Wing Chun History and Research

[planetwc]

Ok let's try this again.

Some folks associated with the VTM in Ohio have said that they have been conducting research on the pre-red boat history of Wing Chun and come to some conclusions based on their research.

Some of this has been presented in 2 forms of communication

1. Web pages on the VTM website
2. Articles in Kung Fu Qigong magazine

Much of the content of this topic has then been discussed on this forum. A lot of that discussion has been heated. Why?

In retrospect, VTM members and HFY students and instructors have pointed to their research conclusions and branded them fact. Often the literal words and titles of articles have been based around their conclusions as fact.

Naturally, there is interest in the methodology of the research, the details of the information uncovered and how this information can be reviewed by others.

Some have said that it can't be reviewed--I disagree. I think that the VTM website is the perfect place for that information to be disseminated. The web can support audio files if some of the research involves oral interviews with subjects. The web can support photographs of documents from archives. It can support photographs of ancient texts, interview notes transcriptions and even videotape.

There literally is no limit to providing the details of this research to anyone who is interested via this method.

Comments?

[planetwc]

Another topic for the VTM staff to write about might be:

How does a research topic conclusion move from:

legend or oral history to theory to opinion to fact

What is the methodology used?

When something is determined to indeed be factual can the underlying information be presented which correlates to something being declared factual?

How rigorous is the process for this to occur?

How many sources are used to "triangulate" that something is factual?

[passing_through]

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

As for the rest of your comments, they will be taken under advisement.

Jeremy R.

[reneritchie]

David,

Do you have a background in cultural anthroplogy, history, or academic research? I don't, but am fortunate to have 2 master level and 2 PhD. level in my immediate family, and plenty more in the extended. If you are, or do as well, or even if you can take that approach outline to your local University and get someone of caliber in the field to look it over, it can be helpful in understanding where they're coming from.

(BTW- Generous, and gutsy to post that online, many thanks Jeremy).

RR

[Geezer]

Rene Wrote>

but am fortunate to have 2 master level and 2 PhD. level in my immediate family, and plenty more in the extended.

I have family in Kentucky, does that help:confused: :p

[planetwc]

Jeremy,

I just read that article. I like what I read there, both the methodology and the stated aims of the research.

I also agree with the comments regarding known practiioners and the comments surrounding student "A" and student "B".

I think that if the VTM when distributing it's conclusions would include the details (the research details mentioned in my previous post) of the 5 steps for each conclusion it would go a LONG way towards providing the level of information that many of us are seeking.

Thanks,

David Williams


Originally posted by passing_through
http://home.vtmuseum.org/information/research_approach.php

As for the rest of your comments, they will be taken under advisement.

Jeremy R.

[Savi]

The following 3 paragraphs are from a history article written by my Sigung Benny Meng and Sisuk Jeremy Roadruck:

Martial arts were practiced in China for many centuries before the arrival of Daaht Mo. It was through his introduction of Chan Buddhist thought, with its emphasis on practical, direct experience of reality in its entirety, spontaneous action, mental training, and connection to physical cultivation, Shaolin was poised to become a martial arts training ground and study center. The goal of this training system was for the Shaolin monks to directly experience reality as a means to learn what was simple and natural. This approach of connecting moral and physical cultivation to experience life and the possibility of death stood in stark contrast to military and most civilian martial art methodologies outside the temple. Most practices outside the temple often focused only on physical skill in combat and the technical skills of killing.

During the time of struggle and transition between the Ming and Qing dynasties, experts from the Shaolin Temple in Honan province fled south. They settled in a Buddhist temple not previously known for martial arts training. Survivors of its destruction later referred to this temple as the Southern Shaolin Temple. With the expansion of the Qing Dynasty and the future of the Northern Shaolin Temple in Honan province uncertain, the Southern temple became a stronghold for anti-Qing revolutionaries. Inside this temple, a hall was established called the Everlasting Spring Hall (wihng cheùn tòhng). The focus of this hall was to collect and preserve the essence of Shaolin training and thought into one system under secrecy. The three treasures of Shaolin are Chan Buddhism, Health and Hei gung (qi gong)practice, and martial arts. The system of Chan practices, fighting theories and health exercises taught in this hall became known as Everlasting Spring Fist (wihng cheùn kyùhn), today referred to as Chi Sim Weng Chun.

