wing chun history

[byond1]

sandman---this is somelthing that needs to be talked about...not bottled up....i believe if personal attacks were left out and questions were aswered logicaly,with the proof to back up the words,we could get somewhere........

chango--- well i see the connection between shaolin and chan.... i, as of yet, dont see a "direct" connection between wc and shaolin.....i believe the only way of comparing kung fu systems is by examinging the ging patterns....this is something rene and hendrik have been looking at and i believe will eventually lead to finding our origins....shaolin is differant than wc....now white crane weng chun and some of the hakka arts resemble wc...very closely if you ask me

leung jan?? there is plenty of documentation on leung jan, wong wah bo, fung siu ching,dai fa men kam,for those who know where to look..... wong wah bo did exist and there are records of him and where he lived and taught when the opera was closed. wwb was a native of koolo village if im not mistaken. and it is documented when he retured to the opera after the ban was lifted. its documented where fok bo chun and fung siu ching worked and where and when they taught..same for dam fa min kam....actual shops where they worked are know to us. of cource anything before wwb i consider as legend but the late 1800's are not a huge mystery.....and through investigation we can see what leung jan and fok bo chuns wc looked like. so we than have an idea what wwb wc looked like. characteristics for example is a pigeon toed ygkym with afist distance between the knees.....sow hung-another very important characteristic to all hakka arts....so in my opinion its not so hard to grasp what recent history was......of cource pre boats is like a ghost....hopfully someone will make steps in figuring this out....the problem is that some people in the wc community have information that could peace the whole thing together or at least help...but are unwilling to become a victim of internet terrorism...this type of ignorant attack, on these schoolars keeps us all ignorant....there are many questions to be answered...fewer who can answer....and even less who want to hear......
thanks to all who have helped me from ignorance

[byond1]

anyone see the new article on the 2 branchs of hung gar? 1) ha fa say?sp or 2)canton??
the ha fa say uses a pigeon toed ygkym....its main punch is a verticle punch that is totaly straightened upon punching...it also has an individual form for each of the 5 animals where the canton version has the animals mixed up together..like the shaolin 5 animal of doc fai wong....could this older method of hung gar been an ancestor of wc?

[yuanfen]

Sandman did the right thing in closing the original thread.
Its become quite unproductive.

[Chango]

Hello Beyond1,

<snip> chango--- well i see the connection between shaolin and chan.... i, as of yet, dont see a "direct" connection between wc and shaolin.....i believe the only way of comparing kung fu systems is by examinging the ging patterns....this is something rene and hendrik have been looking at and i believe will eventually lead to finding our origins....shaolin is differant than wc....now white crane weng chun and some of the hakka arts resemble wc...very closely if you ask me

Having studied various Shaolin based arts (Tan tui, Lo Han etc..) from age 5. I would probrably agree with you before I exposed to a few less public versions of WCK. If you get a chance to see and understand the basis of HFY and Chi Sim I think you would absolutly change your mind about the " direct" connection. I hope you can visit the VTM sometime. I bet you find things pretty enlightening.
:cool:

[Geezer]

Planetwc Wrote>

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

The searches you performed I did a long time ago, there doesn't seem to be much info available on Robert Chu's website!!!!

Rene Wrote>

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.

Please see above!!!!

Rene Wrote>

40 points,

Is this in Gu Lao/Koo Lo:confused: because I could only find reference to the #36:confused:

Googles great but the only reference to Tam Yeung, was on kindergarten:confused:

OK, I don't see how this is in any way different to the questions being asked by other people:confused: I once again expect this to be locked down or erased:(
It's amazing the VTM don't seem to call foul:confused: when they're questioned constantly they seem to answer any questions to the best of they're ability;)

Sheldon

[black and blue]

As everyone is unhappy with everyone elses answers to someone elses questions... why does this topic keep surfacing? Even when the aforementioned book is published, everyone will argue about it. (sigh)

[Geezer]

This motion on the cover of Complete Wing Chun, is this from Gu Lao or Yuen Kay San:confused:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0804831416.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

I'm just trying to do a bit of my own research and work with what is readily available;)

Sheldon

[reneritchie]

Hey Sheldon,

Because of its nature (San Sik), over the years, many different ways to "count" the core motions have come up, as have some "linked sets" as well. I have personally seen:

1 linked set (3 different ones)
2 linked sets
8 points
12 points
22 points
36 points
40 points
45 points

I have also seen points + extras (12+6, for example)

I understand it can be confusing if you aren't familiar with the essance of the art, or with the history of its spread (not everyone would teach all the points, some blended them with other WCK, some split them further apart to sell more, etc.) For a parallel, take a look at the spread and eleboration of Baguazhang.

Anyway, I haven't yet seen anyone claim Gulao was some secret Confucian enfused original, authentic, traditional, absolute version passed down directly by the Yellow Emperor, so it's not on point (no pun intended), and just a cheap 'never defend, always attack' strategy to change the focus of a historical discussion anyway.

Chango - If you don't include Hung Fa Yi or Jee Shim, do you think the same applies to Gulao, Yip Man, Sum Nung, etc.? Do they seem, to you, to use Shaolin forms and mechanics, or do you think they're different?

RR

[Geezer]

Why was the system refined so much? Through experience, Dr. Leung Jan determined that not many different movements were used to win real fights yet it was also the right amount to prepare the disciples for any aspect in a real fighting situation. Why did he choose thirty-six? Thirty-six, or three times twelve, was a lucky number in Chinese culture.

Rene wrote>

Because of its nature (San Sik), over the years, many different ways to "count" the core motions have come up, as have some "linked sets" as well. I have personally seen:

So they've gone from the original art and added to it:confused:

Rene Wrote>

so it's not on point (no pun intended), and just a cheap 'never defend, always attack' strategy to change the focus of a historical discussion anyway.

Not Really, I just thought, "Hey" there seems to be some missing links in this, "why not ask some questions about it";)

Sheldon

[reneritchie]

Hey Sheldon,


So they've gone from the original art and added to it

Mostly just rearranged. A few have less, a few repeat more. All arts are like this. Humans are not computers, after all, and the goal of many was to fight, not to collect or preserve, and some felt they didn't need certain things, and others might have felt they needed them differently, and still others might have felt they needed more. Nature evolves. If not, we'd all be doing Mongolian Wrestling.

RR

[Sandman2[Wing Chun]]

Byond,
If people want to POLITELY discuss the history of Wing Chun Kuen, that's fine. Threads get locked/removed when they degenerate into personal attacks.


Geezer,
Out of curiosity, who do you study under?

[Geezer]

Sandman 2 Wrote>

Geezer,
Out of curiosity, who do you study under?

Out of curiosity, why do you ask:confused: and "who" sorry what has prompted the question:confused:

I'll choose to keep who I study under, under my hat for the minute;)
If it's a rule here, like the "WCML" that I must claim a clan, I once again choose not too;)
I was asked not too involve my Sifu in these open house forums and I will hold true too that until he says otherwise.;)

I don't know if that makes my questions here any less valid:confused:

I can tell you it's Yip Man WCK:p

Sheldon

[reneritchie]

You're just bitter they closed down your marks'n'sparks gwoon. 8P

BTW- Our groceries have started selling weetabix...

[black and blue]

I don't know if that makes my questions here any less valid

Well, if you're discussing lineage with people as in the thread that was closed, some might say it smacks of irony.

But personally I'm not bothered either way :p

Rene,

I'm pleased for you with regard the breakfast munching, but please, please, don't give us Swiss Chalet in return :D

[Geezer]

Renre Wrote>

Mostly just rearranged. A few have less, a few repeat more.

So who was it that added to Dr. Leung Jans Gu Lao when Robert Chu started training in it:confused: was this a change that robert made???.
Also on the front cover of Complete Wing Chun, is that Gu Lao or Yuen Kay San :confused:

Sheldon;)

[t_niehoff]

Hi Rene,

Rene Ritchie wrote:

I understand it can be confusing if you aren't familiar with the essance of the art, or with the history of its spread (not everyone would teach all the points, some blended them with other WCK, some split them further apart to sell more, etc.) For a parallel, take a look at the spread and eleboration of Baguazhang. RR

One problem that I've encountered with folks that haven't encountered a san sik platform of WCK teaching is that they often tend to look at the *shape* of things instead of beyond the shape to grasp the yau dim (the important points or idea(s)) that the shape is trying to convey. In other words, the particular "technique" within san sik is being used to express certain specific ideas; and just as the same idea can be expressed using different words, it can be expressed using different shapes/techniques. So lineage 1 can have one shape/technique to express concept A and lineage 2 can have a different shape/technique to express the same concept. Lineage 3 may combine several concepts (A,B,C) and express them in a single shape/technique and thus have fewer total san sik in its curriculum. I don't see this as "going from the original art" or "adding to it", as Sheldon asked, but taking the same material (WCK) and **teaching** it in a different way (most probably in an attempt to make it more digestable to individual students). TN

I think we should all keep in mind that WCK is in the application; the curriculum is merely a vehicle or tool. TN

Terence

[Geezer]

Balckandblue Wrote>

Well, if you're discussing lineage with people as in the thread that was closed, some might say it smacks of irony.

No, what smacks of irony is, I think Terence is the only person I've asked that question of. ;)
It just makes me laugh that he asks so many questions but when questioned himself, calls foul;)

There's no point in commenting on other peoples back garden if yours doesn't look that great:)

Sheldon

[Sandman2[Wing Chun]]

Originally posted by Geezer
Sandman 2 Wrote>


Out of curiosity, why do you ask:confused:

*shrug* Just wondering, didn't see any info in your profile, and as vocal as you are on here I didn't expect you'd mind telling me where you are coming from so I could better understand your point of view.


and "who" sorry what has prompted the question:confused:

Alright, there is absolutely no reason to get snippy with me. People don't have "accidental slips of the tongue" in a written format so why don't you just drop the insinuations. And don't play stupid, it's unbecoming.



I'll choose to keep who I study under, under my hat for the minute;)
If it's a rule here, like the "WCML" that I must claim a clan, I once again choose not too;)
I was asked not too involve my Sifu in these open house forums and I will hold true too that until he says otherwise.;)


There is absolutely no problem with that at all. It is completely your call as to what personal information you wish to divulge. We have several VERY regular posters who haven't revealed the slightest information about themselves. (ie: Rolling_Hand, EnterTheWhip, etc...) I can certainly appreciate not placing ones name/address/misc. personal info into a public internet forum. Ultimatly it is your call, and I support forum users rights to choose for themselves what to share and what not to share, regardless of my own opinion on any given situation.



I don't know if that makes my questions here any less valid:confused:

That's a matter of opinion.

[reneritchie]

Hey Sheldon,


So who was it that added to Dr. Leung Jans Gu Lao when Robert Chu started training in it was this a change that robert made???.

Robert's Gulao is as Kwan Jong-Yuen taught it (Kwan sifu kept very detailed notes which I was fortunate enough to see). I don't believe he added anything much, if at all, but rather had the material spread over more points (instead of one point with 6 motions, for example, he might have had 3 with 2 each). Examples of adding are more common in other branches of Gulao. The only change Robert has made is that he expresses the points using his own body structure rather than the classic one seen in Gulao, Sum Nung, or Foshan Yip man WCK (but it seems few others use that any more anyway ;). He has very specific views on structure, as you've probably read in his articles. Maybe if he made up some story about secret Yuan dynasty origins, you'd find it more believable? ;)


Also on the front cover of Complete Wing Chun, is that Gu Lao or Yuen Kay San

Robert does all his WCK with the same body structure, as numerous people have replied to you and your group before. On the cover, he's demonstrating the Gulao Fu Fook point with his own structure.


It just makes me laugh that he asks so many questions but when questioned himself, calls foul

Maybe he's waiting for you to tell him about your sifu and answer questions about why he's doing what he's doing now, and exactly what's different from Leung Ting's approach and why he changed?

B&B,


I'm pleased for you with regard the breakfast munching, but please, please, don't give us Swiss Chalet in return

Swiss Chalet has closed down there restaurants where I live, (though Cote-St-Luc BBQ is still doing well) and the one near me is now an Outback Steakhouse. We would send you some Poutine, but we're afraid you Brits would beer-batter it and stick it in the deep frier with your mars bars, yeah?


One problem that I've encountered with folks that haven't encountered a san sik platform of WCK teaching is that they often tend to look at the *shape* of things instead of beyond the shape to grasp the yau dim (the important points or idea(s)) that the shape is trying to convey.

The one problem I've encountered is with folks that lack their own knowledge but have been told things by politically and or ego/financially motivated "sifu" and in good faith accepted them, and gone out and unfortunately acted as trolling agents for those "sifu". Luckily, when some people catch on (usually by getting taken advantage of and burned themselves), they start to leak what's really going on to the outside, and then it would just be funny if it wasn't such a disservice to our art.

