The Sifu, and the Roots... [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

azwingchun

02-25-2003, 01:51 PM

Yes and yes.

I do believe that bringing good Wing Chun out in others this way is the way to do so. You have to have some guide lines to follow obviously, but the student has to learn how to make this system, as with any other system, their own. This does not mean (IMHO) that you take a student and teach him how it works for them only.

A student must learn all that the system has to offer, then they need to study it and figure out what works best for their needs and body structure. I believe that it is human nature to short cut things. If you show a student the short cut to Wing Chun, meaning that you only teach a student the Wing Chun that works for him/her, they will be missing the fundamental parts of the system. This will show more so when this student becomes a teacher and then passes the art on to his/her students. If he carries on with the way his teacher taught, then much will be lost in just a few generations if that.

I believe Wing Chun is in everyone also, and each individual will figure out or be taught what works best for them in time. But the Wing Chun as a whole system has to be taught regardless, if the student will ever use it, do to his/her needs. This more so for a few reasons. If the student only understands Wing Chun as it works for him/her, then they will not know Wing Chun at all. And as mentioned above, how will this student pass on Wing Chun to the future generations. Well, he/she won't, they will only be passing on their Wing Chun.

I hope this answers your questions. Though, many may disagree with me, these are my opinions.

By the way, I obviously never trained with Ip Man. But as stories passed down, they said Ip Man taught on an individual needs basis. They say that he could meet a student and tell what kind of Wing Chun this individual needed to be taught. Based on body size, strengths and weaknesses to name a few. Who knows, maybe this is how so many students form Ip Man have such different ideas. Again, just my opinion. ;)

azwingchun

02-25-2003, 01:57 PM

I agree with you. The niceness of unity when traveling to and from an inner organization helps tremendously.

As said prior, I believe a set cirruculum is needed for those interested in passing on the art in whole. At least if you plan on staying within the lineage you have chosen. But at the same time we must teach the student to find what works for them.

I often have students ask during training, if this or that is correct. My answer to them is if it follows structure and principle then it is correct. I believe that this allows students more leverage (if that is the right word), to explore what works for them and not just mimic me.;)

canglong

02-25-2003, 02:03 PM

Azwingchun,

Thank you for the reply, that was well stated and yes you answered all my questions about your earlier post. Yes, there will always be two sides to every story so people will always have room to disagree but it is through that disagreemnet that we each get closer to the truth. For the record I agree with your statements. Best regards to your sifu you and your kung fu family.

azwingchun

02-25-2003, 02:46 PM

I agree with your statements, there are always at least two sides to a story. But if we all agreed on everything, there would be any need for this forum. ;)

reneritchie

02-25-2003, 05:34 PM

By the way, I obviously never trained with Ip Man

We can fix that! Email me a face shot and I'll photoshop it into the famous multiple head shot, then post it here...

azwingchun

02-25-2003, 05:48 PM

That would be great rene, except that would be a hard one for me to pull off, since I am am only 33 years old. But still would make for a cool picture! LOL! ;)

reneritchie

02-26-2003, 10:53 AM

info@wingchunkuen.com.

And don't worry about chronological impossibilities--they don't seem to worry many "real true inheritors" out there.

t_niehoff

02-26-2003, 11:46 AM

Savi writes:

I'm confused about your statements Terence. S

Confusion is a good sign. :) TN

1. How is it a good teacher cannot tell you how to do something? Do you mean lack of verbal communication skills? This (verbal, face to face interaction) is what my family refers to as "Hau Chun".

Learning any physical activity isn't so much a matter of being told how to do it (if it were only that easy!), but learning for ourselves how to do it. You can't be told to "have sensitivity", you develop it yourself; you can't be told how to "generate power," you develop it yourself; etc. WCK isn't a set of postures, poses, fixed physcial shapes, but rather a dynamic, changing, interally-driven activity. No one can tell you how to do it. Just like no-one can tell you how to walk a tightrope. *But* they can help you learn to walk a tightrope for yourself. You can't tell a student how to understand -- you need to help them understand; you can't tell a student how to have skill -- you need to help them develop skill. TN

2. How can they help you find it if they can't tell you in the first place? Do you mean they have to show you? That (physical experience) would be what my family calls "Sahn Sau".

If a teacher can't do it, they won't be able to help anyone find it for themselves (and most likely IME will make finding it more difficult); and just because they can do it doesn't mean their students will be able to. There are all kinds of books, videos, etc. on how to play golf and just about everything else but how many really good golfers are there -- even with all that good information? It isn't a matter of of them telling you how to hit the ball, but of your finding out how to do it for yourself (with their advice guiding you). The skill comes from feeling, from practice, from experimentation, etc. No one can give you timing or power or structure or any of the things that make WCK work -- they can only guide you toward finding these things yourself. And in WCK, unlike golf, most of the "masters" can't even do it (regardless of what they say on their websites)! TN

3. What is a fixed curriculum? A lineage is a fixed curriculum (stated above)? I don't see what you mean. If you mean acknowledging and understanding the path which your ancestors have made for your generation is not important to understand (which you would then NOT understand the path you walk in the first place), I'd like to know why you think that is so. S

Everyone is an individual, and brings their own talents, intelligence, background, learning modalities, etc. with them to the kwoon. A good teacher IMO recognizes this, and sees that what it takes to get me to understand something or get me to feel something is not the same as it does you or someone else. He adjusts how he teaches to suit the individual. TN

4. On that note, as this ties directly to #3: What do you understand about the meaning of Saam Bai Fut (3 bows to buddha), and I don't mean its application. As I understand, one of the bows is to your heritage. Do you not think that is important? Could you help me out on this one? I think this could make for a good discussion. S

Respecting one's heritage IMO means to acknowledge those whose shoulders we stand upon; it does not show respect for them when we try to parrot them or become their clones or use their names as marketing tools or become stagnant in our personal growth. Our individual personal skill is the greatest testament to our ancestors; if a WCK practioner sucks -- especially one who calls himself "master" or "sifu" -- it reflects badly on the entire art and our ancestors. Being a laughing stock of the martial arts community as WCK is quickly becoming surely doesn't make our ancestors proud. TN

Terence

azwingchun

02-26-2003, 07:26 PM

I noticed your e-mail address, are you serious? You want me to send a photo? That would be a funny conversational piece. LOL ;)

yuanfen

02-26-2003, 07:46 PM

John-You should take him up on it.

Rene may have a seance report on Dr Jan with me.

pvwingchun

02-26-2003, 08:09 PM

On the curriculum portion of this thread I believe that a fixed curriculum is good in the beginning when you are new to WC. It shows you a road map of where you are going to go. As you progress through your stages of learning it is less needed as you must follow your own path in learning. A set curriculum also helps as stated to pass on knowledge if that is what you desire.

I know for myself as I have advanced my Sifu follows less of a curriculum and it is more of an exploration of WC and its roots and branches as I now have the trunk of this tree of knowledge. It is more like a get together and a sharing of knowledge. There is a curriculum there but we don't seem to follow it much yet with others he does. It is very much an individual thing. A good Sifu will know what each individual student needs and lead him down the path that is correct for them.

Phenix

02-26-2003, 11:22 PM

You cannot imitate what I do. Each and every techniques is unique, once and for all experience. My techniques emerge freely....... Rather than trying to copy what I did, listern to what I say. ---- M Ueshiba

Remember the source is good but attach to the source and riture but not living in this instant is a problem.