The focus inside the Buddhist Everlasting Spring Hall was to discover what was simple, efficient and immediately applicable to dealing with reality, based at that time on fighting against the Qing Dynasty. Fighting concepts and techniques were developed based on understanding the nature of life, rather than being merely new ways to fell an opponent or a collection of combat techniques. This knowledge created a synthesis between living and fighting, giving rise to the attitude of seeking to understand life by understanding death. By focusing on martial skills for moral cultivation in addition to self-defense, the Shaolin system grew wide appeal and support throughout China after the time of the revolution.

The rest of the article:
http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/roadruck/chi_sim_history.php

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

I would like to know what peoples' thoughts are on this, as this does pertain to the thread. Me, not being an historical researcher of any level, find this to be very logical based on what I have read about history, and the struggles of political power. Quite a few times members of my family have stated that some of the historical artifacts are the systems themselves. Me, coming from a background of Southern Shaolin kung fu, recognize the consistencies presented by the CSWC and HFYWC families because it fits the puzzle pieces I thought were missing.

What to research... What exists within those systems of Chi Sim Weng Chun and Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun are the pathways to the past. The principles, the methods, the language, the outside appearance, the technical and conceptual aspects, the applications, and the philosophies of these systems are part of the big treasure today's researchers search for the root of our kung fu. As my Sifu Loewenhagen has made a point in two posts from the closed thread about Wing Chun history on the last page, research ALSO involves the dissection of the systems themselves. Agree? Disagree with this approach?

Hope you enjoy the article! Please don't forget to read the conclusion of the article...
-Savi.

[reneritchie]

Hi Savi,

If you haven't already, I would recommend reading History of the Tiandhihui by Dian Murray and Secret Societies Reconsidered by Ownby et. al. They provide a lot of information about the history of the Ming/Qing transition and the High Qing era.

One thing I noticed immediately from those books and other published historical works is that they discount almost immediately the usual Shaolin stories you run across, showing how they are allegorical (some involving numerology making "dates" anything but) and more often than not adaptions of stories from the Tang dynasty (when Shaolin supposedly helped the government battle the Xilu and then were betrayed and their temple burned). The latter especially shows how Sun Yat-Sen tried to re-invent these stories to instill patriotism in the foreign secret societies so they would support his cause.

IMHO, all of these stories about Shaolin, whether they be Yip Man, Sum Nung, Cho, or from any other source, need to be separated into oral transmission without historical support, and then with. Thusfar, for example, some scholars even say the Shaolin (Henan) temple wasn't burned down at all during the Qing, but only later during the Republic Era. (It stands today, so it should be possible to investigate when it was rebuilt, at least).

As to WCK resembling Shaolin (Henan), I think one of the problems with WCK (going by Foshan & Foshan derived WCK here like YM, SN, GL, etc.) is that is focuses so much on core movements that if you have experience in any other art, you can almost always "see" it in WCK (see previous threads on Xingyi, Bagua, etc. parallels). So, IMHO, we have to go beyond superficial similarities and look for matches in body alignment, power generation, and choreography of core movements.

In body alignment, there does not appear to be much in common between Shaolin (Henan) and WCK, neither in power generation, nor choreography, which means, while it cannot be discounted completely (I don't think any ethical researcher can completely discard any workable premise), it seems, based upon everything available, one of the less likely possibilities.

Also, it is difficult to say with certainty what exists in any old system, especially any system descending from the Red Junks, due to the history of the time. None of the Red Junk member's students met their sigung (shaolin or otherwise) directly, so their information, even if it could be directly traced back to them (which it would first need to be) would revert to oral transmission. Also, there have been many succeeding generations since then, and arts change over generations (whether we like to admit it or not). If it is not found in *every* branch going back to a certain period, while the possibility exists it might have been lost in some, it also exists that it might have been added in others (again, ethically not discounting workable theories).

BTW- A small point on language - Weng doesn't mean "always or everlasting" though it is often nowadays translated as such. It means "perpetual but not everlasting", or more pictographically, "like rivers flowing beneath the ground." Likewise, from another thread, Yin (the root combined with the phonetic Weng to create the character Wing) doesn't mean secret, but "talk, vow, etc.), pictographically, "words issuing from the mouth". This is not meant to be semantics or splitting hairs, just to show that, IMHO, when discuss something as serious as WCK history, and make any claims about it, we need to check, re-check, then check again, and if anyone offers something different, we need to rigorously put it into the process and alter our working theories as needed.