(Now watch as the annonymous trolls predictably come on here and VTAA with their bashing, made all the more noxious by the fact that they seldom, if ever contribute to any of the technical threads in discussion).

RR

[t_niehoff]

Sheldon, BlackandBleu,

Sheldon Wrote>

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, if you're discussing lineage with people as in the thread that was closed, some might say it smacks of irony. BB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, what smacks of irony is, I think Terence is the only person I've asked that question of.
It just makes me laugh that he asks so many questions but when questioned himself, calls foul. SG

I thought the moderator closed this discussion. Is this what you guys do, just start up another thread and try to continue it? :( Perhaps, Sheldon, you could explain where I "called foul"? I didn't respond to your obvious attempt to shift the focus from the discussion at hand, and besides, Rene fully answered your "question". TN

There's no point in commenting on other peoples back garden if yours doesn't look that great. SG

Spoken like a true troll. So, what you are saying in effect is that there is no point in asking questions -- like asking for their proof -- of folks who claim to possess "the truth" about WCK history unless we have "back gardens" that are attractive to you? What does my "back garden" have to do with whether HFY's oral tradition is factual or not? Couldn't someone with no "back garden" in WCK ask the same, relevant questions of the VTM? TN

Terence

[Geezer]

Sandman 2 Wrote>

*shrug* Just wondering, didn't see any info in your profile, and as vocal as you are on here I didn't expect you'd mind telling me where you are coming from so I could better understand your point of view.

How does 0.80 posts per day make me any more vocal than 1.41posts per day, and I didn't realize you would be able to work out my point of view from my profile:confused:

Sandman 2 wrote>

People don't have "accidental slips of the tongue" in a written format so why don't you just drop the insinuations.

Considering, I don't think we've communicated in a written format before, I just found it to be a very strange question:confused:

Sheldon Wrote>

I don't know if that makes my questions here any less valid

Sandman 2 Wrote>

That's a matter of opinion.

And we're all entitled to our own;)

Rene Wrote>

Maybe if he made up some story about secret Yuan dynasty origins, you'd find it more believable?

Maybe that's what it's missing;)

Rene Wrote>

Robert does all his WCK with the same body structure, as numerous people have replied to you and your group before. On the cover, he's demonstrating the Gulao Fu Fook point with his own structure.

OK, I found something it looked very similiar to, I'll find it and post it later.;)

Rene Wrote>

The one problem I've encountered is with folks that lack their own knowledge but have been told things by politically and or ego/financially motivated "sifu" and in good faith accepted them, and gone out and unfortunately acted as trolling agents for those "sifu".

Is there a hidden meaning to this, Rene:confused:

Terence Wrote>

I thought the moderator closed this discussion.

No he closed the other one that was about HFY, this one was about Gu Lao/Koo Lo and Sifu Robert Chu;)

Terence Wrote>

Perhaps, Sheldon, you could explain where I "called foul"?

Maybe the above statement:confused:

Terence Wrote>

Spoken like a true troll.

Terence if you need to call me names that's fine, I noticed your doing it and Rene has also.
Amazing, I don't think in all the time I've ever had any type of dialogue with you two have I called you any type of names:confused:

Sheldon:D

[reneritchie]

Hey Sheldon,


Maybe that's what it's missing

Could be. P.T. Barnum said no one ever lost money overestimating the intelligence of the American public. Maybe you could use the omni-pugilism hook to show how your family secretly introduced British bare-knuckle boxing to the ports of Canton which was mixed with local fighting methods to create WCK! Then you could retire off the tape series and school franchises! 8P


OK, I found something it looked very similiar to, I'll find it and post it later.

Cool. Looks aren't everything though. Try it out one day and see if you can find something that *feels* like it. LOL!


Is there a hidden meaning to this, Rene

None, the meaning is quite plain and rather obvious to anyone whose been online over the last couple decades. Also funny how the great feuds of the past led to organizations fragmenting and many of the old feuders now mellowed and productive, yet new upstarts have taken their place. No one learns from history.

RR
Rene has also

I don't think I've called you a troll, though I have asked you to stop trolling, and you should. I'm sure you have a lot of personal experience and opinions on WCK that you could be sharing rather than just popping up to play accuser for a group you claim not to belong to, stirring up a lot of bad PR for them in the process.

RR

[Geezer]

Rene Wrote>

popping up to play accuser for a group you claim not to belong to, stirring up a lot of bad PR for them in the process.

Hey, now you doing it, acusing me of belonging to something I don't;)
I didn't realise you were the "PR Police" for the VTM, I don't see how me asking questions about Gu Lao/Koo Lo and Sifu Robert Chu is bad PR for the VTM:confused: If they had a problem with me I'm sure they would let me know;)

Sheldon

[Rolling_Hand]

Terence if you need to call me names that's fine, I noticed your doing it and Rene has also.
Amazing, I don't think in all the time I've ever had any type of dialogue with you two have I called you any type of names

Sheldon

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

Sheldon,

Beyond good and beyond evil,

Names calling cannot make a master out of a fool.

Geezer is the certified Clint Eastwood.

Unlike these self-claimed WCK experts,

Geezer harms no living thing.

Om mani peme hum...

Humm....

[reneritchie]

Why is it no history thread can be created that people who claim not to be part of the VTM don't spring up to attack everyone else and basically make the thread unreadable?

What is it about other people having different opinions, or different levels of acceptance for what is termed "research" that they find so threatening? Why must they continually attack others in transparent attempts to ruin the threads and prevent any serious discussion? And why are they allowed to continue this when its obvious by their lack of participation on any other threads that its their only purpose in posting here?

And why are they obsessed with Clint Eastwood when Alison Eastwood is obviously *much* more interesting? :D

[byond1]

T--i started this thread ..."they"didnt...and it got highjacked by both of you.....not one post is on wc history....other than mine....
i think asking where and who tam yeung learned from is a fair question. from what i have seen there were only 3 students of leung jan in koolo village...non of which tam yeung learned from(the name listed ,of who tam yeung learned from was not one of the three that the fung family documented..doesnt mean he didnt learn..just means that there isnt a written record of it in the fung family)...so i am curious who he learned his points from.

geezer---i think asking where and from who garret gee learned from is a fair question . as well as how to contact him(wong sigung). one which has never been answered. supposidly there is a hfy school in h.k but it has not been found as of yet.

if anyone could just answer questions without the drama perhaps me may make some head way in understanding each other. when people or organizations make claims...that begs for questions.....i would want to answer all questions put to me....to represent myself and my family in a respectfull and truthfull manor as well as eduacating people in who we are,,,what we stand for..what we teach...and how we put our money where our mouths are

anyone interested in real conversation???
anyone see the hung gar article i mentioned?

chango---i really look forward to seeing chi sim....especially the weng chun kuen form and the sam pai fut form

has anyone seen the 5 ancestors fist system? it uses a ygkym thats pigeon toed called the sai ping mah...it has the lead stance chien to....it has a side shifted stance kok to...as well as the t stance and hanging stance...which koolo uses.....its main influence was fukien white crane.....got internal training from lohan fist...evasion and palm strikes from monkey.....the ging pattern is very close to wc. ....actions such as tun (swallow), chum(sink),to?sp(spit) and (float)forgot chinese ....its a bit more external,imo than wc but methinks it shows a common ground in the fact of the white crane system being its mother. wc has so many characteristics that white crane does...
my question is this, on the boats wwb and lyt learned wing chun......dai fa min kam practised weng chun....so i doubt dfmk learned from wwb like chi shim weng chun lineage suggest(via chu chong man).....so.....was there 2 differant systems? practised at the same time independently? did someone take wing chun and mix it with hung gar to make weng chun(for example dai fa min kam could have been a hung gar practitioner and when he learned wing chun...created a hybrid) or did someone take certain ideas from weng chun and mixed it with hakka to make wing chun?
additionaly is what andreas hoffman calls weng chun...anything like white crane? or is it more like hung gar?
ive noticed many families share forms....cho family, weng chun (chu chong man family), nanyang, chan wah shuns great grandchildren....all have a fa kuen form.....is it the same form? my understanding is that fa kuen is not weng chun....chu chong man imported it from things he learned from a wong sifu....if that is true than why do all these other branchs of wc have it in there curiculum???
brian

[yuanfen]

Hi Brian- Iam generally skeptical about a definitive wing chun history and my posts have reflected that I think. It is a methodological nightmare- but we can nibble on it here and there
and make some sense now and then. Some points in the context of your post:
1.Asking substantial questions on Garret Gee's immediate HFY ancsetors is legitimate in my opinion as well.

2. I am not in WT and I do not buy many things that Leung Ting says. But he does come up with interesting bits of opinions and information. I have been looking at his large "Roots" book which I purchased recently- even though it has been out for a while. I dont have it handy at this momemt- but I think he mentioned about 4 Leung jan students in his retirement days. He died in about 4 years after "he came to die" in his village. There are some pics of where exactly Leung Jan taught in his last days. I can see a retired prestigious master teaching some key moves to some members of his village- whether that constitutes a system is an epistemological issue about systems etc. I ignored Leung Ting's comments on himself and found the book useful though controversial in parts.

3. Southern hands share many things--- the phoenix eye fist,
the ginger fist, the swallow/spit antimonies, po pai jung,
some sticking, some versions of ygkym... but trying to assume from that that hung kar is a mother etc is speculative- there can be different flavors to similar ingredients. Masters wouldnt always give others the details- retaining perceptions of an edge.

4. I dont think that the five ancestors are wc ancestors either...
wc deliberately developed usage for human joints rather than animal forms. San chin breathing so common in many southern arts is deliberately by passed in wc with "natural" breathing.

5. As I have mentioned before Chan's influence peremeates many things and it is not illuminating to associate it with any one wing chun lineage.

sic/finis/no ad hominem remarks

joy

[passing_through]

Brain wrote:

i think asking where and from who garret gee learned from is a fair question . as well as how to contact him(wong sigung).

There are two issues with asking to meet Grand Master Wong Ming.

The first has to do with the nature of secret societies and relates to one's station in life. Similar to the CIA in secrecy, members of a secret organization must maintain discipline and not be noticed by the authorities. There is a sworn duty to uphold secrecy and many lives are on the line when someone is captured or information is compromised. This level of commitment and secrecy is quite different as compared to a private citizen trying to maintain privacy.

There are numerous reasons for a private citizen to want to be private. Taking Sun Nung as an example, living through the Cultural Revolution and dealing with the Communists - his secrecy is not voluntary compared to someone that volunteers for spy work or military operations. I know of someone that visited China and made a special effort to locate Sifu Sun Nung's group (while the Grand Master was still alive). This person spoke with members of the local martial arts community (including Wing Chun people), people leading classes in the park, and others - he eventually made contact with someone that knew a former location where Sum Nung's group practiced. While Sun Nung managed to maintain his privacy, neither his life nor the lives of his students are forfeit (after the time of the Cultural Revolution, of course). So why does he try to maintain secrecy? What is he hiding? If it was possible for him to remain hard to find, how much more time and effort would an organization acting under life and death secrecy? Think about this: would a CIA spy come out and write a book about his actions while he was still active - naming names, events, and locations? Even after retiring, spies are not free to speak about their past. Not if they value their lives and the lives of their families. We can speak freely because we are private citizens.

The second issue has to do with responsibility. In the secret societies, you can do pretty much as you wish - but your actions must not call attention to anyone else. So, if I decide to speak in public about what I know, I alone must bear the responsibility for my actions and must not call attention to anyone else. Given the above two restraints, if Grand Master Wong Ming doesn't wish to be found, he won't. Grand Master Gee was given specific instructions about when you bring out the art and where. The level of dedication and responsibility to act on his Sifu's instructions 25 years later might not be easy to understand for people that are private citizens. In HFY's past, many traditions originated in the secret societies. One of the ceremonies was the burning of the yellow paper. This ceremony symbolizes that you have taken an oath not to reveal any information unless you are ordered to do so.

Grand Master Gee was given the responsibility and the authority to bring out the HFY lineage. Now that he has decided to do so, he is very much open. Any person with common courtesy and the simple etiquette of visiting him in person will get an answer to their questions. But as far as Grand Master Wong Ming, I can tell you now - he chooses not to come out and no one asking is going to force him.