Argue about different point of view on history is good but forcing others to agree on one's idea is a problem.

Following the teaching and formulars is good but make that limited cases the Law of cosmos is a problem.

Past is a good resource to support us but We only live in this Instant. Beside, no one can live for us but us lives for ourself.

t_niehoff

02-27-2003, 05:54 AM

Here's some of Rene's handiwork -- showing me losing to Rickson.

Terence

reneritchie

02-27-2003, 06:54 AM

Rene may have a seance report on Dr Jan with me.

I found this in a secret museum in India... (with apologies to both esteemed doctors...)

http://www.wingchunkuen.com/leungjoy.jpg

Here's some of Rene's handiwork -- showing me losing to Rickson.

I preferred the one of you in Aguillera's (sp?) new video, but this, I suppose, caters to more of the adolecent fantasies on *this* board...

yuanfen

02-27-2003, 07:12 AM

Wow Rene. Thanks much! the esteemed doctor taught me how to break bones- unfortunately before retiring he didnt teach me how to set them!!

Rene- how much do you charge for creating ancient lineages
ex nihilo
with pics or drawing reproductions?

hunt1

02-27-2003, 08:17 AM

Rene, does this mean the picture of you and YKS doing chi sao may not be authentic?:D

Savi

02-27-2003, 08:49 AM

Hi all,
It would be quite a feat for a Sifu to be able to keep track of every individual student's talents and skills intimately if he/she has over 200 students and doesn't have a curriculum.

Curriculums are very important to follow if you have a large student base. In the case of my sifu, aside from constant and continuous partnering on a daily basis, having a curriculum allows the students to identify at their respective level what they need to know and how to get from Step A to Step Z in a logical flow of progressions or stages. This also allows the student to see/recognize the process the teacher follows to bring out your kung fu, and helps students guide other students as well.

A curriculum requires an extremely comprehensive and systematic approach; takes years of collecting, formatting, technical know-how, and teaching experience to develop such a curriculum.

Can students learn real kung fu from a curriculum? No, you need partners who can challenge and help you figure out what works and what needs work (Saan Sau). Can they learn how to go about their training? Maybe, depends if we are talking about a beginner, advanced, OR previously experienced student, but all need the guidance of the sifu (Hau Chun). Can they learn how to follow a logical and practical process? Yes, and our curriculum allows this through a system's approach. The student, through this means, allows them to track their own process, figure out at what step(s) they may need more focus/work, where the next level will take them and what it involves.

It quite effective and is very successful. Still, at every level, you need the physical reinforcement and the mental reinforcement to gain the proper understanding (Hau Chun Saan Sau). A curriculum cannot do it alone.

Generally speaking, and in no particular order, our curriculum contains:

1) the credentials and accomplishments of the Sifu and previous generation masters of the lineage

2) background information on what makes Wing Chun and how it operates

3) an in depth journey into the history of Wing Chun, and its role in China's history

4) introductions to Siu Nim Tau, Chum Kiu, Biu Jee, and the Black Sash levels, chapters on guidelines, Time and Space, Energetics, attributes, Principles, strategy and tactic, philosophy, weapons, proper sequence of learning for each level, and Mo Duk.

5) level material requirements from San Sau (ie. Pak Sau, Laap Sau, Chi Sau/Geuk, Kuen Fot...), Kahm Na, attributes and at each level, what each technique/drill involves (#4 above)

6) Glossary of Wing Chun/Chinese characters standard translations in Cantonese, Mandarin, and English

I feel that having a curriculum is a tremedous advantage to the sifu, and their todai. It is another bridge for all to speak the same language and understand each other. How good the curriculum is depends on its results.

-Savi.

t_niehoff

02-27-2003, 09:35 AM

Savi writes:

It would be quite a feat for a Sifu to be able to keep track of every individual student's talents and skills intimately if he/she has over 200 students and doesn't have a curriculum. S

Look at our ancestors who attained high levels of skill -- they were taught one-on-one, or in very small groups. Even Garrett says he was taught this way. It was when Yip Man opened his school to the general public that the quality of his school really began to decline. Those who spent time with Yip are very different than those that did not. In the old days it cost a great deal to learn WCK since it was taught one-on-one (and the teacher couldn't depend on mass paying customers at lower prices -- the Walmart approach to MAs). Today very few will pay those types of prices, particularly with unproven "masters". (BTW, Hawkins Cheung once wrote an article where he recounted how Bruce and he wondered why certain people in the school seemed to be improving and others didn't . . . and they found out that those that improved were getting privates with Yip . . . and so he and Bruce pooled their $ . . . . ). Any physical skill of quality is not mass-taught (beyond, perhaps, the most basic level). How many boxers does a good trainer work with at any given time -- 2 or 3? Why not 200? How about golf or tennis pros -- how many do they teach at a time? TN

Curriculums are very important to follow if you have a large student base. In the case of my sifu, aside from constant and continuous partnering on a daily basis, having a curriculum allows the students to identify at their respective level what they need to know and how to get from Step A to Step Z in a logical flow of progressions or stages. This also allows the student to see/recognize the process the teacher follows to bring out your kung fu, and helps students guide other students as well. S

A curriculum requires an extremely comprehensive and systematic approach; takes years of collecting, formatting, technical know-how, and teaching experience to develop such a curriculum. S

The "curriculum" is not WCK. Just as being able to add, subtract, multiply and divide is not the "curriculum" of basic math. In both cases, the goal or object is not getting the "curriculum" -- the textbook -- but rather the skills. What is the "curriculum" for golf, or tennis, or wrestling, or playing the piano or whatever -- is it set in stone? How one learns these skills (the curriculum or textbook) can vary a great deal among individuals. Focus on the skills, not the textbook. TN

Can students learn real kung fu from a curriculum? No, you need partners who can challenge and help you figure out what works and what needs work (Saan Sau). Can they learn how to go about their training? Maybe, depends if we are talking about a beginner, advanced, OR previously experienced student, but all need the guidance of the sifu (Hau Chun). Can they learn how to follow a logical and practical process? Yes, and our curriculum allows this through a system's approach. The student, through this means, allows them to track their own process, figure out at what step(s) they may need more focus/work, where the next level will take them and what it involves. S

A personal example: my wife learned to play the piano by ear; I've taken lessons for years and years (and practiced for years and years) and don't have nearly her skill. She's refined her playing by individual lessons with a good piano teacher who has focused on using and developing her innate talent; that same teacher uses a different approach altogether with my tin ear. Certainly one can learn something by the Suzuki method or painting by numbers . . . but no curriculum is superior . . . no progression is best . . . everything is dependent on the individual. Unless of course you're Henry Ford and want to mass-produce robots. TN

Terence

reneritchie

02-27-2003, 10:44 AM

Hunt1 - It's a secret!

t_niehoff - You bring out a key difference. In boxing, most people train to box, not to be boxing coaches. In MA, a surprising number of people seem to want to be teachers from very early on, rather than martial artists.

You are also correct in that, prior to 1950 or so, WCK was taught personally or in very small groups. Even after that, when some taught many, many students, it was not 100s at a time, but a few here, a few there, with the number coming over vast amounts of time.

Now look, we have people just learning a system already opening up schools, giving seminars, and what's more, we have their students and student's students opening schools, all in the matter of 3-5 years. I saw someone a few weeks ago who was something like 13th generation from Yip Man. How long would it go back 13 generations before?