(This goes along with my points on previous threads about it being impossible to dicount the theory offered by the White Flower Artists Association that Tan Sao Ng's nickname derived not from martial arts but from singing on the docks to support himself before he made contacts in the opera because he would have been of too high a stature (opera performers had the same stature as beggars in society) or that Hung Gan was a term for a leader in the societies when it was the name given not to the leaders (such as Chan Kai) but to the common townspeople who rose up to support them). It will be, IMHO, a *very* long, *very* arduous, and no doubt *very* frustrating process to make headway into the pre-red junk history of WCK)

(And to stave off complaints before they happen, no, the above is not disrespectful to anyone or any group, much as claiming Ng Mui was a legend rather than the founder of WCK, or that Wong Wah-Bo was taught by a Hung Gan leader rather than by Leung Bok-Lao or Leung Lan-Kwai is disrespectful -- it is part of mature, adult discussion on history).

RR

[Savi]

Originally posted by reneritchie
Hi Savi,
Also, it is difficult to say with certainty what exists in any old system, especially any system descending from the Red Junks, due to the history of the time. None of the Red Junk member's students met their sigung (shaolin or otherwise) directly, so their information, even if it could be directly traced back to them (which it would first need to be) would revert to oral transmission.RR

Thanks, what leads you to believe that they never met their Sigung?

Rene, I do have a question for you (which I keep forgetting to ask), and I mean no disrespect. How exactly do you do your research? Would you mind sharing? Only by published works? Do you conduct interviews? Go on trips (field work)? Are you part of a team? How frequent?

Just asking, no loaded questions. Do you have any thoughts about the article?

-Savi.

[t_niehoff]

Savi,

Did you comprehend anything that Rene wrote? Or is your cup full of VTM/HFY/Benny propaganda? ;) TN

Terence

[reneritchie]

Savi - It's not my belief, its what they themselves passed on in their oral traditions (see lack of Leung Jan and Jee Shim at the Tea House stories).

I'm not part of a team, though I do on occasion work with others of like interest. I don't rely solely on published works, though a published work by an expert in the field that is well researched and referenced certainly shouldn't be ignored. If you look at my work, you'll note there's stuff in there beyond the published accounts, yet supported by them, so it should be obvious that I don't believe we should rely exclusively on them any more than the oral legends of any one branch. It has to *all* fit together to fall into my "more likely" pile.

BTW- Did you read my response? What are your thoughts on it? I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful, but you must see that there are holes in the VTM's thesis, and that there are other possible interpretations/theories on the same period?

RR

[Geezer]

Savi Wrote>

How exactly do you do your research? Would you mind sharing? Only by published works? Do you conduct interviews? Go on trips (field work)? Are you part of a team? How frequent?

Rene wrote>

I'm not part of a team, though I do on occasion work with others of like interest. I don't rely solely on published works, though a published work by an expert in the field that is well researched and referenced certainly shouldn't be ignored.

It seems to me, now, I may be reading more into this but it seems that Rene's info is mainly gathered from books published by "Experts", no field trips, no hands on research:confused:

Sheldon:confused:

[Rolling_Hand]

Rene wrote>
quote:I'm not part of a team, though I do on occasion work with others of like interest. I don't rely solely on published works, though a published work by an expert in the field that is well researched and referenced certainly shouldn't be ignored.

It seems to me, now, I may be reading more into this but it seems that Rene's info is mainly gathered from books published by "Experts", no field trips, no hands on research

Sheldon

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

There are no fish in the lake.

The long-legged cranes stand in the water.

[Savi]

Hey Rene,
I haven't really read any of your works. The majority of my time is spent on training my kung fu, assisting in the kids program, Yip Man Ving Tsun, and Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun classes, on top of my full time job. Every now and then, I'll try and get familiar with the perspectives on-line, or through seminars, events, to get a snap shot of how things are on the outside. Broadens the mind right?

I did read your response, and some things you've said though, like the "students never met their Sigung" part just seemed strange to me. Not that I am being argumentive whether it is true or not, I just don't see how anybody could prove that. And I'm not asking for proof, or saying that you can't prove it, or have any proof, but (for modern times, trying to relate to what you said) how could anybody prove I never met someone famous, like bumping into them at the airport or something?