To understand this, you must understand the traditions of the HFY lineage. In the HFY lineage, respect and responsibility to the previous generations is maintained. I have seen actual photos of Grand Master Wong Ming. In fact, there is a picture of him in the upcoming book but it is not the actual photo. Our of respect for the ancestors, only an artist's rendering of the picture is allowed to be shown in something so public as a book. Grand Master Wong Ming was not a public figure and it is not Grand Master Gee's place to bring him to the public. This is not an issue of hiding anything - it is an issue of tradition on the HFY lineage. Grand Master Gee wants to give proper credit to the ancestors of HFY but he must also obey the oath to not reveal them to the public. I know the more jaded of the forum cannot accept this but not accepting reality doesn't change it one iota. If we want cross-references, Mai Gei Wong knew Dr. Wong Mong, they trained in the same park. Grand Master Gee had met Mai Gei Wong, as well.

Being a HFY member, I have information about the lineage that is not open to the public. If you wish to know inside information - become an insider. OR, at the very least, ask respectfully. I don't owe any body anything - except my kung fu family.

Is there anyone that denies that the background of Wing Chun is connected with secret societies? All oral legends point to some form of anti-Qing activity. If you agree with this supposition, then I suggest that for those genuinely interested, do some hard searching on the secret societies.

And let me just state this: If you (general you) have a question of me, I may or may not answer. Just because you ask, I don't own you anything. I'm not in your debt. When people behave immature and rude, my interest in sharing goes even lower.

Instead of re-circulating the same old gossip or starting random rumors as Terance has done in the past, go direct to the source. Speak to Grand Master Gee in person with etiquette, courtesy and humility, just as Sifu Meng did back in 1998. Gossiping or guessing at the nature of things, as is often done about HFY, is ultimately disrespectful to the HFY lineage and Grand Master Gee.

Ultimately, reality can only be experienced through Hou Chyun San Sau - and it requires action.

supposidly there is a hfy school in h.k but it has not been found as of yet.

I can share a little bit about this - a guy (who’s name escapes me but he's in the Wong Shong Leung family) visited Grand Master Gee. During the visit he mentioned that there was a HFY school in Hong Kong. One of the four indoor students of Grand Master Wong Ming, sihing of Grand Master Gee, was quite active in Hong Kong, especially in the New Territories, but he would only have taught his students the fighting applications and very little of the actual system itself. The students were trained to fight, not to understand the system or teach it. If the school in Hong Kong is from this group, they are teaching a saan sau version of HFY, not the system with inside information.

Jeremy R.

[burnsypoo]

**** that's a long post.

[Rolling_Hand]

--And let me just state this: If you (general you) have a question of me, I may or may not answer. Just because you ask, I don't own you anything. I'm not in your debt. When people behave immature and rude, my interest in sharing goes even lower. --Jeremy


Jeremy,

Thanks for sharing!

[yuanfen]

Not only long- but didn't really address the history issues that Brian raised. Incidentally- its Brian not Brain-unless its intended as a complement.

I think that folks in any lineage of any art can believe in their own lineage legends and stories. But claiming them to be historical facts does require both logic and evidence. The claims of historical secrecy does not grant anyone an exception to the common protocols of evidence and credibility. Asking Gee just makes it Gee's art which one can accept or reject on its own merits.

[yuanfen]

I dont find the differences in gu lao points to be significant, Different folks can
note different things when being taught,

[JK Walz]

Originally posted by yuanfen
Incidentally- its Brian not Brain-unless its intended as a complement.
??? Why mention this?



Originally posted by yuanfen
...the common protocols of evidence and credibility.
What exactly are the common protocols of evidence and credibility?

[Geezer]

I have a question for everyone that doubts the Triad/Underground/Secrecy parts of HFY????? Have you ever been involved with a criminal element in any way???

Now this isn't a question "I" need an answer to, but just to make you think about the code of conduct in those circles????
"Honour Amounst Thieves", if you've always been involved with people on the right side of the law it makes it hard "I" think to understand this way of doing things:confused:
In London, from my experiences, you never ever "Grassed"(snitched) to the law, on any one no matter how much you wanted to.
The mentality was that the law was the lowest form of life, now you have to understand this is how I was brought up and allot of the people I was around had that same way of thinking.

I now live in the United States and have realised that it's not a healthy way to go about doing things, I look at the Law and understand and respect them for what they are doing, but I still understand my past way of thinking.
So why am I telling everyone this, because of past experiences I understand that the VTM and HFY owes no one anything expect to the people in their circles and I also find it very believable that this system was spread and supported by the secret societys over the years.

I'm not a sheep, I'm just someone that finds the information that they are bringing to the table very believable because of things I can relate to, and I would prefer that they keep bringing the information;)


Disclaimer, I am in no way shape or form involved in any criminal activitys and this story above can be viewed as pure fiction;)

Hopefully this helps "certain" people understand my thought process on this;)

Sheldon

[black and blue]

Geezer... I think you've been watching too many Ray Winston films and episodes of Eastenders with Grant and Phil.

:rolleyes:

[Geezer]

B&B Wrote>

Geezer... I think you've been watching too many Ray Winston films and episodes of Eastenders with Grant and Phil.

If you like;)

One thing, it wasn't East London but West and you've pretty much confirmed what I was saying;)


Sheldon

[Marky]

Hiya,

"I understand that the VTM and HFY owes no one anything expect to the people in their circles" Geezer

I can see how the HFY and ANY close-knit group, secret or otherwise, doesn't owe anything to anyone. But considering that the Ving Tsun Museum was established on the promise of presenting concrete evidence of wing chun history of an unbiased nature to be shared by all wing chun practitioners, it sounds like they owe us something. This is true of ANY organization that makes such claims, and the VTM should be no exception.

My question is, if the HFY is a secret society, why do they care if no one understands them or doesn't "believe" in them, or whatever?

"What exactly are the common protocols of evidence and credibility?" JK Walz

It means history is not rewritten just because a "grandmaster" says so. I say "grandmaster" in quotes because somehow there's wing chun, ving tsun, ving chun, wing tsun, yong chun, ving cheun, and wing cheung (to name a few), and they all have their own "grandmasters" (half of which learned from the same teacher!).

The real irony is, we don't trust a present day master to portray a non-biased and non-legendary history of our world, and yet there are an aweful lot of people who believe in the Bible.

[black and blue]

Yes... West London, the home of organised crime and gang shootings! :rolleyes:

I lived in Ealing for a number of years, not really a hotbed for hatred of the police.

What have I confirmed, that we've both taken tube trips from Perivale to Upney? ;)

And criminal gangs are not necessarily comparible to secret societies... the identity of criminal members in London, and their affiliations, are often anything but 'secret'.

[hunt1]

Posted this before. One more time so this foolishness will stop.


HISTORY OF GUANGDONG MARTIAL ARTS ISBN7-218-00434-2


The only work by chineese historians on the arts of Guangdong based on all available records. Written by authors not interested in proving any particular claims.

Book also covers the Secret Societies (Triads) and their role in southern martial arts . Covers all arts of Guangdong not just Wing Chun.

For good or bad the information in this book will answer many questions posed in this thread and others.

For those whose belief is based more on faith than reality little may change. Oral myths can always be changed to fit the facts.

[t_niehoff]

Hi Brian,

Byond1 wrote:

T--i started this thread ..."they"didnt...and it got highjacked by both of you.....not one post is on wc history....other than mine....
i think asking where and who tam yeung learned from is a fair question. from what i have seen there were only 3 students of leung jan in koolo village...non of which tam yeung learned from(the name listed ,of who tam yeung learned from was not one of the three that the fung family documented..doesnt mean he didnt learn..just means that there isnt a written record of it in the fung family)...so i am curious who he learned his points from. B1

Sure it is a fair question. Robert learned the 40 point from Kwan (who Rene has also met) and I've seen Kwan's notes myself (I've even a copy of some of them); certainly Kwan knew YKS lineage as other YKS folks have seen Robert's YKS. So one wonders why Kwan would teach Robert a "real" lineage (YKS) and another that he made up (40 point). Kwan claims to have learned from Tam Yeung. Tam apparently still lives in Gu Lao. Certainly some inquisitive chap should take a trip to Gu Lao and look into this and some other things (there is still a wealth of information to uncover there IMO). Tam told Kwan who in turn told Robert, that he learned from Yim Sae who had learned from Leung Jan (if memory serves - I'm not using my notes). There is IMO always the problem of accuracy when relying on oral (remembered) "history": did Kwan misunderstand Tam? Is there info about who LJ taught that we are missing? Was Yim Sae a nickname? Did Tam Yeung make it all up? What we do know is that the 40 point system looks very similar to a number of other san sik systems that come from Gu Lao; the history of the 40 point (LJ returning to Gu Lao, teaching a San Sik platform, etc.) is consistent; etc. But no one is claiming that the 40 point is the true or original LJ system or anything like that; it simply appears to be one of many lineages that have come from Gu Lao. No BFD, but certainly worth looking into further. TN

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

Hi Sheldon,

Geezer wrote:

I'm not a sheep, I'm just someone that finds the information that they are bringing to the table very believable because of things I can relate to, and I would prefer that they keep bringing the information. G

I too prefer that they keep making information available to all of us. And I hope that they, or others, can make genuine progress into WCK's history. But while you may find the present information "very believable" (and that's fine and certainly your perogative -- but "believable" is not the same as "factual" or "true"), please understand that some of us do not (and not because we have a bone to pick). It's not the information that the VTM or HFY presents that I find objectionable, but the way it is presented -- as fact, as true, as authoratative when it is not; it is simply the HFY oral tradition. And until they can "back it up" with real research and real facts ("connecting the dots"), it is conjecture like any other lineage's claim. Andreas Hoffman (Jee Shim) reports much of the same information as HFY (descending from Shaolin, Chan philosophy, etc.) but you don't see me or others criticisizing him because he presents it as his lineage's oral tradition; he may believe it (and I suspect he may), but he hasn't tried to force it down our throats as "the truth". "The truth" is that some lineages can prove their lineage back to the Red Boats and that no lineage, so far, has been able to prove it past that. Other lineages, such as HFY, haven't even been able to even prove it that far. That doesn't mean IMO those lineages are false or anything, but only that they shouldn't expect us to believe they have "cornered the market" on WCK's genuine history when their history is, in fact, less proven than those that can prove lineage back 4 or 5 generations (to the Red Boats). TN

Terence

[black and blue]

Oral myths can always be changed to fit the facts

Ouch! :eek:

[Geezer]

B&B Wrote>

Yes... West London, the home of organised crime and gang shootings!

Who said anything about shootings:confused:

B&B Wrote>

I lived in Ealing for a number of years, not really a hotbed for hatred of the police.

I went to a club in Ealing back when Steve Jackson was the DJ,I think on Fridays, you know,from KISS FM;)

B&B Wrote>

What have I confirmed, that we've both taken tube trips from Perivale to Upney?

How have you confirmed that, I didn't mention anything about going on the tube:confused:

B&B Wrote>

And criminal gangs are not necessarily comparible to secret societies... the identity of criminal members in London, and their affiliations, are often anything but 'secret'.


I'm not going to have a p!$$ing contest with you:(

Now if you could please explain to me how your living in W5 and my experiences in W10 are the same:confused:

[Geezer]

Whoops

[black and blue]

Geezer,


Who said anything about shootings

No one. I'm simply saying that East London has it's history of crime and twins, and that West London considerably less so... hence my Eastenders nonsense.


How have you confirmed that, I didn't mention anything about going on the tube

A reference, simply, from West to East London.


Now if you could please explain to me how your living in W5 and my experiences in W10 are the same

I'm sure they're not the same - by hey, East is East.

All the best to the guys practising HFY, secretly or openly. I know nothing of their art or of it's history. I was just tickled by all this talk of London and the 'filth'. And before you say it, I know that's not how you referred to the old bill :rolleyes:

[Geezer]

B&B Wrote>

Yes... West London, the home of organised crime and gang shootings!


Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show.
There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year.
That represents an average of 27 offences involving firearms every day in England and Wales, with guns fired in nearly a quarter of cases.


I would say it's on a rise;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm (http://)

B&B Wrote>

I was just tickled by all this talk of London and the 'filth'.

Now I think you've been watching too much of "The Bill";)

B&B Wrote>

I'm simply saying that East London has it's history of crime and twins

And the only reason they're not still going strong is because they became careless,IMHO ;)

You know, you hear allot more of the younger wannabe criminals than the old school ones, what's happened to the Old Boys:confused:

Sheldon

[reneritchie]

Brian - Leung Jan had at least 4 students in Gulao. Off the top of my head they were Wong Wah-Sum, Yik Yin, Leung Bak-Cheung (his nephew), and another nephew, Bak-Cheung's brother, who's name I don't recall/know.

I've made comments before about people not understanding a system or a culture and hence making very vocal misrepresentations. I think this is a case. Kwan sifu remembers his sifu saying he learned from Yim Sei. Yim Sei is not a real name--it's a nickname. Put that together with the nebulous nature of Cantonese romanization, and it's not hard to figure out a possibility.