Savi

02-27-2003, 10:50 AM

Terence, you and I are addressing TWO different subjects. You are discussing the cultivation of physical skill and how the Sifu addresses the bridge of communication on an individual basis. I am addressing the neccesity of a written device as a source of technical information that allows students to track their progression in mental understanding as well as help identify their location in their Wing Chun journey. If you see our curriculum, you will see that it is not designed to give the impression that one can learn from a book. Our curriculum is NOT a step by step illustrated manual on how to execute techniques. It is designed to further the mental aspects of a student in Wing Chun, and help them understand the process of learning Wing Chun set by the sifu.

If you are concerned about the number of the highest quality todai a sifu can produce, it is said the average is 1 in 100 people. In a smaller group todai can get prolonged, individual attention from a sifu. But the todai's sidai exist to train on what the sifu is teaching. The more sihingdai you have, the more experience and chance you have to make your kung fu more well-rounded and effective. Limit the number of partners and you limit your experience. If you are looking to become world-class and have a "sifu-level" dedication on all levels, that requires a father/daughter/son relationship with your sifu; private and continuous attention over the years from your sifu, as well as many sihingdai to help and challenge you. In a mass group setting, one sifu cannot do it alone. To maintain quality and a common understanding, a standard curriculum as well as high level instructors (under the sifu) are neccesary. Both the VTM and Mengs of AZ share the exact same curriculum.

Grandmaster Gee is a direct disciple of Grandmaster Wong Ming and that relationship is quite different than the average student who is learning Wing Chun for reasons other than becoming a sifu or passing on the system. They require a different approach to learning the system. Potential teachers are trained differently. Fighters are trained differently. People doing Wing Chun for leisure/personal reasons are trained differently.

As stated in the above paragraph, with a mass quantity of sihingdai/todai they require multiple, highly skilled instructors under the sifu to aide in the instruction and their attention. We have over 10 black sashes in our kwoon qualified under the VTM standards and requirements to be an instructor, whom also share the father/daughter/son relationship to Sifu Loewenhagen. Quality maintenance in Wing Chun output is much easier to measure and monitor and can only be done in this fashion. Each student has their own individualism and understanding on top of learning and knowing the exact same Wing Chun taught to their sihingdai by their sifu - only enhanced by a curriculum. NOT to say a curriculum is the only way, it is just another tool.

-Savi.

t_niehoff

02-27-2003, 01:56 PM

Savi writes:

If you are concerned about the number of the highest quality todai a sifu can produce, it is said the average is 1 in 100 people. In a smaller group todai can get prolonged, individual attention from a sifu. But the todai's sidai exist to train on what the sifu is teaching. The more sihingdai you have, the more experience and chance you have to make your kung fu more well-rounded and effective. Limit the number of partners and you limit your experience. If you are looking to become world-class and have a "sifu-level" dedication on all levels, that requires a father/daughter/son relationship with your sifu; private and continuous attention over the years from your sifu, as well as many sihingdai to help and challenge you. In a mass group setting, one sifu cannot do it alone. To maintain quality and a common understanding, a standard curriculum as well as high level instructors (under the sifu) are neccesary. Both the VTM and Mengs of AZ share the exact same curriculum. S

Every hamburger at every McDonald's in any part of the world is the same. God Bless America! TN

Grandmaster Gee is a direct disciple of Grandmaster Wong Ming and that relationship is quite different than the average student who is learning Wing Chun for reasons other than becoming a sifu or passing on the system. They require a different approach to learning the system. Potential teachers are trained differently. Fighters are trained differently. People doing Wing Chun for leisure/personal reasons are trained differently. S

Ah yes, I remember my piano teacher asked me if I was learning the piano to be a piano teacher -- for in that case he'd need to use teaching plan 1; if I was going to be a musician, then he'd use teaching plan 2; and, of course, if I was learning piano for leisure/personal reasons, that would be teaching plan 3. ;) Tell me, which plan are you on? TN

As stated in the above paragraph, with a mass quantity of sihingdai/todai they require multiple, highly skilled instructors S

Cough, cough . . .TN

under the sifu to aide in the instruction and their attention. We have over 10 black sashes in our kwoon S

How does everyone else hold up their trousers? TN

qualified under the VTM standards and requirements to be an instructor, S

With those "standards" how can you go wrong? TN

whom also share the father/daughter/son relationship to Sifu Loewenhagen. S

Tell me -- if these instructors date, is it incest? TN

Quality maintenance in Wing Chun output is much easier to measure and monitor and can only be done in this fashion. S

ROFLOL! TN

Each student has their own individualism and understanding on top of learning and knowing the exact same Wing Chun taught to their sihingdai by their sifu - only enhanced by a curriculum. NOT to say a curriculum is the only way, it is just another tool. S

God Bless America! Every hamburger the same -- and proud of it. TN

I apologize. I've got the flu, I'm medicated, and you keep saying silly things that make no sense in the real world so I thought I'd have a bit of fun. TN

Terence

Savi

02-27-2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
I apologize. I've got the flu, I'm medicated, and you keep saying silly things that make no sense in the real world so I thought I'd have a bit of fun. TN

Confusion is a good sign. TN
Confusion is a good sign Terence.
I hope you feel better. Keep smiling.

-Savi.

Savi

02-27-2003, 03:26 PM

How many other schools/students follow some form of a set curriculum? How often do you refer to it? Would anyone like to share how their's is structured?

Thank you for any responses, take care.
-Savi.

desertwingchun2

02-27-2003, 06:47 PM

Terrence - As often happens, even when your not sick, you "have fun" by trying to belittle others for sharing thier sincere thoughts and opinions. Where shall we begin?

Every hamburger at every McDonald's in any part of the world is the same. God Bless America! TN

So I take this as you comparing the students of different schools that follow the same cirriculm to McDonalds hamburgers. Its a humorous comment but to draw this conclusion you either missed the point (easy to understand due to your medicated state) or just wanted to be quick witted. Or possibly both because while showing your lack of comprehension you did make me laugh. Anyways ...

As stated in the above paragraph, with a mass quantity of sihingdai/todai they require multiple, highly skilled instructors S
Cough, cough . . .TN

Terrence did your coughing cause you to miss the rest of the sentence and the point?

qualified under the VTM standards and requirements to be an instructor, S

With those "standards" how can you go wrong? TN

If this was a sincere comment I would say you cant but then again I'm biased. However, I definetly sense some sarcasm here. So thats why I point this comment out as you "having some fun" again.
BTW what standards and or cirriculm do you train your students under?

Each student has their own individualism and understanding on top of learning and knowing the exact same Wing Chun taught to their sihingdai by their sifu - only enhanced by a curriculum. NOT to say a curriculum is the only way, it is just another tool. S

God Bless America! Every hamburger the same -- and proud of it. TN

Man, thats good meds! Again missing the point!

I apologize. I've got the flu, I'm medicated, and you keep saying silly things that make no sense in the real world so I thought I'd have a bit of fun. TN

The true apology would have been to not post a response in the first place. All you show is your true character. Maybe my sihing Savi's comments don't make sense to you in your world but I'm sure they make plenty of sense to others. Instead of posting anything constructive to this thread, I'm sure you'll have "fun" with this post as well as others. So have at it. I've said my peice and I'm out.