I met Jackie Chan 5 years ago, talked to him on the phone once, shook his hand and even have a photo with him, but I'm sure he has no clue he's met me. And if I never show this picture to anyone, I'm sure no one could ever prove it either. It's just party A's word vs Party B's word.

You know? I'm sure though, we (general 'we') are probably more lucky today to have met our own Sigungs, than the people of the past.

Aside from all that, I haven't read any of the works you've pointed out, being that I've only been training Wing Chun for a few years being a "kung fu sponge" so to speak, learning the system, and learning how to teach it. I'll have to read up on your recommendations sometime. Thanks for the tea.

-Savi.

[black and blue]

Rolling Hand says:


There are no fish in the lake. The long-legged cranes stand in the water.

Eh? It would have made more sense to say there ARE fish in the lake and the crane stands on the land (i.e. away from the water).

You know, your stalking of Rene Ritchie is really quite worrying... it just goes on and on. :confused: :confused:

Sad... very sad

[Savi]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Savi,

Did you comprehend anything that Rene wrote? Or is your cup full of VTM/HFY/Benny propaganda? ;) TN

Terence
Terence, did you just 'wink' at me? For the record, I have a girlfriend AND WE ARE VERY HAPPY. And yes I do comprehend what Rene wrote. Born and raised in the US.

-Savi.

[reneritchie]

Sheldon,

Careful, your bias slip is showing ;)

Trolling_Hand

"So, I'm no archiologist, but you're telling me this McDonalds in Fuzhou used to be "Southern Shaolin?"

"Yes, you read this..."

"Er... I don't read much Chinese."

"No problem. You give money for a plaque now?"

"You wouldn't lie to me, would you? I know all about your tourist trap up north..."

"No, this definately Southern Shaolin."

"You sure it's not some other temple?"

"Temple, shmemple."

"But what about those other researchers who published articles saying this wasn't Southern Shaolin?"

"You want to believe them? The saying what you want to hear?"

"No, but..."

"You see drive through window? That was famous hall!"

"Really! That was *the* famous hall?! Great! Now I can say that proves everything! I can call it fact!"

"Plaque?"

"I'll take two..."

Savi - I'm glad you're skeptical about whether they met their Sigung's or not. Do you understand others may have the same skepticism when it comes to the stories the VTM writes down? That others have the same trouble reconciling them? I think this may be a breakthrough! LOL!

BTW- If you're going to be an advocate for the VTMs position, and argue with those who have different positions, it would seem only sensible to have read what those different positions are, both to challenge your own (pre)conceptions and to find out what you really are arguing against. How can you ask me questions about what I do, when you don't even know what it is? And how can you waste my time answering what you would see for yourself by spending some of your own? If this is proforma, I understand now why so many people argue so passionately -- they don't know what else is out there.

I would also recommend you read Hendrik's last article, on the possibility Wing Chun Kuen actually meant Opera Performer Boxing and came from the Triad connection between Shanghai's Dim Chun Tong and Foshan's Hung Gan Rebellion. (You will also find examples there of teamwork and field trips).

http://www.wingchunkuen.com/archives/readings/contemporary/features/santo_shanghai.html

RR

[reneritchie]

I should probably also point out, in case somehow it can serve as an example, that Hendrik presented this thesis despite the fact that it does not directly support his own preferred thesis (that wing chun kuen resulted from the melding of Fujian White Crane techniques with Emei Twelve Post mechanics prior to the Red Junk Era (though I suppose one could conjecture this applied only to the Siu Lien Tao and the other to the broader art in general).

Likewise, I've published theories linking Wing Chun Kuen back to Southern Shaolin, though I don't personally believe there to be evidence yet to suppot this.

IMHO, however, this is the ethical, reasonable thing to do, and the best thing for our art. IMHO, any theory that can be reasonably argued is welcome and should be encouraged.

Let the flamers retort... 8)

[Geezer]

Rene Wrote>

Careful, your bias slip is showing

And your poor attempts at stalking "Chango" are also;)

Man, this makes me think of "Primary School", Rene, my Dads bigger than your Dad;)

Sheldon

[Savi]

Originally posted by reneritchie
Let the flamers retort... 8)

Encourage the trouble? Rene you ran off the ramp here. I only represent MYSELF, while trying to be honest and nice to you. Then you take advantage of this and try to put me in my place. Fine job. Your character shows quite clearly. I support my kung fu family because they are my family.