Terence -


no one is claiming that the 40 point is the true or original LJ system or anything like that

That's the problem. People have obviously been conditioned to believe the hype 8P

Hunt 1 -
HISTORY OF GUANGDONG MARTIAL ARTS ISBN7-218-00434-2

I think I have copies of the Wingchun and White crane parts of that book. If memory serves, there was some excellent stuff, but not 100% match with the cannon of WCK. WRT Jee Shim, that was also a nickname (Benificient Enlightenment) and not a real name. Absent real names, especially in the multi-named Chinese society, it's hard to disprove negatives.

WRT Secret societies. These were often not that secret and not that societal (some sold registers of their members like Amway franchises). Wong Wah-Bo, Leung Yee-Tai et. al. were members of secret societies and their names are well known, as are the names of founders and principle members of many revolutionary societies, including the Tai Ping, Hong Jin, etc. Fung Siu-Ching and Fok Bo-Chuen were inner-gate society members and both their names are known. And how do we know Leung Jan wasn't a member of a society? Maybe he was just good at keeping a secret? ;)

Secondly, the Qing were long gone by the 1950s and latter, so keeping secret that you belonged to a society changed. Under the Communists, during the Cultural Revolution, Sum Nung's name wasn't used because it could be a capitol crime to teach martial arts (my sifu knew someone beat to death by the Red Guard just to see how many punches a martial arts teacher could take). That's why you often see SNWCK called Guangzhou WCK--to keep his name out of it. But if you knew his name, you could still check with the medical association and verify he existed, and you could check with the party as well, as he, like most distinguished people, was required to join and attend meetings. The only other reason to keep something secret would be if you were a member of a modern criminal Triad, which was a capitol crime far beyond teaching martial arts. But, in that case, no one would be stupid enough to give your name to ANYONE or mention you belonged to one FOR ANY REASON. (for example, there are several publically know WCK practitioners rumored to have connections to these groups, and while those connections weren't discussed while they were alive, their names are still known, as are their sifu(s), and easily verifiable).

Even in the non-criminal societies that endured, it is completely illogical to say someone's name and say they belong to such a society, and then just say you can't find them (because it would create conditions where people may try). Logically (and factually in the past) they did not give someone's name and/or didn't say they belonged to a secret society. To borrow the CIA analogy, Bob Smith's friends don't say "he's a CIA spy but you'll never find him", they all assume he really does work for that Washington civillian think tank and have no idea he's a spy.

But all that is neither here nor there. The simple truth is that not Gee sifu nor anyone else is required to print and distribute press kits of their teachers. It's their choice (and their teacher's) what, if any information they give and to whom. And, like it or not, their choice has to be respected. But, like any choice, it comes with an opportunity cost and those who make the choice have to understand that. The opportunity cost is that others may choose to view what you think as fact as opinion or as fiction. And that's their right (at their cost of being wrong).

So, if you can't back something up, (and no one can back up everything), leave out the "fact" and "truth" and other hyperbolic labels that can't be verified and just present it on its face. Then people can make up their own minds, their own opionions.

Because life is strange and who knows, in 5 years, we may have staunch advocates decrying what they once supported and staunch opponents who have picked up the banner. Like good WCK, good research is never over committed because credibility is like structure.

RR

[yuanfen]

Sheldon- I dont question the existence of secret societies, triads and many things-
but simply name dropping does not a historical connection make.
The "Thugees" were secret groups near my part of India. Should I be exempted from being subject to a little more evidence if I claim (in public forums) that I am about to reveal the long held secrets of the thugee art?
You need proof- just ask me?
You dont believe me- ask me again?
We took oaths of secrecy sealed with blood and goat sacrifices.
We developed the perfect choke.

[yuanfen]

Hunt!- how would I buy the book. Is there an editors or publishers name.? is it in English, bengali, Hindi, Sanskrit or Creek?
Sorry- I dont read Chinese besides recognizinga few characters.

[hunt1]

Yuanfen-Copy I had was from the University of Chicago either center for east asian studies or the museum I forget which had the copy. A student at the school did an english translation. He was a SPM sifu. I read it but dont have a copy. At the time he had not finished the translation. As I understand it the best chance of getting a copy is through the university system. The printing was rather small.

Rene- if you can read or get copies of other chapters some shed some light on WC history as many arts share founders. The fact that Jee Shim didnt exist is more of a problem for Hung Gar students than WC. The fact that many used nicknames ,alias names etc provides a haven for those that claim oral tradition is fact. The truth IMO is found in the forms. Same frame work same source.

[Jim Roselando]

Hello,


With regards to Dr. Leung Jan's pupils in Koo Lo I can tell you what I know but like anything it could be right or wrong.

Master Fung Chun does make mention of a possible forth pupil of Dr. Jan in Koo Lo yet his pupils seem to all name only three:

Wong Wah Sam, Yik Ying & Leung Bak Chung (Dr. Jan's nephew)

At the moment I have not found any name for the possible other Leung ??? and only these three names run consistent thru my family and including Fung Sang's info which his brother (Fung Ming) discussed with me during our chats.

Either way its only important from a historical point of view and the stylistic info/comparison is probally more important as to how and why the art was developed by Dr. Jan. Perhpas in the future we can discuss that but for now I would just prefer to cool down this debate.

Ok! Time to go back to work

:D

Regards,

[reneritchie]

Hunt 1 - You are correct, the material will out. People can talk about having a famous grandfather, but if the DNA says otherwise, all the stories in the world don't matter.

As I've oft mentioned before, there was a serious look at Plum Blossom Fist several years ago (which many WCK people claim was the system Ng Mui refined to teach Yim Wing Chun) and it turned out a man named Feng Keshan used Ng Mui's name for his art because he was a wanted fugitive (didn't work though, he was arrested, drawn, and quartered). But, legends persist that Ng Mui was a Plum Blossom Fist expert...

[Grendel]

Originally posted by yuanfen

The "Thugees" were secret groups near my part of India. Should I be exempted from being subject to a little more evidence if I claim (in public forums) that I am about to reveal the long held secrets of the thugee art?
You need proof- just ask me?
You dont believe me- ask me again?
We took oaths of secrecy sealed with blood and goat sacrifices.
We developed the perfect choke.
Show me the proof!

As the secret Californian franchisee of the Cult of Thugee, I have the definitive proof of its lineage and history, but obviously, if I told anyone, I'd have to kill them. Besides, all the records are in Sanskrit. Of course out here, we cannot sacrifice animals, so we sacrifice Napa cabbage.

Anyway, I'm prepared to believe everyone else's claims. I'm only biding time until the Mother Ship(tm) comes to take me away. If only I hadn't lost the ability to fly since I lost my wings. :( Only the Cosmic Muffin has a more direct claim to that lineage.

Cheers.

[Mckind13]

Mmmmmm Goats


Mmmmm Napa Cabage (in big bowls of BBQ Pork Wan Ton noodle soup)


Good discuscios so far men :P

David

[wingchunalex]

thanks for hearing what I said on the other thread about ng mui. thanks for the reflection questions. I'll think about that.

[reneritchie]

Hmmm Won Ton Tong... David, Jow Faan ah!!!!

[yuanfen]

David sez:Mmmmmm Goats
Mmmmm Napa Cabage (in big bowls of BBQ Pork Wan Ton noodle soup)
-------------------------------------------------------------
David actually had both yesterday- the latter for lunch at a Chinese restaurant in the Valley. The goat meat for dinner- I cooked it myself. Together with pulao-pilaf.
Didnt use Kali's "khera" the big bro of the kukhri this time- since I purchased the meat. Maybe next time--- if the thugees insist.

John W.- some of the thugees got stranded in Arizona-they found out that they didnt have to go to SF to get Ghirardelli's best.

[passing_through]

Rene,

If I am understanding you correctly, you are asserting that the only reason to maintain secrecy is

1) teaching marital arts during the cultural revolution could be a capital crime
2) being a member of a criminal Triad organization

to quote:

Under the Communists, during the Cultural Revolution, Sum Nung's name wasn't used because it could be a capitol crime to teach martial arts.

The only other reason to keep something secret would be if you were a member of a modern criminal Triad, which was a capitol crime far beyond teaching martial arts.

Despite your attempt to cover yourself at the end of your post, by even mentioning criminal elements, you are implicitly linking Grand Master Wong Ming to criminal elements. You are the first person to mention a criminal connection, not anyone in the HFY family. Are you more qualifed, as an outsider, to speak for me or HFY? The intention of your post is quite clear and I'm not so innocent as to ignore your implict connection.

Neither of your conditions necessarily apply to Grand Master Wong Ming - he may have other reasons to desire secrecy - maybe he doesn't like having people ask for his autograph. Regardless of the reason, your conclusions are fallacious. Certainly, there are more than the two reasons you state. Why do monks and priests sometimes go into seclusion? Is it because they are teaching martial arts or criminals/hiding because of political reasons (your reasons for maintaining secrecy) - or is it possible that the desire for seclusion is part of the spiritual journey (outside your reasons)?

Also, I found your following comments to be contradictory:

a) The only other reason to keep something secret would be if you were a member of a modern criminal Triad, which was a capitol crime far beyond teaching martial arts. But, in that case, no one would be stupid enough to give your name to ANYONE or mention you belonged to one FOR ANY REASON.

and

b) Even in the non-criminal societies that endured, it is completely illogical to say someone's name and say they belong to such a society, and then just say you can't find them (because it would create conditions where people may try). Logically (and factually in the past) they did not give someone's name and/or didn't say they belonged to a secret society.

In a) above you state that the only reason to keep secret was if you were in a criminal secret society yet in b) above you state that non-criminal societies that endured would also keep secrets. Which is it?

If someone is not a member of a criminal secret society, the standards of secrecy may be lower (such as the Free Masons - a "secret society" - by definition but not really - in practice, generally typing). Now, supposing that Grand Master Wong Ming was affiliated in some way with a non-criminal society, it would stand to reason that some degree of information on him would be released - but not much; this is in the vein of your "non-criminal societies that endured" comment. Would you agree?

BTW, no one has said that Grand Master Wong Ming can't be found. If you want to find him, you won't. As to the my ability to contact him, that is privalged information and not for you.

When someone in the martial arts community goes around insulting people while trying to be friendly, they call that "Ai Gwan Ji." Often you're posts manage to share infromation while also insulting the person to which you post. A kung fu guy can read your character in your actions. This is not about discussing history or even different points of view - you're trying to be a nice guy while stabbing HFY in the back. In the first part of your post you state only two conditions for secrecy - "your" way, the way of

Sum Nung teaching martial arts, or "my" way, the way I explained in my previous post, which you attach to criminal organizations. All Wing Chun shares common background and roots. When you insult a particlar lineage by painting them as criminals - ultimately, you insult yourself.

to quote you: "so, if you can't back something up, leave out the "fact" and "truth" and other hyperbolic labels that can't be verified and just present it on its face."

I never said I can't back anything up. You and Terance merely assume something to the effect that "if something can be backed up, surely the facts would be known by now." Following your own advise, how do you know Fung Sui-Ching and Fok Bo-Chuen were inner-gate society members? Which secret society? Do you have the registars? Do you know their symbols? Where they met? Does the building still exist? What parts of their branches of Wing Chun were influenced by secret society rituals? Same questions for Wong Wah-Bo, Leung Yee-Tai, et. al. I will admit that you are not saying that you have "facts" or "truth" - you only act as if you do. Odd that I don't tell you how to write while you seem to feel qualifed to tell me how to write. Should I note your sentence structure and word choice? I happen to like diversity of though and action. I don't care how you write - only that you continue to do so as you see fit - not as I see fit for you to write. You have strong options just as we - that we choose to language them differently is our business - not yours. And no matter how it's languaged, facts are facts and truth is truth.

If I come into contact with someone with which I disagree, I leave things alone and try not to cause trouble - I only respond when provoked. Yet, whenever HFY is mentioned, you, Terance, and yuanfan attach like parasites and make all kinds of comments. Do you think you are doing the Wing Chun world a favor? In the school yard parlance, "who died and left you in charge?" Are you scared that you won't be heard if you don't always have something to say about everything in Wing Chun? Are you scared that the VTM will become the sole voice of Wing Chun? I noticed your new article in Inside Kung Fu - good work. There should be more articles by more authors on Wing Chun. That the VTM has been quite active in publishing articles only shows the committment to Wing Chun. I have always encouraged more publications from people on things with which they have experience - rather than have an opinion on everything under the sun.

I choose to provide and share information to whom I wish and when I wish. I have no obligation to you. I am not the VTM. I speak for myself. When acting in an official capacity, I identify myself acting in that role. When I post otherwise, I am posting for myself and my kung fu family. The VTM presents information in the form of formal articles and generally not here in an on-line forum - hence my mention of articles in my posts on another thread.

Jeremy R.