-David

reneritchie

02-27-2003, 07:50 PM

We don't have a paper curriculum. When I learned, if we just wanted to fight, our sifu taught us those movements that best suited us and worked to hone them as much as possible. If we had some passing interest in teaching one day, he would show us all the moves and their intricacies since who knew what our students would require one day. It wasn't necessary to write it all down since he made utterly sure we learned and understood the guiding concepts and principles and so if there was ever any question, we could likely answer it ourselves (the teaching us how to fish paradigm, rather than giving us a lengthy menu of fish to choose from).

If I wanted to have 100s of schools with 1000s of students, though, I would formalize a paper curriculum. I would also probably pad it to make it as well rounded as possible because I'd need quantity to ensure quality (thowing things at the wall, so to speak).

Hope you feel better TN.

desertwingchun2

02-27-2003, 10:36 PM

Rene - I think I understand what you're saying. Let me share my understanding to see if we're on the same page. Your sifu had a couple of learning tracks.

A) If you just wanted to fight he'd teach techiniques that best suited the individual. And then you drilled and drilled to hone those skills.
B) If you wanted to teach he would give you an overview of the system and discuss WC principles and concepts with you.

Either way he had a "game plan" for teaching various students. He would give you more information as he felt you were ready to receive it. Is that about right?

If I understand you correctly, the only difference I see is - one school says put the game plan on paper and the other doesn't. Please clarify how having a cirriculm on paper is giving a fish and not teaching how to fish?

I perceive the written cirriculm as a guide for the students to see where they are and what its going to take to get them where they want to be. That sounds like teaching not giving to me. The example you gave of teaching the fighters those movements that suited them and then drilling to hone them sounds like giving not teaching to me.

What do you consider padding a cirriculum? I can see your point if the cirriculum was padded with non-wing chun related material. But if you have a well rounded cirriculm on wing chun material, whats wrong with that?

It sounds to me that are you saying wing chun should be taught in a "skeleton" type manner. Meaning that at every stage of learning just the basics (but really really good basics) should be taught. Which inherently is not a bad thing. But the fact remains that students go to schools to learn as much as possible. What would happen when people discovered there is much more out there than what they had been taught?

-David

canglong

02-27-2003, 11:42 PM

Learning any physical activity isn't so much a matter of being told how to do it (if it were only that easy!), but learning for ourselves how to do it. You can't be told to "have sensitivity", you develop it yourself; you can't be told how to "generate power," you develop it yourself; etc. WCK isn't a set of postures, poses, fixed physcial shapes, but rather a dynamic, changing, interally-driven activity. No one can tell you how to do it. Just like no-one can tell you how to walk a tightrope. *But* they can help you learn to walk a tightrope for yourself. You can't tell a student how to understand -- you need to help them understand; you can't tell a student how to have skill -- you need to help them develop skill. TN

How does a kwoon following a specific curriculum jeapordize any of this? TJ

If I wanted to have 100s of schools with 1000s of students, though, I would formalize a paper curriculum. I would also probably pad it to make it as well rounded as possible because I'd need quantity to ensure quality (thowing things at the wall, so to speak).RR

This statement speaks volumes about you more so then any students you might ever have. TJ

...and for the record have you ever had a McDonald's burger outside of the US Terence?

t_niehoff

02-28-2003, 05:57 AM

desertwingchun2 writes:

Every hamburger at every McDonald's in any part of the world is the same. God Bless America! TN

So I take this as you comparing the students of different schools that follow the same cirriculm to McDonalds hamburgers. Its a humorous comment but to draw this conclusion you either missed the point (easy to understand due to your medicated state) or just wanted to be quick witted. Or possibly both because while showing your lack of comprehension you did make me laugh. Anyways ...DW2

My point is that what it takes to mass produce a product as McDonald's does hamburgers (so that they are all exactly alike), is not the same process as it takes to truly learn a skill like WCK. TN

--------

qualified under the VTM standards and requirements to be an instructor, S

With those "standards" how can you go wrong? TN

If this was a sincere comment I would say you cant but then again I'm biased. However, I definetly sense some sarcasm here. DW2

Really? ;) TN

So thats why I point this comment out as you "having some fun" again. BTW what standards and or cirriculm do you train your students under? DW2

If you read Savi's quote again, he says "standards and requirements to be an instructor", and is not talking about standards for students. That standard needs to be having the ability (the skills) to do what one is teaching, and there is only one way I know of to measure one's skills -- performance against genuine resistance. And fwiw, I think anyone who holds himself out as an "expert" should be willing and able to demonstrate that they can do against some form of genuine resistance what they are teaching, i.e., put up or shut up, on demand. Do you and the VTM also think that way too? TN

Terence

Phenix

02-28-2003, 06:31 AM

Where is all these standard, curricurum.... comes from?

If this is passed down by the ancestors...... why things are different among different people today? (if some claim that that is due to some ancestors doesn't have the full, complete teaching, then specific technical contents have to be present. citing term is not good enough)

If this is created in this morden day by some one or organization... then how can one certain this is accord to the teaching with the ancestors?

reneritchie

02-28-2003, 06:57 AM

Hi David,

He would teach people who wanted to fight both concepts and techniques (he always taught concept over technique) but the manifestations of those concepts he would focus on would be those with which the fighter felt more comfortable (e.g. to the extreme, if they had a great right tan da but a louzy left fook da, he would work the tan da like mad and not worry as much about the fook da)

None of us set out with the goal to teach, but those who were accepted as closer students were expected to spend time even on the stuff that didn't click as much for us, in case we wanted to teach.

To help frame this, I "grew up" in a very traditional MA way (and, without trying to be insulting to others, not in a Western Shaw Bros. pseudo-cultural mystique tradition of funny clothes or strange titles and dime store rituals), with a sifu pretty fresh off the boat from mainland China. His sigung had been doing WCK for 30 odd years before his sifu learned, his sifu for 20 odd years before he learned, he for 20 odd years before we learned. He taught as he'd been taught, and he also didn't care about the race or nationality of his students, just their desire to learn (even when he was publically chastised by more "famous" western WCK teachers for doing so - which only made me wonder what they were teaching their non-Chinese students?) But I digress. All this to say is that people who just came in, new people, who wanted to fight had access to a certain level of expert instruction (one of my sidais one a local NHB tourney in the early 90s with that type of training). If you stayed and expressed more interest and exhibited good character, you learned more. If he decided you were going to learn the whole shabang, you had to do that.

As to the "more information when ready", very much so. I remember once a local Kempo teacher came to a few classes and kept asking for more and more (he was, of course, trying to go back and teach his class what he just learned hours before). Our sifu calmly told him he knew very little, could do less, and when he could do more, he'd know more. He taught very much step by step (we spent 4 months or more just on the punch, turn, step when I first started).

As to differentiating the paper plan from the non-paper, its like fighting with pre-set combinations vs. responses suited to the moment. In either case, for fighters or those who may one day teach, we are and were individuals. To go back to my exteme example, if student A was unstoppable with the right tan da, but lousy with the left fook da, but the paper said he had to have left fook da, the paper becomes an inhibitor, not an enabler. To train a great fighter, you can't have anything other than highly personalized, one-on-one attention. Each individual is a unique combination of their own strengths and weaknesses, natural aptitudes and inapptitudes, ways of learning and motivating, etc. No paper, even a virtual one on a super computer, can do that. For people who might teach, they will also be unique, and for quality education, you will need to adapt to those unique characteristics. That's the difference between hand-crafting, where the grain of the wood, the shape of the rough diamond, the feel of the stone tells you how best to perfect it, as opposed to mass production where you feed everything into a machine and force it to fit the common denominator.