"That others have the same trouble reconciling them? I think this may be a breakthrough! LOL!" -Rene

A breakthrough you call it? How sarcastic can you be? I was starting to appreciate the mature discussion again. Keep in mind when members of the HFY family post here, they represent THEIR understanding alone UNLESS they explicitly state they speak for the family or museum, as that has been said before.


"And how can you waste my time answering what you would see for yourself by spending some of your own? If this is proforma, I understand now why so many people argue so passionately -- they don't know what else is out there." -Rene


Rant and rave all you want and tell me what to do, so you can waste MORE of your time doing so! On-line conversations with YOU and others is ONE way I spend time to find out what is out there. Going to seminars and events of different Wing Chun topics is another way. I have better things to do than argue, like training.

You wonder why others get riled? Keep wondering.
THANKS for tea, again.

Take care,
-Savi.

[reneritchie]

I only represent MYSELF

Wasn't talking about you.


A breakthrough you call it?

Dude, you asked for opinions, I spend my time writing some out for you, you don't bother to address them but pick one minor point and analyze it (well) in a manner I've not seen you (or anyone) analyze the article itself in.


You wonder why others get riled? Keep wondering.

Do you wonder why folks get riled at you and the other VTM people here? Or is the wonder, like everything else, supposed to only go one way?

You ask me about my work, then say you've never read it because you don't have time. Can you see how that may be less than courteous at the tea table? If I spend my time with you, treat it at least as important as your own, if you ask about my opinions, have the courtesy to at least know what they are first. That's not only good manners, its sensible as well.

And, as I'm repeating now ad nauseum infinitum, show the same respect you demand.

Say what you like about me. It's the internet. You can say I killed your cat and people may beleive it even if you never had a cat. But, know that I read what you write, I consider it, I weigh its merit without passion or predudice, and if called upon in a debate, I could do a fairly good job of arguing it. Can you say the same? Likewise, I remain, for the most part, polite and productive despite down right disgusting treatment from many of your group and groupies (check the VTAA sometime). Do you do the same? And lastly, I contribute about WCK on this board and others, not just myself and my lineages, and interact as much (or almost some days ;) ) on technical and other threads as I do on these rediculous time wasters. How about you guys?

Then, to put the cherry on an incredible entitlement issue Sunday, I'm reprimanded about being sarcastic and riled! LOL!

I enjoy tea aplenty, Savi, and good debates are often heated at times, even when discussing such weighty topics as the baseball season or the best way to prepare pasta. It's part of life. I don't mind it. Walk a mile in my shoes, though, before you start assuming too much ;)

RR

[Geezer]

Rene Wrote>

"So, I'm no archiologist, but you're telling me this McDonalds in Fuzhou used to be "Southern Shaolin?"

"Yes, you read this..."

"Er... I don't read much Chinese."

"No problem. You give money for a plaque now?"

"You wouldn't lie to me, would you? I know all about your tourist trap up north..."

"No, this definately Southern Shaolin."

"You sure it's not some other temple?"

"Temple, shmemple."

"But what about those other researchers who published articles saying this wasn't Southern Shaolin?"

"You want to believe them? The saying what you want to hear?"

"No, but..."

"You see drive through window? That was famous hall!"

"Really! That was *the* famous hall?! Great! Now I can say that proves everything! I can call it fact!"

"Plaque?"

"I'll take two..."

Sorry, how many times did you say you've been to China:confused:, I remember a conversation on this, on Southern Fist Online, was it two, but those were work related weren't they :confused:

Rene Wrote>

(You will also find examples there of teamwork and field trips).

What, so you have been on investigative trips to "CHINA" researching WCK origins:eek:

Please tell me, why I should start taking what you're saying seriously when most of your research is done reading books:confused:

Sheldon;)

[Chango]

I do find this to be a interesting question. How many times have you been to mainland China for the soul purpose of research?