[Chango]

I have to say that you have put to word what many of us on this board have been saying for a long time in your last post!!!!!

[Mckind13]

Wow I am completely incredulous!

David

[t_niehoff]

Jeremy,

Just for fun . . .

The "Real Truth" Revealed

Although I'm the Grand Poobah of the newly formed "Wing Chun Historical Society" (WCHS), I'm only speaking for myself here. I can authoritatively prove Wong Ming does not exist, and has never existed. This is, you understand, simply a fact. It is "the truth." The "real truth." Not only that, HFY as a system is at its core, fundamentally flawed. I cannot however share with you, at least at this time, the exact nature of my information (it's privledged, and you are not one of the chosen, i.e., a member of the WCHS) concerning Wong Ming -- but trust me, it is "true." Really. True. Believe me, I wouldn't be saying it if it wasn't. Don't ask for more information -- I only share what I feel like sharing, when I feel like sharing it (and I revise it later, so that it never seems to be the same). And I'm sorry that I can't tell you, in words, the flaw in HFY, it can only be appreciated "face-to-face" (words, you see, just can't explain it -- nevertheless it will be available in my forthcoming book). You don't believe it's flawed? Well, you don't know what I know. What? You question my information? You don't want to travel to St. Louis to see for yourself? Then, my friend, your cup is full. Yes, you have a closed mind. I feel sorry for you, you poor deluded "kung fu guy" -- practicing something with such a huge flaw and too ignorant to see the light. What? You want me to provide verifiable evidence of what I say is true? HOW DARE YOU!!! You, parasite! Backstabber! [Bring in the chorus of "Amens" from other members of the WCHS]. And did I mention, your cup is full? 8P

All in good fun. :) But maybe it gives you a feeling of what some of us hear.

Terence

[yuanfen]

I am sorry- Sardar Jiten Singh is unavailable at this moment for answering any questions on the thugees.

[Rolling_Hand]

Jeremy wrote:

When someone in the martial arts community goes around insulting people while trying to be friendly, they call that "Ai Gwan Ji."

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

Jeremy,

You're right about this person. The unfortunate thing about this world is that good habits are so much easier to give up than bad ones.

[yuanfen]

Jeremy sez: - I only respond when provoked. Yet, whenever HFY is mentioned, you, Terance, and yuanfan attach like parasites and make all kinds of comments-----------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its polite to get the name spellings right-but it could have been an understandable slip.
No point in accurately defining in these threads the parasite and the host.
One thing the HFY folks dont seem to get is the image created by the frequent claims to
superiority (its science etc), being the unchanged mother art.
Its reasonable to expect responses when such arrogance is displayed.
HFY is not the only one singled out...lookat the thread started
by UF on whether Leung Ting;s system is the best.
The forum's finer moments have occured when folks have discussed and even debated substantial similarities and differences in what folks do- giving good reasons for the positions. Then others can make up their own minds.
Other moments have been when some answers to newbies questions have been attempted in an informative and helpful way.

[Rolling_Hand]

Yuanfen wrote:

No point in accurately defining in these threads the parasite and the host.
One thing the HFY folks dont seem to get is the image created by the frequent claims to
superiority (its science etc), being the unchanged mother art.
Its reasonable to expect responses when such arrogance is displayed.

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

Yuanfen,

I disagree with your posting.

Why can't the HFY folks express their opinions about the HFYWCK?

Please don't forget this...

Benny Meng wasn't a HFY member before 1998.

Neal Bryant is a JKD Guru.

Both of these gentlemen went to study the HFYWCK for a good reason.

They love the art of WCK.

Unlike you,

They don't have a troubled mind.


Here is another kung fu brother's HFY experience.


Guru Neal Bryant is a proud member of both the United States Martial Arts Association and the Bay Area Buyu Center of San Francisco. Neal is listed at www.mararts.org under California club directory Authentic Bela Diri, and black belt registry under Pencak Silat Kuda Dongkak. Neal is ranked as a Guru in Indonesian Pencak Silat and fourth degree black belt as personally appointed by O'sensei Phillip Porter, founder of the USMA, and lead chairman of the International Board of Martial Art Masters. He posses numerous skills as a technician, professional, and philosopher of Indonesian, Filipino, and Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do concepts. His knowledge of the martial arts is greatfully and thankfully due to the instruction received by the great Guro Guy Chase of Multiculture Martial Arts Academy; a direct descendant of Guro Dan Inosanto's Academy and personal student of the late great Pendekar Herman Suwanda of Mande Muda Pencak Silat. Neal has trained and studied extensively in Filipino Kali Escrima Arnis, Panantukan Filipino Boxing, Jeet Kune Do Jun Fan Gung Fu, and Mande Muda Pencak Silat. In addition, Neal sought private training with Mr. Chase to sharpen his skills as a technician and practice classical court postures in various styles of Pencak Silat, while still attending regular group classes. After the closure of the Multiculture Martial Art Academy in San Francisco, Neal trained under Grandmaster Garrett Gee of San Francisco Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kwoon. The training with Sifu Gee was priceless as he showed to Guru Bryant the true meaning of time and space in a combat application. Subsequently Neal's existing skill in Jeet Kune Do greatly benefited by training under Sifu Gee.

http://www.authenticbeladiri.com/guro.htm

[Mckind13]

Still incredulous!

I really can't believe you people! It is sad.

I have been to see HFY and I must thank them for their hospitality.
I hope when we meet again it will be as friends but Terence and others have hit the nail on the head.

Maybe some day we will see what secret marketing scheme Benny and Sifu Gee have dreamed up for you all but for those that see the continuing changes in the stories and "history" of HFY please understand our cynicism.

If you cannot, empty your cups.

If you think I am or others are wrong then learn to respect our opinions as you request us to do to yours.

Nuff Said!

David McKinnon (WCHS)

[Ng Mui]

I still have faith in the old ''Wing Chun'' history taught by Ip Man, so many years ago.
To question it would mean to call into question all.
That would be foolish as well as desrespectfull.

[Rolling_Hand]

David Mckinnon wrote:

Still incredulous!

I really can't believe you people! It is sad.

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

What else is new with your group (Hendrik, Rene, Terrence and David Mckinnon)?

How sad for you?

You're leading yourself into a swamp of ignorance.

The fault is in all of us.

There are so many "truths" that history tries to "erase"

By your own efforts waken yourself,

Watch yourself and live joyfully.

The VTM has done a great job to serve us,

Be thankful to our WCK brothers.

It's through the finding and the giving

That we may come to know a little more about the WCK history

That lies at the center of both the dark times and the light.

The world we experience together is one world,

Be kind to each other

And help each other.

[yuanfen]

Understandable post Dave.

[Mckind13]

(I wrote this)
Still incredulous!

I really can't believe you people! It is sad.

----------------------------------------------
(Rolling hands wrote this)
What else is new with your group (Hendrik, Rene, Terrence and David Mckinnon)?
(ME) – Hendrick doesn’t live here ant more. Terrence is a good debater but has never done anything but question your own words witch you are all uneducated enough in your own system to intelligently respond too (You, Chango, Various Trolls). Except for Jeremy who seems bent on defending the secrecy and why it has to remain secret.

(YOU) How sad for you?
(ME) Thanks for caring!
(YOU) You're leading yourself into a swamp of ignorance.
(ME) Yes I am leading myself. Into a swamp or not is not really anyone’s concern but I am leading myself and not following someone else blindly. Who do you follow?

(You)The fault is in all of us.
(ME) Completely agree

(You)There are so many "truths" that history tries to "erase"
(ME) And so much that marketers do to hide it.

(YOU) By your own efforts waken yourself,
Watch yourself and live joyfully.
(ME)By awaken myself do you mean wake up and see the truth of the HFY system? HA! How is this instead? I am a reasonable intelligent person who has met different Sifu from different Lineages, worked out with their students and experienced good bad and ugly WCK. This includes your system. And of everyone I have met face to face all have been respectful and courteous and I have been the same in return. Yet even with all the Sifu Worship and System bias I have seen I have always found an aspect of the art or the method that was worthwhile. Again this includes what I saw in Dayton. But the way it is marketed, the way your camp try’s to make it all secret and hide their sources and make their system out to be the most original makes me ill. It appears to be a complete marketing scheme, it hurts Wing Chun and it misleads people. You and your Kung Fu brothers need to wake up to this. HFY may be a good system but all I see them doing is marketing and protecting the rice bowl.

(YOU) The VTM has done a great job to serve us,
(Me) Have they? How? What? The Museum exhibit is very nice, but what real research has been done since Benny has started marketing HFY? Anything new on any other fronts?

(YOU) Be thankful to our WCK brothers.
(ME) I am every day!

(YOU) It's through the finding and the giving

That we may come to know a little more about the WCK history

That lies at the center of both the dark times and the light.

The world we experience together is one world,

Be kind to each other

And help each other.
(ME) Through finding and giving we should learn about WCK not just its history! We should learn by touching hands who has the true Wing Chun.
Well I have a class to go to so I will see you all later.

[Rolling_Hand]

David Mckinnon wrote:

Yes I am leading myself. Into a swamp or not is not really anyone’s concern but I am leading myself and not following someone else blindly. Who do you follow?

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

Hey brother,

The wind cannot overturn a mountain.

Temptation cannot touch the man

Who is awake, strong and humble,

I follow the Tao.

[t_niehoff]

"RollingHand" wrote:

The VTM has done a great job to serve us, RH

If by "us" you mean the WCK community, then how? Seriously, specifically how? TN

Terence

[Geezer]

Terence Wrote>

If by "us" you mean the WCK community, then how? Seriously, specifically how?

Here's a few quotes from they're website,


Today at the Museum
This is the page you are now reading. It is our home page. To hear of the latest news or see what the next event at the Museum is, check here. This information will also be available in other areas of our site, but we put the most pertinent information here so you can see it quickly.

Museum Information
This section is devoted to the all the information about the Museum. From our history to our hours of operation, it's all here.

Galleries
Here we have placed all of our exhibits, articles, hall of fame, our illustrated timeline, and our new Sifu gallery. Come see what displays the Museum has to offer.

Reference Library
Our online research center. Here you can look up Wing Chun terminology, and Chinese character definitions in our searchable database. You will also find the Kyuhn Kuit, and our growing repository of information on Wing Chun lineages.

Community
This area is devoted entirely to you, the Wing Chun community. Here we have placed links to other Wing Chun websites, a list of upcoming events, written reviews of events, as well as our guest book and chat room.

Gift Shop
Shop online for VTM merchandise. The Gift Shop is currently set to calculate shipping charges for domestic U.S. orders. For orders outside the U.S.A, your total shipping charges will be calculated when the order is processed. This is due to the program we are currently using to run the Gift Shop. A custom shopping program is in the works by the webmaster, which will calculate overseas orders. This should be available within the next few months. We appreciate your patience.

Miscellaneous
Help Center : Here you will find answers to some of the most common questions and problems that you may run into while visiting our site. This area will be updated whenever new questions or problems arise.

Feedback : If you find an error or have suggestion on how to improve this site, or you just want to say hi, feel free to use our feedback page to send us a message.

Site Credits : The people involved in creating this site are listed here.

http://home.vtmuseum.org/ (http://)

Looks pretty good to me

Sheldon

[t_niehoff]

Sheldon wrote:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If by "us" you mean the WCK community, then how? Seriously, specifically how? TN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a few quotes from they're website, SG

Thanks for pointing out that they have a website. ;) Look at it this way, if the VTM didn't exist and never existed, how would it significantly impact most WCK (not Benny's students or HFY) practitioners? IMHO, it wouldn't make a difference. Information on the various lineages of WCK exists (and existed before the VTM) in other websites and books (and those websites and books are much more informative than the VTM's). Research into WCK's history is being done, and much better IMO (not just accepting a lineage's oral tradition as fact) by others. Websites by other lineages, like Jee Shim, Gu Lao, Cho Ga, etc. aren't hosted by the VTM either. Nor was the VTM integral in getting the WCK community together either online (I think the WCML was first) or in person (like the Friendship Seminars). What the VTM is good at IMHO is promoting the VTM, promoting Benny Meng, and promoting HFY (aren't they all the same?). TN

Terence

[Geezer]

Terence Wrote>

Nor was the VTM integral in getting the WCK community together either online (I think the WCML was first)

The thing with the WCML, most everyone thats vocal there is related(Kung Fu Familys) and "you" always requested an introduction before even acknowledgeing a new voice:confused:

From the what I've read on the VTM website they seem to be very open to displaying other familys information, when they hosted the Shaolin Monks in Dayton a few years ago I went and loved it. Maybe you need to lighten up abit and get over this complex you have,IMHO.
We all have our own oponions and yours and your camps are pretty clear, maybe this is now the time for Inside Voices, "Yeah Right" I don't see that happening.