Your point on written curriculum serving as a guide, I think, helps illustrate my point. It very well may--for some! For others it might not be helpful, but binding. And maybe different orders would be better for some than others, less of one thing more of another, alternatives to some, etc. Paper is just a medium, it doesn't have to be symbolic of something carved in stone.

WRT "padding", some schools now fill things up with cycles of this or that (chi sao, san sao, whatever) and take 20+ years to get to all the forms, concepts, etc. Other schools integrate non-WCK material, or collect WCK material from many different sources, or add in health aspects or sports aspects or meditation or life style coaching or pseudo-cultural trappings. Some may have weight training or yoga, or offer several different arts under the same roof, etc. etc.

I'm not sure if people go to school to learn as much as possible, or as well as possible. Teaching, in the one-on-one model, is very much an art of giving as much as possible to achieve as good a quality as possible - knowing when to increase training and when to increase information. It's a balance.

When I first started WCK it was odd to me. I'd come from a Judo and Karate background where we routinely had classes of 30+ and "assistant instructors" trying to make sure everyone was doing what they were supposed to (and sometimes succeeding). In fact, I asked my sifu why he only taught in groups of 6 or so and he said he didn't like the big classes. They reminded him of his days in the PRC Army.

desertwingchun2

02-28-2003, 07:36 AM

My point is that what it takes to mass produce a product as McDonald's does hamburgers (so that they are all exactly alike), is not the same process as it takes to truly learn a skill like WCK. TN

Terence - No two things are ever exactly alike! By having students follow a set cirriculum no one anticipates the students to be exactly the same. It's a guide a tool thats it.

And fwiw, I think anyone who holds himself out as an "expert" should be willing and able to demonstrate that they can do against some form of genuine resistance what they are teaching, i.e., put up or shut up, on demand. Do you and the VTM also think that way too? TN

Why do you assume I can speak for the VTM? I cannot, do not and will not. If I gave the impression I was speaking for the VTM it is my mistake. I only speak for me so keep that in mind when we hold discussions.

With that said, I have to ask who are you to demand anything from anybody? Again you show your true character.

I am very much a "don't tell me show me" guy but I wouldn't demand anyone do anything.

What standards and/or cirriculum do you utilize to train your students?

-David

t_niehoff

02-28-2003, 08:01 AM

desertwingchun2 writes:

What standards and/or cirriculum do you utilize to train your students? DW2

Read Rene's post -- it very much reflects how I teach and my outlook w/r/t this topic. BTW, I practiced WCK for 18 years before I ever began to teach, and I've now been practicing WCK for at least as long as your si-gung. But I tell my students that I'm not very good (certainly not a "master"), and that if they can find someone better than I they should by all means study with them (and let me know, so I can too). I teach privately out of my home, am very selective about whom I teach (I've turned away almost everyone that has approached me and only accepted less than a handful), charge no $ (I tell my students that "the only dues are hard work, and if you don't pay your dues, you're out") since I get as much out of it as I hope they do, I *train* along with them (and let them see my "warts"), and have fought in front of them. Since I make no pretensions about my skills, I have nothing to hide. TN

Terence

desertwingchun2

02-28-2003, 08:07 AM

Rene - I think I'm understanding you better. Thanks for the clarrification on a few points. I also think we have a different understanding of the role a written cirriculum plays.

As to differentiating the paper plan from the non-paper, its like fighting with pre-set combinations vs. responses suited to the moment...

I disagree with you on this point. No one is forced to perfect everything written on a piece of paper. If that was the case no one would go very far because nothing is ever perfect. :D
Using your example: "if student A was unstoppable with the right tan da, but lousy with the left fook da, but the paper said he had to have left fook da, the paper becomes an inhibitor, not an enabler." To my understanding the student has to be aware of the left fook da and understand it but not have it perfected. And even using your example the student has it just not one of his stronger techniques.

Paper is just a medium, it doesn't have to be symbolic of something carved in stone.

I think this comment helps illustrate my point that a written cirriculum is a guide, a tool nothing more nothing less.

I would also probably pad it to make it as well rounded as possible because I'd need quantity to ensure quality (thowing things at the wall, so to speak).

WRT "padding", some schools now fill things up with cycles of this or that (chi sao, san sao, whatever) and take 20+ years to get to all the forms, concepts, etc. Other schools integrate non-WCK material ...

Well our concept of padding is the same. I hope if you had a school you wouldn't pad your cirriculum. That wouldn't be in the best interest of your students would it?

I'm not sure if people go to school to learn as much as possible, or as well as possible.

From personal experience, many people that I train with, even though they had previous training and were proficient in the system they trained, appreciate getting more knowledge. Its human nature to attempt continous growth and improve ones knowledge. Of course there are exceptions to every rule ie: people with self-distructive tendancies.

Anyways I hope we have a better understanding of each others position.

-David

reneritchie

02-28-2003, 08:14 AM

David,

Thanks, I do understand you better, and think if not exactly on the same page, we're at least in the same chapter 8)

I have similar experiences to yours WRT what people want, but am different myself. I often see beginners stop training to watch what the more advanced people are doing. I hated this when my partners did it when I was a beginner, and I dislike it when I see it from beginners still. It's a waste of time. Give me more basics! Let me get the next basic rep that much better. I don't give a flying fig what more advanced people are doing, I couldn't do it anyway, and I have enough of my own stuff to do poorly.

One advantage I think I had was that I never expected to learn anything. When I learned SLT, I never thought I'd get shown CK, or the dummy, or the weapons. And each stage was like a pleasant surprise. Now I often have people ask me how soon they can learn the dummy or the knives... And as I said, we spent 4+ months on horse and punch, now I can't seem to get 4 min. out of the beginners...

Do I suddenly sound old? LOL!

canglong

02-28-2003, 08:16 AM

Knowing some of the history of the art of WCK and how the curriculum was created are what is most important in this discussion.

yeah and you get what you pay for huh TN:D
No seriously what are your contributiions to continuing this craft we all enjoy so much. My sigung's works have been well chronicled and agree or disagree with the findings no one can fault the effort.

desertwingchun2

02-28-2003, 08:54 AM

Terence - Thanks for the Bio. Does eighteen plus years experience allow you to demand that people demonstrate thier skill for you?

After so many years why would you want to learn from someone new? Would you demand your prospective new instructor to "put up or shut up"?

Why do you feel the need to bring my sigung into this conversation? I'm well aware of his martial arts background.

I do like your one on one approach. It is important for students to have a good relationship with thier instructor.