This sounds alot like HBO boxing comentary. LOL Larry merchant (who has never laced up a pair of gloves as a journalist/comentater.) and Roy Jones Jr (pound for pound possibly the greatest!) Larry says to Roy "the bigger, stronger and, younger Vargas will over power Delehoya and knock him out" Roy says to Larry " You have to have been in the ring to really understand fully why Delehoya will not only beat him but knock him out" Well to make a long story short Vargas could tell you exactly how many lights are the ceiling of the areana! Sure Larry can have a great edjucated opinion on the subject but there was no way he could be as sure as Roy was unless he had stepped into the ring! This is why you have Roy Jones JR with merchant and Big George and sometimes Manny Stuart (trainer/exboxer) with Lamply (comentater) (sp?) Sure the comentator does have a valued opinion but in more then 80% of the disputes on the subjects the boxer is right. Of course this not the only context to judge in this case but I have to say this bit of information does help! I'm sorry if someone ask the question if you are a historian on a Chinese art. Then how many times have you been to China to research your info first hand? so back to you Larry I mean Rene. ** come on I have to have some fun here**

BTW this is the real Chango the last time I checked!
these are my words only. I do not represent the VTM just the real Chango.

[byond1]

sandman----so why can this thread continue, but my last one you stoped before any responces? i answered something that was put twords me....and i respectfully mentioned the same basic thing that planet wc said and yet you didnt deleate his thread. the vtm in my opinion is an important organization and has information pertinant to our history...my asking to want to read therre research shouldnt bother anyone.......
ive tried talking about wc history and research because that is my hobby....i dont have anyone (in person) that i can talk wc with........i enjoy it and was hoping to hear some updated info,.........and yet other people hijack my threads and argue...and i get penalized for it ...

[Chango]

Rene,
come on man you really need relax man. Breathe my friend ROFLOL!


Rene wrote:
Say what you like about me. It's the internet. You can say I killed your cat and people may beleive it even if you never had a cat. But, know that I read what you write, I consider it, I weigh its merit without passion or predudice, and if called upon in a debate, I could do a fairly good job of arguing it. Can you say the same? Likewise, I remain, for the most part, polite and productive despite down right disgusting treatment from many of your group and groupies (check the VTAA sometime). Do you do the same? And lastly, I contribute about WCK on this board and others, not just myself and my lineages, and interact as much (or almost some days ) on technical and other threads as I do on these rediculous time wasters. How about you guys?

I cannot speak for everyone but I do my share of discussion on this forum. I think you know that becuase you seem to follow me not only on here but any other WCK forum I go to LOL!! Some of us have more time then others. Ok Rene I will say it. Forum if there was a WCK boy scout award to give out it would have to be Rene! (insert applaude here) Rene you deserve credit for cloaking your true intent in carefully choosen words. It is however apprecieated. Man you would be one heck of a game show host! or used car salesman!! BTW I have to say it again No one on this list represents the VTM. We do this forum in our personal time for entertainment purposes only. So can you stop with the you guys BS. We can also say the same about you guys LOL! turnabout is fair play!!! LOL

Rene I did not mean to hurt your Wing chun feelings when I said ....Etc.. Why bother?

there is a structure in standing in China at the southern shaolin temple. There are charecteristic about this structure (yet to be revealed) that gives direct evidence of it's role in history. Imagine this!! So please Rene Wing chun historian (who has been to China how many time in the name of research!) and Wing chun boy scout. quite while you are ahead. We keep saying to you MORE INFORMATION TO COME!
once properly prepared. You can read it if you want. If not that's on you.














and out of the voices the last word herd is "Saat geng sau!" and it all went blank officer!!!

Did you notice any empty cans of Whoopas$ around the site of the attack? LOL!!

[bglenn]

All this talk of history is really a waste.What does it matter.How does it help us in the here and now? The legitimacy of your kung fu is not at stake.The question I pose as a stranger, what are your motivations for your research? Is it for your own personal understanding on how the system evolved?To me its seems in the post I've read that you guys are really spending your time trying to outwit each other in your comebacks.Hope you guys resolve your squabbles.

[Grendel]

Originally posted by Chango

We keep saying to you MORE INFORMATION TO COME!
You can read it if you want.


I'm going to wait for the TV mini-series documentary starring Sigfried and Roy. :D

[Rolling_Hand]

Rene Wrote>
quote:(You will also find examples there of teamwork and field trips).

What, so you have been on investigative trips to "CHINA" researching WCK origins

Please tell me, why I should start taking what you're saying seriously when most of your research is done reading books

Sheldon

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

You are your only master.

Who else?

A table for five...