Well, I'm now going to take my own advice for a while and get on with some work;)

Sheldon

[JK Walz]

What the VTM is good at IMHO is promoting the VTM, promoting Benny Meng, and promoting HFY (aren't they all the same?). TN

Terence- Are you stating that you feel the sole and only purpose of the VTM, Benny Meng, and HFY is self promotion and profit? Are you saying that the VTM is not intent on researching WCK history for any reasons other than increasing Benny Meng's bank account? Do you truly feel that the VTM has harmed Wing Chun in general?

Who here agrees with the above statements (questions)? I am curious-- after watching so many people here skirt the subject, lets finally lay all of the cards on the table and see what your opinion REALLY is!

A Vote!

All those in favor of calling the VTM, Benny Meng, and the HFY a bunch of profit motivated, history re-writing quacks raise your hands now.

All those in favor of recognizing the VTM and HFY as legitimate entities actually trying to further WCK please state so now.

All those who intend on avoiding these questions by responding to this post indireclty with the usual BS please shut up and keep it to your cowardly selves.

It's time to put up or shut up.

[reneritchie]

The double standards applied to everyone else on these threads are rediculous.

Fellas:

1) If you attack others, and call it "research", how can you call debate of that "research" an attack? If you request dispassion, be courteous enough to extend it.

2) If you gang up on others, and call it "expressing your opinions", how can you call it anything else when others, completely unconnected, separated by lineage, geography, and opinions on almost everything else all beg the premise of your arguments? If a collective group and their groupies is going to operate, be courteous enough to to mis-label everyone else in kind.

3) If you call into question the existance (Ng Mui) or quality (other branches of WCK) of other people's lineages, and call it "truth", how can you get riled up when people call your foundation into question? If you're going to throw stones, first shore up the glass house.

Jeremy - You misread, or perhaps projected, much into my comments. They were not personal, and not directed towards you or anyone else. They were a discussion of your argument about secrecy (which seemed illogical). If you possess a rudimentary knowledge of China under the communists, it should be obvious to you that my triad mention could in no way be connected to any individual there.

There seems to be, in general, a lot of hostily that comes from the VTM whenever anyone else tries to discuss things. Perhaps I'm under a great misconception. Is the VTM interested in WCK history or not? Is the VTM interested in a vigorous debate about improtant historical issues or not? Are we (WCK practitioners) supposed to just shut up and take everything you say as pronouncements from on how, or are we allowed to disagree, to question, to force you to work harder, better, smarter, longer? Are you all-seeing, all-knowing, infallible? Or is it possible that someone else could stumble upon something important as well, and in questioning you (as you most certainly question) others, help everyone get a better understanding?

For example:

How can the VTM claim that, of the three explinations for Tan Sao Ng's nickname, the one from the Opera History (martial) has to be "true" rather than the Artist Society (beggar) because he was a man of such high stature, when all scholarly work on the period (including encyclopedia, travel guides, specific historical works, etc.) hold that opera performers enjoyed only the lowest of social statures, akin to beggars and butchers? Would that not, combined with the fact Ng did not at first speak the local tongue, lean more towards the Artist Society?

How can the VTM claim that "Hung Gan" was a leadership position, giving Biu some manner of seniority (as opposed to those lists of the "hairpins" that have him rather lower down the seniority), when scholarly works of the period describe the Hung Gan not as the leaders but as the common folks who rose up to support the rebels and opera performers already on the rise?

These, and others, are serious questions, for serious, ethical researchers who can argue and debate without personal attack or constant perception of insult. These are questions for all of WCK, for all our ancestors, and not the domain of any one group. And they're something we owe to our art to treat with respect yet openess, honesty, and candor.

JK - one possible solution to comments like Terence's would be for the VTM to adopt a board of diverse and independant directors from different branches of the art, and a chairmanship that was either completely independant of WCK (as when the Foshan WCK council appointed a Qigong man to run things), or one that rotated among the independant and diverse directorship with a fixed mandate (1 or 2 years to prevent one point of view attaining and sustaining dominance).

[reneritchie]

BTW - While trolling hand's comments are obviously laughable, just for the record, there is no secret league of everyone from every lineage all over the world except the VTM. I've met Terence exactly once (1 time) in Dayton, at the VTM. Joy I've never met, and hardly agreed with on anything, ever, in the time we've been discussing online. For us both to have questions about something, nevermind all the other people we don't agree with, should be a sure sign to anyone with even a little self-honesty, that the questions are genuine, and deserve a little reflection rather than attack.

And WRT the WCML, no most people on there aren't related by lineage, nor by geography, language, ethnicity, etc. We've had loads of WT people, quite a few TWC people, VTM people, Moy Yat people, etc. but most of the time, we have a very diverse mix, and (how amazing!) all sorts of different opinions.

[yuanfen]

JK Walz asks:Who here agrees with the above statements (questions)? I am curious-- after watching so many people here skirt the subject, lets finally lay all of the cards on the table and see what your opinion REALLY is!
(snippped-quoted for context primarily)

It's time to put up or shut up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the thread was started, I was concerned that it would become the same old HFY and Walz's latest shows the same.
I have met Benny Meng once inTucson as I recall- seemed like a
pleasant person.
Since Walz asks for opinions directly- I will be direct - about concepts, styles and institutions ---

1. To date I am not convinced that HFY is wing chun except for using the name and some overlapping. HFY folks generate a lot of heat but little light.

2. A research institution usually has an independent board of directors and distinguishes between promotion and research.
Not the case with the VTM IMO. The VTM is not a museum in the
normal research sense of the word.

3. The VTM neither helps or hurts wing chun. Like many orgs. it promotes itself. Like others it throws the term research loosely around. Understandable- very little written work in MA meets the standards of Wile(?)'s work on tai chi history. Much MA writings are not subjected to blind reviews by independent but competent referees.

4. It could have beena research institution but has gradually become like many promotional organizations with a "party line"- just read the HFY folks posts- different words but basically the same group cheer songs.

5. It keeps getting further away from bridging wing chun groups.
You have the fall out with the MOy Yat organixation- the transfer of things out of the museum. Sure someother WC folks have riefly visited there for a paying seminar- but the ranks of wing chun masters supporting the VTM is thin.

6. 5 miles from me there is not an untypical MA dojang- the sign says they teach TLD, Judo, Karate, Kung Fu. Understandable as
a marketing idea- diversification. Nothing unusual-teaching TKD,
HFY, WC, Krav M(sp?)- etc, either. Degerburg(?) academy in Chicago did - does that too. W Cheung has been there too.

I have no strong feelings about the VTM- honest. A boring subject.Commercial enterprise using souped up labels are common phenomena
and irrelevant in progressing in understanding an art.
And Walz is not a moderator re asking people to put up or shut up. This is an open forum. None's private property except for KFO
owners.

[Geezer]

Sheldon Wrote>

The thing with the WCML, most everyone thats vocal there is related(Kung Fu Familys)

Rene Wrote>

And WRT the WCML, no most people on there aren't related by lineage, nor by geography, language, ethnicity, etc

What I should have said was, the "Very Vocal Members" you have Zopa(SN) Terence(YKS?/GL?/YM) Rene(YKS) and a few others but it seemed the ones that could say pretty much what ever they wanted were the ones Rene(silently) agreed with:confused:

I remember a post from myself on the WCML, where I highlighted "Zopas" hate campaign, the thing that amazed me was he got away with it for as long as he did:confused:

The inside voices didn't last as long as I thought;)

Sheldon

[Gandolf269]

McKind 13 writes: "Who here agrees with the above statements (questions)?"

I don't agree with any of the statements. I don't think Benny Meng has done any harm to Wing Chun, nor do I beleive he only does research to pad his own pockets. I respect Benny Meng for his efforts to find the history of Wing Chun and enjoy reading his articles, when published. But, that doesn't mean I agree with his point of view. I say "point of view", because I think he doesn't report his sources properly when specifying "historical facts". It seems to me that many of VTM "historical facts" are conjecture or theories. If they are not, I would like to see information to back up his claims. I have an open mind with regards to the origins of Wing Chun, but until I see documented facts, I will still read Benny Mings articles (enjoyingly) as his opinions.

[Rolling_Hand]

What I should have said was, the "Very Vocal Members" you have Zopa(SN) Terence(YKS?/GL?/YM) Rene(YKS) and a few others but it seemed the ones that could say pretty much what ever they wanted were the ones Rene(silently) agreed with

I remember a post from myself on the WCML, where I highlighted "Zopas" hate campaign, the thing that amazed me was he got away with it for as long as he did

The inside voices didn't last as long as I thought

Sheldon

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

Geezer,

I understand where you're coming from with this wcml camp.

They're very content in their own arrogant, ignorant world.

And a few things about this trolling Rene,

He isn't a very honorable man.

As we practice our WCK kung fu,

The moment of grace comes to us...

We are unearthing the eternal from within ordinary time,

Engaging in the special qualities,

Themes, and circumstances of the soul.

humm...

Roger

[Mckind13]

Gandolf269 I don't think I said what you think I said!

it was someone else:)

David

[reneritchie]

Sheldon,

Terence practices Yip Man WCK and has not been on the WCML for quite a while. Zopa is currently studying Pien San and is still a vocal member. Mostly, lately, we seem to have quite a few Dun Wah/Sunny Tang folks posting, some Leung Ting of various flavors and Leung Sheung of like, and UK Yip Chun/Ching folks. And we have a lot of new folks posting quite a bit whose lineage I'm not sure of because they don't thrust it down anyone's throat.

Moderation is no easy job, and I'm always happy to take advice (even considered some from Chango before, though unfortunately he doesn't seem to value any from me 8( ), but in the end, I stick with the "fair fight" rule, and if you give as good as you get, I see no reason for whining and playing the sympathy card. Zopa never asked me to censor the VTM folks, despite their equally strong words directed towards him (especially on the VTAA), after all.

Of course, Zopa, like the other folks on the list and here, posts on a wide-variety of topics and shares his experience in all manner of threads. I wish(ed) the VTM folks would do likewise, and not just waste all their time on the petty, argumentative threads. Might do everyone some good.

[Gandolf269]

McKind 13- Your right, my mistake. My reply was to a question posed by JK Walz, not you. Sorry about that. :rolleyes:

[Mckind13]

NP

Just want credit to go where it is due!

David

[yuanfen]

Rene sez:
Joy I've never met, and hardly agreed with on anything, ever, in the time we've been discussing online.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It illustrates that I am not mechanically chiming in with anyone.
My views on HFY and VTM involve independent analysis and judgement. I represent no one.

Can we get back to wing chun?

joy/yuanfen/ the lone ranger sans tonto

[reneritchie]

BTW - I don't think Benny Meng has any financial motivations either with the VTM. Rorion Gracie in '97 aside, I doubt many can truly 'get rich' in the Martial Arts, and the sacrifices of time and family probably aren't proportional to the rewards in what is, ultimately, a small, niche field (often likened to apalachian folk pottery in terms of cultural significance).

That latter part makes the hard feelings that often arise from these threads seem all the more silly. I wonder if we would all become quite so ferocious arguing over what was the original, true glaze finish for serving bowls...

[yuanfen]

Rene- I thought that you made tons of money on your books?

Perhaps - if you diversify.....?

Remember Bruce Tegner (sp?) and his MA books.
many styles, bits of history, "how to" techniques.

Some MA folks who came out ok apart from Rorion,--Leung Ting, Ed Parker, Jhoon Rhee, Jackie Chan, a couple of publishers,
several movie makers, possibly Robert Smith under his assumed name,.......

[t_niehoff]

JK Walz asks:

Terence- Are you stating that you feel the sole and only purpose of the VTM, Benny Meng, and HFY is self promotion and profit? JKW

No, I'm saying what I said: "the VTM is good at promoting the VTM, promoting Benny Meng, and promoting HFY." In other words, the VTM is not an independent research organization interested in WCK history as it claims, but instead is a promotional organization created by Benny for Benny; Benny is the VTM and is the chief vocal proponent of HFY (in which Benny is the #2 man, behind Garrett). TN

Are you saying that the VTM is not intent on researching WCK history for any reasons other than increasing Benny Meng's bank account? JKW

No, I'm saying the VTM is "not intent on researching WCK history" at all; what it is interested in is demonstrated clearly by what it does -- promote Benny. You can tell an apple tree by whether or not it produces apples. The VTM doesn't produce historical research; it promotes Benny (and HFY). TN

Do you truly feel that the VTM has harmed Wing Chun in general? JKW

No. I don't think the VTM has had much an impact at all on WCK in general. That alone is a true testament to its real goal. TN

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

Gandolf269 writes:

I don't think Benny Meng has done any harm to Wing Chun, nor do I beleive he only does research to pad his own pockets. I respect Benny Meng for his efforts to find the history of Wing Chun and enjoy reading his articles, when published. G

What efforts? Do you respect taking down what Garrett says as "the true history of WCK" and palming it off as "research by the VTM"? TN

But, that doesn't mean I agree with his point of view. I say "point of view", because I think he doesn't report his sources properly when specifying "historical facts". G

The source is Garrett Gee. How would their articles look if line after line read "according to Garrett Gee" or "according to HFY oral tradition"? It certainly wouldn't look like "according to research concucted by the VTM", would it? ;) TN

It seems to me that many of VTM "historical facts" are conjecture or theories. If they are not, I would like to see information to back up his claims. G

We would all like to see information to "back up his claims". TN

Terence

[Grendel]

Originally posted by yuanfen
Rene- I thought that you made tons of money on your books?