-David

t_niehoff

02-28-2003, 09:34 AM

desertwcinghun2 writes:

Terence - Thanks for the Bio. Does eighteen plus years experience allow you to demand that people demonstrate thier skill for you? DW2

Why would I want to waste my time "studying" from someone who can't make work what they teach (regardless of their self-imposed qualifications)? I wouldn't do it in any other aspect of my life, and WCK is no different. What's interesting IMO is that folks with real skill have no problem when you ask them to demonstrate it -- they're typically happy to IME. If you doubt me, go to a BJJ studio and say you'd like to see if they can really do what they teach -- they'll be more than pleased to show you. They don't take it as a challenge or disrespect. Why should we in WCK be any different? TN

After so many years why would you want to learn from someone new? Would you demand your prospective new instructor to "put up or shut up"? DW2

If someone has something to teach me and can help me get better, I want it (I'm just greedy like that). But I don't judge skill on what someone tells me about how good they are or how many fights they've had or what their relationship to so-and-so was or what certificates or "sashes" they have -- I want to see for myself that skill in action. The really good ones I've met have had no problem doing that; the ones that refuse have in that refusal told me all I need to know. TN

Why do you feel the need to bring my sigung into this conversation? I'm well aware of his martial arts background. DW2

Just as a point of reference. TN

I do like your one on one approach. It is important for students to have a good relationship with thier instructor. DW2

I don't know what you mean by "relationship." I'm talking about the required one-on-one interaction between instructor-student necessary to develop skill. TN

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

canglong wrote:

yeah and you get what you pay for huh TN - C

Yes, very true. Pay for your hamburger, get your hamburger. ;) TN

No seriously what are your contributiions to continuing this craft we all enjoy so much. My sigung's works have been well chronicled and agree or disagree with the findings no one can fault the effort. C

I am a WCK practitioner. I am not great, not a "master", nor do I claim to have any special quality to my being that would mark me as outstanding in WCK, but **I am a WCK practitioner**. I'm not interested in "contributions", just like I'm not interested in paper qualifications or certifications, or making money off of WCK, or making a name for myself . . . I'm only interested in acquiring (more) skill and being a better WCK practitioner. Efforts, in and of themselves, are not praiseworthy; and some efforts can rightly be faulted. TN

Terence

reneritchie

02-28-2003, 11:29 AM

Terence - You're eitherly modest to a fault or just trying to lull some poor saps into picking on you so they'll regret it.

Most people wouldn't last in your kind of training, they don't have the mental and physical endurance for it, never mind the personal honesty.

Savi

02-28-2003, 11:46 AM

In MY opinion Rene, teaching what only seems to fit a student and never developing/strengthening the weaker aspects of an individual's kung fu as they grow inevitably leaves holes in that generation of kung fu. To not train a student's Fuk Da, or any OTHER technique to the proper competancy is the greatest violation of passing on the system to their students. Personalizing your own kung fu should not be done prematurely.

Holes create more holes, generation through generation. Those interested in preserving and growing the Wing Chun community cannot take the approach of teaching beginner students what they think will work for them. Those who understand this will teach in a different fashion to preserve the system.

The process of learning Wing Chun is designed to eliminate any and all illusions out of our reality so that it is ONLY reality that exists for us. If it is Wing Chun itself that is flawed, then I can understand why some people would only teach what they think works. But who is the most qualified to make such a judgement? You? Me? Your (general 'your') sifu? Their's? The techniques exist for a reason, but simply put, they exist and have a proper time and space to be used.

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

Hendrik is asking where this curriculum exists. Stop on by our school Hendrik, or stop by the VTM. Where is the curriculum? Right here at our school! I can personally show you our curriculum/manual and show you how it is used alongside a classroom setting. Refer back to my previous post to see what is contains.

Our AZ school is certified by the Hung Fa Yi Federation, Ving Tsun Athletic Association, Ving Tsun Museum, Meng's Martial Arts, Moy Yat International Ving Tsun Federation. These are the standards that our school follows. I might have missed a few, going off memory right now...

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

Terence, if your drive to teach Wing Chun is without passion and sincerity, do you not think you doing a disservice to your todai? If you agree, perhaps you should reinvest your time in giving them a more serious commitment, no?

I would recommend from personal experience that you should seek out any of the sifu of my family for further instruction. Aside from their qualifications and certifications which are far from self-appointed, their depth of knowledge and physical skills in application are unparalleled, as that is what you seek. Again, I am speaking from personal experience with regards to THIS offering to you.

Headquarters locations:
480-820-2428 to speak with Master Loewenhagen for instruction. Chandler, AZ
937-236-6485 to speak with Master Meng for instruction. Dayton, OH
415-587-2898 to speak with Master Gee for instruction. San Fransisco, CA

-Savi.

byond1

02-28-2003, 12:05 PM

i wonder if yip man,wsl, and garry lamb were all called the same title , for example master, by garry lambs student? or perhaps yip man was dai si gung, wsl si gung, and garry lamb sifu...proper titles for the proper generation

reneritchie

02-28-2003, 12:34 PM

Hey Savi,

In MY opinion Rene, teaching what only seems to fit a student and never developing/strengthening the weaker aspects of an individual's kung fu as they grow inevitably leaves holes in that generation of kung fu.

I think you misread my post. If you have time to read it again, please do, it should answer the above for you.

The process of learning Wing Chun is designed to eliminate any and all illusions out of our reality so that it is ONLY reality that exists for us.

That seems more side-effect to me, but piano can do the same, as can painting.

The techniques exist for a reason, but simply put, they exist and have a proper time and space to be used.

There was an old column in Inside Kung-Fu back in the 70s or 80s where the writer wondered why his Kwan Do set had 3 hops forward and three hops back in the beginning, but only the 3 hops back at the end. That was how he learned it, and exactly how he did it, but he wondered. So he went to his sifu and asked him. His sifu said that's how he learned it. Next time they were in China, they asked Sigung. Sigung said it was the way he learned it, but he would ask Sibakgung. Sibakgung revealed that the school they learned in was a bit small, and they couldn't do the 3 hops back without smashing into a wall, so they're sifu had gotten rid of them. That was the only reason.

Yip Man was very wise when he said to test things, you might be tricked. (And that's not a one time proposition).

BTW - It is sad to see personal attacks rearing their ugly head again on this forum.

desertwingchun2

02-28-2003, 02:54 PM

Rene wrote BTW - It is sad to see personal attacks rearing their ugly head again on this forum.

I couldn't agree with you more. At the risk of sounding like a second grader, take a look back and see how this started. The discussions were going great then Terence had to insult my sihing by calling his opinions "silly and making no sense". Then he blames his behavior on the flu and medication.

I apologize. I've got the flu, I'm medicated, and you keep saying silly things that make no sense in the real world so I thought I'd have a bit of fun. TN

That behavior is in no way constructive. I'm tired of Terence "having fun" at the cost of others. This type of "fun" is the reason that most of these threads end up in personal attacks and bickering. This type of "fun" shouldn't be tolerated as it effects us all. You have a good relationship with him why not reiderate your quote above to him in an attempt to curb his appetite for "fun".

-David

Savi

02-28-2003, 03:10 PM

Rene, I do not see how painting and piano lessons can weed out personal illusions when you're in a life and death scenario. At the least, the Wing Chun I study is directed towards Reality; that Time, Space, and Energy have nothing to do with what I prefer or what I am good at. From what I understand WC is designed to bring clarity and balance to oneself when one's life is in danger. How can painting and a piano prevent someone from killing me? Seriously Rene, can you please explain how your examples can accomplish this?

Due to the rising hostility, I will continue to read this thread - but will no longer be posting here until the environment gets better, or questions are productive.

Thank you, and take care guys!
-Savi.

desertwingchun2

02-28-2003, 03:21 PM

Terence - You said that people who are considered experts should "put up or shut up on demand" Then I ask if thats what you do. You then give a long, evasive, round about type answer that was basically a "no". The WC approach would be to simply say "No, I don't do that" see simple, straight-foward and efficient.

