this not what has been going on? S

What I'm saying is that oral tradition is one thing and genuine research is another, and we should keep the distinction clear. I can put up a diagram of the Yip Man oral history (he actually wrote it!) and extend it back to Ng Mui. That doesn't prove, however, that it is historically accurate. Nor do I claim it is. TN

You ask someone of the impossible. The only thing that can occur on the internet is the passing of information. That's IT! Nothing can be proven over the internet other than the internet, and things of its nature work. Perhaps I am ill-informed and you can help me understand how to prove something over the internet? You want us to prove our roots? Would you like birth certificates? Blood samples? Photos prove nothing with respect to what you are asking. We've displayed our family tree online without restriction to the public. That's all we can do. S

I know that's all you can do; if there was other evidence I'm certain it would have been displayed. TN

Keep in mind a system based on Chan Philosophy is based on reality, not legends. S

LOL! So because you claim to have a system based on Chan Philosophy you think that proves your lineage is historically accurate? TN

The only thing that seperates us from the answers we require is time, and that will pass. Do not let disbelief and ill feelings feed your aprehension about the HFY family. We only share what we know, even if only on an individual basis. Please continue to look for future articles by the VTM staff. S

Skepticism is IMHO a healthy state of mind. And I have no ill feelings toward anyone. TN

Terence

[yuanfen]

Savi- perhaps you misread my post- see the sequence below-

Savi sez:PS: Not interested in HFY Terence? Are you in the same Red Boat as Sifu Chaudhuri (no offense intended)?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
No offense taken- I havent checked the color of my boat lately
but I it floats fine- I dont need to board a leaky Hung FY boat.
Jim R refers to bickering- no bickering on my part anyways.
Ever so often the HFY folks push their wares. Bottom line in marketing-
its better to be talked about than not to be talked about..
-----------------------------------------------------------------
My posts had two parts- the first written or intended in the same spirit as yours.(No offense intended))

The second part refers to Jim Roselandos comment.

Of course, its obvious that I am not intrigued by HFY- thats not an insult- thats an opinion. You are not singled out.

[Rolling_Hand]

--Skepticism is IMHO a healthy state of mind.-- TN

**Your own mischief will consume you.

--And I have no ill feelings toward anyone.-- TN

**Yack....

[kj]

ROFLOL - the only thing missing on this merry-go-round is a brass ring. May as well keep it light, folks. ;)

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[planetwc]

Sheldon/Roger,

Robert Chu lists Kwan Jong-Yuen as his instructor in that system as well as his instructor in Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun.

Further details on this are at:

http://www.chusaulei.com/martial/articles/articles_gulao.html

Here is another reference to Robert and his teacher in spanish.
Look for the section on Gu Lao.

http://chinwan.com.ar/wing_china.htm

What else do you need to know that a google search could not provide?





Originally posted by Geezer
Roger Wrote>


I'm sure "someone" will call "FOUL" on this, and I look for this thread to disapear without any answers to yours and my question:confused:

I think that's a question we need to ask "Mulder";)

Sheldon

[reneritchie]

FWIW - I had the good fortune to meet Kwan sifu in NYC in the mid 1990s. He was a gentleman, and an excellent Siu Lap chef. I believe he's retired now. I also was lucky enough to see his Gulao/Koolo, which he learned from Tam Yeung (who at that time was quite old but still alive in China) in 40 points, and his Yuen Kay-San WCK, which descended from my sibak, Ngok Jin-Fen and Pang Chao (the latter being especially well known if China for his fighting success, and his work as a mechanic leading him to develop some dummies I bet Ho Luen would enjoy). It's sad to see him become fodder for the trolls.

BTW - Planet WC is correct that this should be easily accessible information for anyone not brainwashed into culthood and in possession of at least a third grade reading level.

AFAIK - Anyone wanting to find out about a doctor from Xiguan, Guangzhou, with high level WCK skill could *easily* check the following: the local medical association, the local restaurants, the local WCK practitioners. They would find out, literally, in no time flat.

RR

[Sandman2[Wing Chun]]

Due to the disintegrating nature of this thread, i'm closing it before it degenerates any more than it already has.