Perhaps - if you diversify.....?

Remember Bruce Tegner (sp?) and his MA books.
many styles, bits of history, "how to" techniques.

I'm not aware that Bruce Tegner made a lot of money. Remember his haircut? You'd think if he could afford it, he'd have stopped cutting it himself. :D If I recall, Rene affects the same hairstyle. :p


Some MA folks who came out ok apart from Rorion,--Leung Ting, Ed Parker, Jhoon Rhee, Jackie Chan, a couple of publishers,
several movie makers, possibly Robert Smith under his assumed name,.......
And don't forget my favorite, Bruce Lee. If he hadn't forgotten to trademark JKD, his heirs would be rolling in (more) dough.

As for Ed Parker. One of my first martial arts was Ed's Kenpo. A youthful trip through the underworld of martial society. He had a very lucrative business. :D The key is franchise marketing.

Somehow, I doubt that with proponents like Roger Trollinghand that HFY is going to be as successful as the aforementioned.

[wingchunalex]

I question many of the big name people in wing chun. The people you see on covers of magazines. people making faces and with funny camera angles. I question their motives for promoting themselves and their way of wing chun and their organizations.

I also question the purpose, value, and validity of the articles they publish. Many are only about self promotion, many are about how their way is better, many are about how their oppinion is truth.

[R Loewenhagen]

Originally posted by t_niehoff

I too prefer that they keep making information available to all of us. And I hope that they, or others, can make genuine progress into WCK's history. But while you may find the present information "very believable" (and that's fine and certainly your perogative -- but "believable" is not the same as "factual" or "true"), please understand that some of us do not (and not because we have a bone to pick). It's not the information that the VTM or HFY presents that I find objectionable, but the way it is presented -- as fact, as true, as authoratative when it is not; it is simply the HFY oral tradition. And until they can "back it up" with real research and real facts ("connecting the dots"), it is conjecture like any other lineage's claim. Andreas Hoffman (Jee Shim) reports much of the same information as HFY (descending from Shaolin, Chan philosophy, etc.) but you don't see me or others criticisizing him because he presents it as his lineage's oral tradition; he may believe it (and I suspect he may), but he hasn't tried to force it down our throats as "the truth". "The truth" is that some lineages can prove their lineage back to the Red Boats and that no lineage, so far, has been able to prove it past that. Other lineages, such as HFY, haven't even been able to even prove it that far. That doesn't mean IMO those lineages are false or anything, but only that they shouldn't expect us to believe they have "cornered the market" on WCK's genuine history when their history is, in fact, less proven than those that can prove lineage back 4 or 5 generations (to the Red Boats). TN

Terence [/B]

_____
Terence,

I can appreciate your above comments.... nonemotional and logically stated. They do raise a couple of questions, though. What do you consider acceptable historical evidence? In the absence of books, journals, photos, etc., what do archeologists and anthropologists do to determine history? Do they not study artifacts and put them in context with other previously established knowledge to draw logical conclusions that become "history" until later evidence supports or alters those conclusions? In the case of Wing Chun, for years people told us that Wing Chun history could never be traced back to its origins. They took that attitude because written evidence was sparse. In contrast, the VTM elected to work with the artifacts. The two oldest artifacts (based on their oral traditions and family lore) were Chi Sim and Hung Fa Yi. After several years of actually studying those artifacts and comparing them other known knowledge of Shaolin and Chan (Zen), VTM researchers have drawn certain historical conclusions. These conclusions were then researched further and compared with the direct historic results of the official different Chinese historical teams engaged in excavating and rebuilding the Southern Shaolin Temple. None of the historical conclusions drawn so far by the VTM is remotely conflicting with the conclusions drawn by these Chinese historical teams. In point of fact, the Chinese historians at the Southern Temple found the VTM's research to be quite enlightening and very much in agreement with what they have concluded as well.

The bottom line is simple.... The VTM states conclusions based on serious physical (and mental) examination of the artifacts, then publishes those conclusions for all to see. Scholars are invited to go out and further examine those conclusions, but everyone appreciates it if those examinations are more than just "chair posturing"... to disagree (or agree) with conclusions drawn from the examination of artifacts requires serious additional examination of those same artifacts before drawing conclusions. Much of the belligerence we've seen on this and other forums stems from others willingness to criticize, while remaining unwilling to truly examine the artifacts. I realize it is both expensive and time consuming to do this kind of research first-hand, but its a price serious researchers have to pay.

If there exist parallel conclusions (or information), then by all means share them so they may be proven, disproven, or modified to account for the existence of every lineage and the oldest artifacts available today. That is the only way we will get to the truth of Wing Chun's roots.

Ultimately, the documentation of history is not (or should not be) a contest of words and wills. It should be a cooperative effort participated in by all who are willing to do hard work (in the trenches, so to speak). Due to limited research resources, the VTM has elected to work in three "trenches".... 1. Yip Man, 2. Hung Fa Yi, and 3. Chi Sim.... all staff members have an extensive Yi Man backgrounds and are studying Hung Fa Yi full-time.... some staff members are also studying Chi Sim. Why? Because they want to be qualified to make valid comparisons between the most popular modern day version of Wing Chun and the two alleged oldest forms of Wing Chun. They are fully aware that such qualification can only come from first-hand experience and knowledge.

There are other trenches out there that could use extensive work as well. The results of research (properly approached) in them could help the overall effort of fully documenting Wing Chun's past. Why not pick a trench, do the travel and the study of the artifacts, come up with conclusions that address the existence of all lineages, and propose them for others to staff futher. This is how history should be written (in the absence of formal govt documents).

Regards

Richard

[R Loewenhagen]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by t_niehoff
[B]JK Walz asks:

Terence- Are you stating that you feel the sole and only purpose of the VTM, Benny Meng, and HFY is self promotion and profit? JKW

No, I'm saying what I said: "the VTM is good at promoting the VTM, promoting Benny Meng, and promoting HFY." In other words, the VTM is not an independent research organization interested in WCK history as it claims, but instead is a promotional organization created by Benny for Benny; Benny is the VTM and is the chief vocal proponent of HFY (in which Benny is the #2 man, behind Garrett). TN

Are you saying that the VTM is not intent on researching WCK history for any reasons other than increasing Benny Meng's bank account? JKW

No, I'm saying the VTM is "not intent on researching WCK history" at all; what it is interested in is demonstrated clearly by what it does -- promote Benny. You can tell an apple tree by whether or not it produces apples. The VTM doesn't produce historical research; it promotes Benny (and HFY). TN

Terence:

These are pretty harsh words. Have you ever read "Smithsonian Magazine"? The publisher, the Smithsonian Institute, is a highly respected research organization that does a much more extensive job of promoting itself than the Ving Tsun Museum does. Do we criticize them for advertising the results of their research? I think not. As for promotion of Benny Meng, he is the VTM Curator. It is his job to promote the Museum. It is, after all, a non-profit organization that needs supporters, just like any other non-profit organization.

Do we criticize Colin Powell, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, et al. for the promotion of their memoirs? Quite the contrary, we recognize their contribution to historical knowledge and push them to the top of the best-seller lists.

Regards

Richard

[passing_through]

Maybe some day we will see what secret marketing scheme Benny and Sifu Gee have dreamed up for you all but for those that see the continuing changes in the stories and "history" of HFY please understand our cynicism.

So, David, from your entire weekend here, this is all you understood? Sorry to waste my time on you.

For clarity, HFY oral history hasn't changed - it was first published: http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/meng/hungfayi.php
VTM history continues to "evolve" as new information is uncovered. The current working model is here: http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/loewenhagen/step_forward.php, starting on page 2

Get your facts straight before making innuendo, m'kay?

As for your cynicism, that's your cross to bear, not mine. Stop holding on to your past experiences and you'll be free.

Hendrick doesn't live here ant more.

noticed - he tends to run from challenge rather than stay and make his case. For all the grief I've received, I'm still here. Despite the grief that is directed at the VTM - still here, still active

Terrence is a good debater

I would expect no less from a lawyer, one paid to argue a point.

Jeremy who seems bent on defending the secrecy and why it has to remain secret.

I do what I do - as for keeping secrets, where did Robert learn about the 5 stages of combat or the 18 Kiu Sau? However, I've managed to write a few things here and there¡K often to the chagrin of the readers on this forum.

Yet even with all the Sifu Worship and System bias I have seen I have always found an aspect of the art or the method that was worthwhile.

I can just as easily return the finger to you: Robert opened your eyes to the charlatans out there and now you're on a crusade to counter anything that disagrees with him. Terance certainly bears this affliction.

But the way it is marketed, the way your camp

There's the rub - Rolling_Hand is not connected with the VTM or HFY. He's an outsider with an outsider's opinion. To my knowledge, I've never met the person.

make it all secret

Which is why there have been six public workshops in the last few years... You're really reaching there David.

Your Sifu has hosted how many public workshops on Wing Chun lately? How did Ternace's by-invitation-only workshop go last year - the one he announced only on the WCML? Did it even happen? I remember when your Sifu also had a member's only area on his site - something the VTM has never had.

hide their sources and make their system out to be the most original makes me ill.

Now things become clearer to me - because you can't accept what has been stated, because it makes you ill, you must move to dis-credit it rather than understand it. Makes sense. Destroy that which threatens you. I expect no less from human beings.

It appears to be a complete marketing scheme, it hurts Wing Chun and it misleads people. You and your Kung Fu brothers need to wake up to this. HFY may be a good system but all I see them doing is marketing and protecting the rice bowl.

What we see and reality are often worlds apart.

Have they? How? What?

- Founded in 1993, the Museum is the first organization in the entire Yip Man Family to accomplish grand Master Yip Man's lifelong dream of providing a place where Ving Tsun practitioners from all over the world could gather and pay respects to previous generations of Ving Tsun Masters.
- The first organization to host all of the top instructors of the Moy Yat International Ving Tsun Federation in a joint hands-on teaching seminar featuring two Grand Masters and nine Masters of Ving Tsun in 1997.
- The first Martial Arts Preservation facility of its kind in the Western World, with an official Grand Opening Celebration in 1998.
- Hosted the first Senior Instructor Certification Program outside of the Ving Tsun Athletic Association in Hong Kong in November of 1998 in the United States.
- The first organization to gather 8 original students of Yip Man together to give technical workshops on Ving Tsun Kung Fu in November 1998 and September 1999 respectively.
- The first organization to introduce the Southern Temple fielded versions of Wing Chun to the public with the presentation of the Hung Fa Yi lineage in May of 1999 and the Chi Sim Weng Chun lineage in February 2001.
- The first organization to promote 5 different lineages of Wing Chun together through a continuing series of Friendship Seminars offered around the United States.
- The first organization to promote and standardize Wing Chun into an international competition event.
- United States Representative to the First World Ving Tsun Conference in Hong Kong and China in November of 1999.
- Continued support of the Ip Man lineage through direct contribution to the Ip Man Tong

The VTM has created many opportunities for Wing Chun practitioners to gain exposure to other methods and practices, sharing fellowship and training.

The Museum exhibit is very nice, but what real research has been done since Benny has started marketing HFY? Anything new on any other fronts?

You mean besides Chi Sim and Koo Lo information added to the VTM website, contact with the Mai Gei Wong family, the recently announced Chi Sim workshop? Not too much, I guess...

Regardless of planned activities this year - as has been stated in the past numerous times, VTM resources are limited - rather than learn a little about everything resources focus on learning as much as possible about one before moving on. This might be a different approach than any with which you might be familiar

Through finding and giving we should learn about WCK not just its history! We should learn by touching hands who has the true Wing Chun.

Finding and giving? What about demanding and demeaning? You and a few others have extra measure of both. I've posted technical information but even that wasn't understood.

This thread has moved far from the original topic - as always. Rather than focus on the discussion, people want to talk about the people discussing. *shrug* makes no difference to me.

Jeremy R.

[passing_through]

To quote Terance:

How would it significantly impact most WCK (not Benny's students or HFY) practitioners?