If you went to any martial art school and demanded the instructor "put up or shut up" I don't see how that would not be considered a challenge or disrespectfull. However, if you asked to touch, feel or cross hands thats different. Notice the difference between ask and demand?

What were you hoping to reference by bringing my sigung into our conversation?

I don't know what you mean by "relationship." I'm talking about the required one-on-one interaction between instructor-student necessary to develop skill. TN

Main Entry: re·la·tion·ship
Pronunciation: -sh&n-"ship
Function: noun
Date: circa 1744
1 : the state of being related or interrelated <studied the relationship between the variables>
2 : the relation connecting or binding participants in a relationship: as a : KINSHIP b : a specific instance or type of kinship
3 a : a state of affairs existing between those having relations or dealings <had a good relationship with his family> b : a romantic or passionate attachment

Pick 1, 2 or 3 because "one-on-one interaction between instructor-student" can be defined by any of them. So it seems you did know what I meant.

Now isn't this fun!! :D

-David

reneritchie

02-28-2003, 03:55 PM

I couldn't agree with you more. At the risk of sounding like a second grader, take a look back and see how this started. The discussions were going great then Terence had to insult my sihing by calling his opinions "silly and making no sense". Then he blames his behavior on the flu and medication.

It's a cycle, taking two to tango, and since everyone likely feels its only the other person at fault, its not likely to change. More's the pity. Like it or not, Terence annoys a lot of people, as do I, as do many of the VTM people, and often we annoy each other. We can either get over that and act like adults, or continue to watch our discussions degrade. It will be a personal choice for each and every one of us, and will not succeed if we always wait for the other person.

Rene, I do not see how painting and piano lessons can weed out personal illusions when you're in a life and death scenario.

Is WCK really life or death anymore? If you want someone dead, are you going to go after them with WCK? If someone wants you dead, is WCK really proof against it? Nope. IMHO that's romance, not reality.

At the least, the Wing Chun I study is directed towards Reality; that Time, Space, and Energy have nothing to do with what I prefer or what I am good at.

That's packaging; the way someone has chosen to perceive and transmit it. Valid, for those who embrace it, for certain, but not a transcendant absolute capital "T" truth in the biblical sense. (note, I personally like that idea about WCK, but I like it about other things as well. Who are you (general you) to say a pianist or a painter can't transcend through their passion just the same?)

How can painting and a piano prevent someone from killing me? Seriously Rene, can you please explain how your examples can accomplish this?

I had a friend who was a TKD blackbelt. Really good. One of the few I've seen who could really fight well with it on the street. He worked as a bouncer and one day bounced the wrong guy. He was shot a short time later. TKD couldn't save him. WCK can't save you. The secret service can't save everyone. That in itself is delusion. Even at its perfection, martial arts is only one, very small part of self-defense (read 'Strong on Defense' by Samford Strong some time for more on that). And piano and painting have saved many lives, and given many people a reason to live. Devastating self-realization is, according to some, the core and key of art.

One of my favorite Alan Moore quotes is something to the effect of "Why do humans insist on looking only at one facet, when if they took a step back, the whole jewel would be clearly visible".

desertwingchun2

02-28-2003, 04:40 PM

Rene - I hear you loud and clear. But I take issue with you here.

It's a cycle, taking two to tango, and since everyone likely feels its only the other person at fault, its not likely to change.

I have trouble believeing you cannot find fault when one person takes the initiative and begins to publicly ridicule and insult someones views solely for there own pleasure.

Terence annoys a lot of people, as do I ...

I have seen where you may annoy some people but to my knowledge you have never blatantly insulted someone for no other apparent reason than self-gratification. Lets not take too broad a view of the subject at hand.

as do many of the VTM people

I've seen this happen as well, but lets stick to Me, You and Terence for now.

We can either get over that and act like adults, or continue to watch our discussions degrade.

I agree 100%. But lets not just act like adults we are adults. Like I said earlier my comments were remeniscent of a second grader.
But thats fine with me I wanted to stress my point.

As for future discussion I hope people will leave the childs play for the children. Only time will tell.

Sorry to hear about your friend. It's always tough having to burry one of your friends.

-David

Phenix

02-28-2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Savi

Hendrik is asking where this curriculum exists. Stop on by our school Hendrik, or stop by the VTM. Where is the curriculum? Right here at our school! I can personally show you our curriculum/manual and show you how it is used alongside a classroom setting. Refer back to my previous post to see what is contains.

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

-Savi.

My interest is about in general and how the curriculum set up... not limited to any specific school.

Read my post again.

Phenix

02-28-2003, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Rolling_Hand
.Savi wrote:

This Hendrik is so shallow there isn't enough water in his pond to skim a stone.

Where are Chum Kiu and Biu Jee in Hendrik's lineage?

You always set great example of against just forsake of agaisnt.
We all should learn from you not to do that.

This is a discussion forum. It is about discussion not about cross examination. English is my forth language but I think I understand what is a discussion. not cross examination.

Relax.
Where is your wise word of Tao? :D

t_niehoff

02-28-2003, 06:39 PM

desertwingchun2 wrote:

Terence - You said that people who are considered experts should "put up or shut up on demand" Then I ask if thats what you do. You then give a long, evasive, round about type answer that was basically a "no". The WC approach would be to simply say "No, I don't do that" see simple, straight-foward and efficient. DW2

I'm sorry, perhaps you should remind me when I referred to myself as an "expert" or "master" or "grandmaster"? I don't go around giving seminars or taking people's money or certifying anyone. Not that I mind anyone doing those things -- only if they teach a fighting art, then they should be able to fight. If not, then stop teaching. TN

If you went to any martial art school and demanded the instructor "put up or shut up" I don't see how that would not be considered a challenge or disrespectfull. However, if you asked to touch, feel or cross hands thats different. Notice the difference between ask and demand? DW2

Did you bother to read my post? I said to go to any BJJ studio and ask them if they can really make what they do work -- they'll invite you on the mat to show you. They won't mind because they have skill. Go to a boxing gym and ask them if they can really box -- they'll invite you into the ring to see for yourself. They won't mind because they have skill. Go to most WCK kwoons and ask the same question and you'll at best get a demo of how they say it will work. I'm not learning WCK to "touch" or "feel" or "cross hands" . . . these don't show fighting skill. Oh yeah, I forgot . . . they are too dangerous to really use their skills. ;) TN
------------------

Savi writes:

I would recommend from personal experience that you should seek out any of the sifu of my family for further instruction. Aside from their qualifications and certifications which are far from self-appointed, their depth of knowledge and physical skills in application are unparalleled, as that is what you seek. Again, I am speaking from personal experience with regards to THIS offering to you. S

I'd be very careful if I were you -- sometimes you get what you ask for. When I seek out "personal experience" from any sifu, I expect them to actually be able to perform, not talk a great game. BTW, I've been to the VTM. And I've seen Garrett. TN

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

RH writes:

**Who the hell is this Terence anyways? RH

As I said, I'm just a WCK practitioner -- one that doesn't put much stock in titles or certificates or associations or lineage or similar BS, but rather performance. TN

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

RR wrote:

Terence - You're eitherly modest to a fault or just trying to lull some poor saps into picking on you so they'll regret it. Most people wouldn't last in your kind of training, they don't have the mental and physical endurance for it, never mind the personal honesty. RR

I *know* my skills and what I can and cannot do because I use performance as my measure. So I don't mind saying that I'm not very good (that's why I still train and am still improving) -- there are a lot of really good fighters out there. And I don't mind folks calling themselves "masters" or saying that they have "the best or most advanced fighting system" -- all I think they should do is prove it. Not by telling us they can fight, not by saying they are certified to fight, but by actually showing us they can fight. TN

Terence

desertwingchun2

02-28-2003, 10:05 PM

Terence - I never said you refered to yourself as anything.