Rene Ritchie, Hendrik Santo, Robert Chu, Mr.T-man, McDavid.

[Marky]

"Please tell me, why I should start taking what you're saying seriously when most of your research is done reading books" RH

Reading journals is the first step in research. Sometimes it's the only step. At the very least, reading is 90% of research. Journals list non-biased accounts of research that has already taken place. Just because you read it in a research journal (and didn't uncover the information first-hand) doesn't make the information any less valid. This is true of any field of research, and I'm sure the VTM folks did A LOT of reading before they "went diggin'". Why reinvent the wheel?

[reneritchie]

There's an old saying "if you can't attack the argument, attack the person". Personally, while I occasionally fall into this trap myself, it's not productive, nor is it professional.

I'm sorry if you feel that the legitimate questions raised about on-topic issues are not something you desire to discuss. If you ever change your minds, I'm read and most able to engage in such a discussion with you.

However, I will not be bullied away, nor will I allow myself to be dragged down into petty politics I will respond to personal attacks only with legitimate, on-topic discussion of my own.

Gentlemen, I'm raising the bar. (Though there will be netting to prevent anyone from slipping under it).

If we need topics where to begin, I believe we still haven't gone over the previous questions about the social status of opera performers and the meaning of Hung Ga. We could also go over the translation of Hung Fa not necessarily being Red Flower.

Geezer - I appreciate your interest in me but it's a WCK list and maybe we should stick to that? Out of respect for your questions, however, I've never been to China on business, and I do find books on WCK-related material, especially when scholarly, peer-reviwed, and well referenced to be invaluable parts of the process to a serious, ethical researcher, but I would be very interested to hear alternative opinions. BTW You still haven't got back to me about the changes in your lineage? (Not naming any specifics for now out of respect for your sifu's desire not to be identified in online forums).

Best of the evening to you all,

RR

[t_niehoff]

bglenn wrote:

All this talk of history is really a waste.What does it matter.How does it help us in the here and now? The legitimacy of your kung fu is not at stake. BG

That is true IMO as well -- it is the method and our individual performance (actual fighting) in using that method that matters; **with skill lineage becomes superficial.** Problems arise from the few lineages that use "history" as a means to legitimize (and also market) what they do. And I think it is easy to recognize when "history" is being so abused. TN

Things have changed. In the "old days" folks didn't go to learn from Leung Jan or any other of the "masters" because of the "history" or stories he/they told, they went to learn from him because of his *demonstrated skill* (his "lineage" was unimportant); they wanted to be able to do what he did (fight), not what he said he could do. This was a time when "quality control" of teaching MA was being able to fight all-comers, an expectation when you opened your kwoon. Today, we have a few MAists, like the Gracies, that still maintain that tradition; Rickson actually begins every seminar by rolling to submission with each and every seminar participant. Can you imagine most (not all) of the "masters" and "grandmasters" of WCK doing that? LOL! (Most of them want, quite justifiably IMO, to hide their "skill".). If we went back to the "old-time quality control" I'd wager we'd see most WCK school closing their doors. So when some folks say they have some form of "superior art" and rely on "history" to prove it, I recognize it for what it is -- marketing with history instead of skill. If they really had superior skills, they'd be using those to market themselves by having an "open challenge" and by fighting to really prove it. TN

Terence

[Geezer]

Rene Wrote>

Geezer - I appreciate your interest in me but it's a WCK list and maybe we should stick to that?

I think you're reading more than there is into my questions:confused: I was asking about "YOUR" fieldtrips to "CHINA" for research into the origins of WCK:confused:

Rene Wrote>

Out of respect for your questions, however, I've never been to China on business,

So "YOU" have been to "CHINA" researching WCK origins:confused: what did you find?????????

Rene Wrote>

BTW You still haven't got back to me about the changes in your lineage? (Not naming any specifics for now out of respect for your sifu's desire not to be identified in online forums).

Sorry was this a conversation you were having with yourself:confused: I don't remember any conversations where I said "I" was "GOING" to get back with you on my "SIFUS" identiy.
If your refering to the "WCML" I think you would have noticed that I haven't posted on there for close to 8mths:confused:
Anyway my secondary work email has expired seeing as the sale of the company I work for has been completed.
So you may want to get me off there so you don't think I'm in the "SHADOWS";)

Rene Wrote>

Not naming any specifics for now

What is that suposed to make me scared, you may have noticed I don't normally leave any loose ends;)

Rene Wrote>

out of respect for your sifu's desire not to be identified in online forums).