In a nutshell, it wouldn't have taken your Robert's spotlight. That's the source of all this crap so let's just get to it. Before Sifu Meng got involved with the VTM project, Robert and Rene were the heavies in the Wing Chun community (on-line), the first to collect and present information on several branches at once. *shrug* sounds like sour grapes to me...

Research into WCK's history is being done, and much better IMO (not just accepting a lineage's oral tradition as fact) by others.

And you're not biased by Robert, of course not.

Websites by other lineages, like Jee Shim, Gu Lao, Cho Ga, etc. aren't hosted by the VTM either.

Only mentioning websites affiliated with Robert and Rene? I smell a conspiracy... You haven't really checked out the VTM site, have you?

http://home.vtmuseum.org/genealogy/index.php
http://home.vtmuseum.org/genealogy/chi_sim/index.php
http://home.vtmuseum.org/genealogy/pin_sun/index.php

FWIW, separate families should have their own websites and the VTM should mirror what is available out there - which it does.

Nor was the VTM integral in getting the WCK community together either online (I think the WCML was first) or in person (like the Friendship Seminars).

In regards to the WCML, the VTM has always had a philosophy of personal interaction - face-to-face so we were active for a while but felt that the communication therein was superficial at best and used it as a form of announcement service for workshops/events. And I noticed you tucked your tail and ran when Zopa rained down on you instead of the two of you ganging up on others.

The VTM first made use of the phrase "Friendship Exchange" in 1997 during the first workshop. It was hosted Saturday night, open to all participants of the workshop, free of charge, to touch hands and discuss equally - it lasted close to six hours, ending around 2 in the morning because some people were rooming at the VTM and needed to get to sleep for the next day's activities. The VTM has also taken the idea further to include Sifu Eddie Chong in friendship seminars as well.

As for integral in the Friendship Seminars, the VTM has hosted two of the four - when is the next one planned? It's been two years now since the last one, in LA. What have you, or anyone else, done lately to promote ALL Wing Chun?

What the VTM is good at IMHO is promoting the VTM, promoting Benny Meng, and promoting HFY (aren't they all the same?).

Nope.

The VTM exists to promote Wing Chun - in all forms. It can only promote those lineages with which there has been contact. It can not promote lineages on which it has no information - I would presume that to be an obvious bit of information but from the general nature of the posts on this forum, evidently, it is not. If an article is written about HFY, it is credited to HFY, unlike Robert's Stages of Combat article - if an article is written about Chi Sim, it is credited to Chi Sim, unlike Robert's Chi Sau article. Taking information from others and presenting it as your own is theft.

When the VTM wrote heavily about the Ip Man lineage, there were assertions that only the Moy Yat line was being promoted - evidence to the contrary was ignored. Now that HFY (among otheres) is also promoted, assertions are being made of a similar ilk as before - with the same ignorance of evidence to the contrary.

Jeremy R.

[t_niehoff]

Hi Richard,

RL writes:

In the case of Wing Chun, for years people told us that Wing Chun history could never be traced back to its origins. They took that attitude because written evidence was sparse. In contrast, the VTM elected to work with the artifacts. The two oldest artifacts (based on their oral traditions and family lore) were Chi Sim and Hung Fa Yi. RL

What makes you *assume* "the two oldest artifacts are Chi Shim and HFY"? This illustrates my point: you're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove! (If you start with the proposition that HFY is the oldest form of WCK, it's not a surprise that you conclude that). What if they aren't old artifacts at all but fairly recent developments? TN

After several years of actually studying those artifacts and comparing them other known knowledge of Shaolin and Chan (Zen), VTM researchers have drawn certain historical conclusions. RL

Who are these "VTM researchers"? What are their specific, individual qualifications? What specific work did they do? TN

None of the historical conclusions drawn so far by the VTM is remotely conflicting with the conclusions drawn by these Chinese historical teams. RL

Which "chinese historical teams" are these? Who was on them? Who sponsored them? When did this occur? What "historical conclusions" are you talking about? "4 out of 5 dentists prefer Trident." This is classic marketing. Make it vague, provide no documentation, and be assertive of your claim. TN

In point of fact, the Chinese historians at the Southern Temple found the VTM's research to be quite enlightening and very much in agreement with what they have concluded as well. RL

Where is this documented? What "VTM research"? What did these "Chinese historians" (names? organizations? etc.?) conclude? What "agreement"? It's nice to have your word for it, Richard, but some of us would like more. TN

The bottom line is simple.... The VTM states conclusions based on serious physical (and mental) examination of the artifacts, then publishes those conclusions for all to see. RL

The bottom line is that the VTM, just like you have above, states conclusions based on questionable assumptions (HFY being the oldest artifact), vague assertions, "reseachers" who are never named or qualified as experts, facts that are never stated, etc. It's "4 out of 5 dentists" stuff. TN

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

Do we criticize them for advertising the results of their research? I think not. As for promotion of Benny Meng, he is the VTM Curator. It is his job to promote the Museum. It is, after all, a non-profit organization that needs supporters, just like any other non-profit organization. RL

You fellows flatter yourselves in comparing the VTM to the Smithsonian. As I said in my post, you can tell an apple tree by what it produces. TN

Terence

[wingchunalex]

what evidence is there that hfy and chi sim are the oldest forms of wing chun. If it is their oral tradition then that is questionable? If it is the way they look outwardly, how can that be proven? If it is philisophically how can that be proven?

Yip man's oral tradition says that it is just as old as oral tradition's involving cheung ng. according to the ng mui oral tradition it is as old as hyf.

How can one lineage's oral tradition be taken as the starting place for research, if it is taken as the starting place it only proves that it is probable and it only proves that lineages oral tradition.

[wingchunalex]

I feel that there needs to be a distinction between chan and zen. zen is distinctly japanese. It is a close reletive to chan and contains many of the same principles, but the way it is taught and trained is different i believe. zen is a much "harder" form of chan, just like many things in japanese culture are very "hard". zen is chan taken into japanese culture and made to fit japanese mentality.

[wingchunalex]

earlier in this thread people were hounding jeremy about how hfy people, jeremy, and the vtm would not let it publicly known who wong ming learned from, and how their line went.

Jeremy even had a lot to say about the nature of secret societies and why wong ming has the right to not come into the public eye.

there was no need for the long explaination about the nature of secret societies and inside information for the excuse to not give information about wong ming's teacher.

It said right on the vtm web page who wong ming learned from, and who he learned from, etc.

(edit: rolling hand says i should re-read jeremy's post, so i might have it mixed up)

I still don't see eye to eye with a lot of HFY and the VTM, but-

I'm confused on why there was such a fuss about who wong ming learned from???

[Rolling_Hand]

Wingchunalex,

Please reread Jeremy's post, then, it may help you to understand whats been going on here....


<<<When someone in the martial arts community goes around insulting people while trying to be friendly, they call that "Ai Gwan Ji." Often you're posts manage to share infromation while also insulting the person to which you post. A kung fu guy can read your character in your actions. This is not about discussing history or even different points of view - you're trying to be a nice guy while stabbing HFY in the back.--From Jeremy>>>

[wingchunalex]

sorry if i'm missunderstood. I'll re-read it.

no need for anyone else to reply to what i said if i got things mixed up. ;)

[Chango]

HERE WE GO AGIAN WITH THE US AGAINST YOU BS! it seems the same group of people have issues with the VTM! I have met some other people that have good questions on information being presented. Some disagree with what has been brought forward! However in most cases they feel good about the VTM looking into this information. But it seems that here the same old group seems to frequently post in these types of threads. I find quite funny that they all have one thing or should I say person in common!!! :D

Jeremy wrote:When someone in the martial arts community goes around insulting people while trying to be friendly, they call that "Ai Gwan Ji." Often you're posts manage to share infromation while also insulting the person to which you post. A kung fu guy can read your character in your actions. This is not about discussing history or even different points of view - you're trying to be a nice guy while stabbing HFY in the back

David Mckind wrote:I hope when we meet again it will be as friends but Terence and others have hit the nail on the head.
Maybe some day we will see what secret marketing scheme Benny and Sifu Gee have dreamed up for you all but for those that see the continuing changes in the stories and "history" of HFY please understand our cynicism.

--- I think this is a great example of what Jeremy was talking about. I think this reflects the enviorment and mannor of how these people learn kung fu. "meet as friends" LOL!!!


I find that it is clear that these people cannot value the information being presented. I'd like to think it is "one part not enough information" and one part "assumption of the facts at hand". How do you teach someone what you have to teach them if they continue to say statements like " It's like this or that" or "you guys seem to do so and so like this and we do it like" Then when asked to challenge what is being taught we get nothing. It seems to me that the truth threatens some people.This was known before the VTM decided to bring the truth forward and is expected behavior. But let's keep in mind that the VTM did not and does not set out to be popular. The VTM has and will stay true to it's mission statement.
:cool:

Terence David and freinds,:D
when you ask "what has the VTM done for WCK?" I think the answer would be all dependent on how or if you can use the information offered. You can lead a horse to water! Once again you don't have to read the VTM materials. That is your choice. For those who are interested the "true origin of WCK" continue to read. Even for those that disagree more information will be offered in the future. You never know it might change your mind! for the little group you and your boys may disagree but you still lack the knowlege of what is being discussed to pose any serious arguement. All I hear is "you can't prove it becuase I don't see it" and "I'm not interested in what you are saying" LOL! I can see why you disagree. From the start it is clear from what you have written before your WCK does not have a "Chan" base so it is easy to see why you don't make the connection as strong as some. It is clear to those that have the artifacts within thier system. But for those who do not it may require some further edjucation on these subjects. until you except these facts well you can continue with your " I don't believe you becuase I don't like how you are saying it and it does not make me happy"- argument

I can say that some of what I have seen from your groups demonstrations barrows from sources unknown and does not even refence them. So when it comes to things being connected I can understand why you don't get it! As I have asked before where does your teacher's kung fu end and WCK begin? Why doesn't it match up with the questionable references he does supply? until you get solid answers there how can we expect you to see what is real in WCK as a whole? And another question who are you to ask what the VTM's or someone's contributions have been to WCK? I will ask you what has you or your Sifu offered to the WCK community? I don't mean setting up a text format for a book that did not give credit to it's many author's ;) I don't mean bad mouthing "Sifu's from New York" I don't mean changing certian stances after siminars and not giving credit back to where it came from. This was confirmed on the WCML. (WCML can speak on it as well) :p I don't mean stealing 18 kiu sau or was it 18 Chi sau methods! or writing articles about stages of combat that was copied off of a black board. But of course I know you wouldn't know what I'm talking about here becuase your Sifu is never honest about his sources is he? Let's go into other areas about how your Sifu (if you call him that?) made a few phone calls saying that the VTM was this and that (not good I assure you) Trying to black ball the VTM?! He even E-mailed certain masters bad mouthing the VTM while bad mouthing those masters to my Sifu! What does this say about his charecter? Hmmm! the gloves are off boys! Dave can you please explain why your SNT form looked alot like the fa kuen set? Sifu Hawkins Chuens kung fu did not look like that Freind! I can't say I had seen that in koo lo/ Gou lau either So Dave can we still be friends? ;)

I will use your words - (my friend) Dave wrote: Just want credit to go where it is due!

David why would you and your Sifu have problem with that? I mean your said it your self!

[Rolling_Hand]

<<Dave can you please explain why your SNT form looked alot like the fa kuen set? >>

Is the fa kuen set a part of Chi Sim WCK?

[Geezer]

Sheldon Wrote>

Terence(YKS?/GL?/YM

Rene Wrote>

Terence practices Yip Man WCK

What:confused:, so he doesn't train YKS or GL and the YM is this via Hawkins Chueng:confused:
So does Terences WCK have any similiarities with Roberts WCK:confused:


Terrence is a good debater

Is there something missing from DEBATER,:D

Jeremy Wrote>

I would expect no less from a lawyer, one paid to argue a point.

I don't know how good he is, he spends most of his time here:D

Jeremy Wrote>

I do what I do - as for keeping secrets, where did Robert learn about the 5 stages of combat or the 18 Kiu Sau?

The plot thickens:confused:

Jeremy Wrote>

Ternace's by-invitation-only workshop go last year - the one he announced only on the WCML?

I remember that:D

Jeremy Wrote>

If an article is written about HFY, it is credited to HFY, unlike Robert's Stages of Combat article - if an article is written about Chi Sim, it is credited to Chi Sim, unlike Robert's Chi Sau article. Taking information from others and presenting it as your own is theft.

Dammmnnnnnnn:(

Like I said, the plot thickens;)

Sheldon

[Sandman2[Wing Chun]]

Since people feel compelled to resort to personal attacks, I'm closing this thread.