Respect:D

If you know something I don't you're a better man than me

I think the key word there is "MY SIFU" not yours;)

Well seeing as we've changed the subject lets get back on it???????,

Rene Wrote>

I appreciate your interest in me but it's a WCK list and maybe we should stick to that?

So, these tips to China, did you ever makre it to mainland China?????????:

Sheldon

[scuba steve]

Perhaps we can set up a seperate thread for Rene's trips to china and his itinerary there.

So Chango and Savi and Sheldon. How was mainland China for you?

In the course of your travels there did you take pictures or video or notes on research regarding the pre-redboat days and if so, when can we look forward to seeing them on the VTM website?

It would go a long way in showing how the conclusions that Benny Meng, Richard Lowenhagen and Chango have decided are factual elements of history.

Right now what we seem to have is the VTM staff saying here are facts.

Some of us in the Wing Chun community then ask where is the supporting research information that demonstrates that based on the research methodology outlined on the VTM website?

What we then get are the usual trolling drive bys from Rolling Hand, followed by sniping from Sheldon etc.

None of that is relevant to the topic at hand.

Let's stay on topic.

What is the basis for the conclusions reached by the VTM staff?
Where is the bibliography on the research sources?
Where is the raw research data?

If the answer is that none of the people who post on this forum from the VTM or from HFY schools has access to that information, then please just say so.

Or, if you have access and simply don't intend to give it, that is an answer as well.

Which is it?

[Rolling_Hand]

Hello Hendrick, I think it is real and I think you are correct.--McDavid

Rene is right with his above statements. --McDavid

Rene, Thanks. You are right. --Hendrik

Rene, Thanks, very insightfull.>McDavid

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


Are they the WCK experts?

No.

Lips?

Yes.

Awake to the WCK world.

And from all sorrow free yourself.

[passing_through]

I'd wager we'd see most WCK school closing their doors. So when some folks say they have some form of "superior art" and rely on "history" to prove it, I recognize it for what it is -- marketing with history instead of skill.

When should we be expecting you to open your doors for challenges? Strong words for a man too busy or too broken to travel much and see the Wing Chun world.

If they really had superior skills, they'd be using those to market themselves by having an "open challenge" and by fighting to really prove it.

Are you so in love with hurting people that you feel the only way to discuss Wing Chun is fighting and hurting people?

Skip the implicit, "read-between-the-lines" games, Terance. You obviously have a grudge against the VTM and HFY and are going to great pains to form an anti-campaign. I wonder how much of your identity is wrapped up in marketing yourself as a counter to the VTM. Can you discuss anything about Wing Chun without some pathetic attempt at a veiled insult? Somehow, I doubt it.

Jeremy R.

[planetwc]

Gentlemen and trolls,

Please let's stay on topic.

Can someone from the VTM staff start disclosing the actual research information behind the conclusions regarding pre-red boat activity?

Can they start walking us through the 5 stages of their methodology regarding their findings?

Thanks!

[Mckind13]

McTroll wrote:

Who and what?
Hello Hendrick, I think it is real and I think you are correct.--McDavid
Rene is right with his above statements. --McDavid
Rene, Thanks. You are right. --Hendrik
Rene, Thanks, very insightfull.>McDavid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Are they the WCK experts?
No.
Lips?
Yes.
Awake to the WCK world.
And from all sorrow free yourself.


David
Hello McTroll!

Rene and Hendrick are both experts. Knowledgeable and articulate in what they know. Who are you? Where are you? What’s your experience and expertise?

David McKinnon

[Chango]

I find that this thread and others like it seem to have become a very big waste of time. I don't see a point in it anymore. By now I could have been training a few things!

[Rolling_Hand]

Chango wrote:

I don't see any point in draging this thread out any further!

I find that this thread and others like it seem to have become a very big waste of time. I don't see a point in it anymore. By now I could have been training a few things!

__________________

Chango,

Follow the true way of kung-fu.
Good advice!


McDavid & Mcfriends,

It's better to do nothing
Than to do what is wrong.
For whatever you do,
You do it to yourself.

[reneritchie]

Saw this posted quite a bit today and thought it might help:

troll v.,n. 1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."