One last time. You posted :

And fwiw, I think anyone who holds himself out as an "expert" should be willing and able to demonstrate that they can do against some form of genuine resistance what they are teaching, i.e., put up or shut up, on demand... TN

The problem I have is that part where you say demand. Like I asked before who are you to demand anything from anybody?

Now you are not using the same words. Now your lines have shifted. Now you post about asking BJJ guys ask boxers ask ask ask no more demand.

I never assumed anything about your reasons for training WCK. My post regarding touch, feel, cross hands refered to asking. Not demanding someone "to put up or shut up". Did you bother to read my post?

Anyways now you are saying asking and have gone away from demanding thus, that portion of our disscussion is done.

From this experience I get a clear picture of who is interested in sharing and who is not. I hear music in the background but choose not to dance. Too much "fun" for one day. :)

-David

Mckind13

03-01-2003, 02:53 AM

Hi David In AZ.

on demand : upon presentation and request for payment also : when requested or needed.

Not demanding but on demand.

See :)

David McKinnon

captain

03-01-2003, 06:01 AM

terence is a lawyer,and we all know what shakespeare
has to say about lawyers.

reneritchie

03-01-2003, 06:35 AM

terence is a lawyer,and we all know what shakespeare

Yeah, then he got arrested for a crime he didn't commit and the baker couldn't help him much ;)

Here're some tips for one and all, those offended by me, by Terence, by any of the VTM people, by any of the trolls, etc.:

1) Ignore the offender. (do not re-enforce negative behavior)

or

2) Mentally edit out all offensive elements and respond only to non-offensive elements. (condition them to be positive)

t_niehoff

03-01-2003, 06:42 AM

McKind13 wrote:

on demand : upon presentation and request for payment also : when requested or needed.

Not demanding but on demand.

See? DM

Exactly, Dave, exactly. TN

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

captain writes:

terence is a lawyer,and we all know what shakespeare
has to say about lawyers. C

LOL! Brilliant retort. Really. It's nice to know that's the best you can offer to the discussion . . . . BTW, Yuen Kay-San was a lawyer, not to mention the framers of the US constitution, Abraham Lincoln, . . . but really, brilliant retort. It always amazes me how witty those anonymous trolls can be. But you forget about my mama! ;) TN

Terence

captain

03-01-2003, 10:24 AM

hey,terrybaby,i didnt forget ya mamma and she doesnt forget
me!joke.infact,i agree with you.i teach drama/theatre.
and if a student questions what i pass along [and i hope
that they do],i can back up the theory with my actual time spent
on stage and small screen.because how can someone teach
something said to be practical wck/acting,unless they have
an instance in mind to prove so.
any teacher who will not give the goods,is essientially teaching
a form of choreography.there,you like that?and rene,was you
calling me a troll?that hurts.and terrybaby,i would ask wck
teachers difficult,probing questions,but so far my experiences
with wckclasses have been amateur hour occassions.

Russell.[real name.no lawyers please].

reneritchie

03-01-2003, 03:14 PM

Russel,

No, I know you, and you don't troll. I was referencing another element of the ongoing discussion.

(BTW - There are different kinds of troll. Some are exceedingly witty and get a point across in their trolling. Others just insult and get no point across other than the lack of one).

desertwingchun2

03-01-2003, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Mckind13
Hi David In AZ.

on demand : upon presentation and request for payment also : when requested or needed.

Not demanding but on demand.

See :)

David McKinnon

Hi David in San Diego - I see very clearly. BTW thank you for helping me make my point. "On demand" is a prepositional phrase here is it's definition:

On demand, upon request; on being claimed:a note payayble on demand. [< Old French demander to request < Latin de~mendare entrust < de~ - (intensive) + mandare to order] -- de-mand`er, n.

Claim emphasizes having the right to get what is demanded: He claimed the inheritance.

And fwiw, I think anyone who holds himself out as an "expert" should be willing and able to demonstrate that they can do against some form of genuine resistance what they are teaching, i.e., put up or shut up, on demand... TN

In this context "on demand" implies that Terence thinks "anyone who holds themselve out as an 'expert' "... has an obligation to him to "put up or shut up". Wow !!!

If you choose to use the term: "when requested or needed." you are no longer defining the prepositional phrase "on demand". The term "when requested or needed" descibes the verb tense of the word demand.

Are we having fun yet? :rolleyes:

-David

reneritchie

03-01-2003, 05:31 PM

D@mn,

I keep typing forum.kungfumagazine.com and it keeps resolving to dictionary.com... Hopefully the admins can fix this routing glitch asap...

Savi

03-02-2003, 10:34 AM

Changed my mind, there are still comments on the thread that still need answers.

Originally posted by reneritchie
1) Is WCK really life or death anymore? If you want someone dead, are you going to go after them with WCK? If someone wants you dead, is WCK really proof against it? Nope. IMHO that's romance, not reality.
Rene, WC is everything. It is Life and Death, yin and yang. It is the art of Balance. Balance of Body, Mind, Spirit. Balance of Time, Space, Energy. If your mind is chaotic when you are struggling to stay alive, are you really in Balance? If not, you have a much smaller chance to stay alive! If your mind is clear, you can focus more in stressful situations. The Mind gives the Body and Spirit an opportunity to cooperate with each other. Then Balance can be restored. Then you can figure out what is the right thing to do.

With regards to fighting a gun, I am not that stupid or naive Rene. You were taking my words too literally. I did not mean that WC can save you from a bullet. I was coming from the philosophical side of WC. However, if you want to approach this from a "WC isn't for every situation" I'd have to assume you mean the combat aspect of WC, and I would have to agree with you. Nothing can save you from a bullet, unless you do something before the gun or trigger is pulled - like running like you've never run before!

The philosophy of WC helps us understand what is the correct action to take for the immediate Time and Space (the reality of the moment). If it is to run away, OK. If it is to stand and defend yourself, OK. If it is to help your opponent destroy their Harmony because they have chosen to attack yours, OK. Does this help you understand where I am coming from?

In order to survive in Life (Time, Space, Energy) and (Body, Mind, Spirit) must be in perfect balance. Any singular part of these that is out of balance of the whole can result in your destruction.

Originally posted by reneritchie
2) That's packaging (Savi's insert: Reality is Time, Space, and Energy); the way someone has chosen to perceive and transmit it. Valid, for those who embrace it, for certain, but not a transcendant absolute capital "T" truth in the biblical sense. (note, I personally like that idea about WCK, but I like it about other things as well. Who are you (general you) to say a pianist or a painter can't transcend through their passion just the same?)
Rene, if Reality is not defined by Time, Space, and Energy... what is Reality defined by then? This is not packaging, and is so far off the mark it isn't funny - IF I am understanding you correctly. Can you then share with us what defines your WC style if it isn't governed by Reality (TS & E)?

WC, Painting, Piano lessons... All different creatures Rene. If I understand you thus far, you are telling me that when the time comes for you to choose life over death, a knockout over a kill, a submission move over a break, what is learned from painting and piano lessons can bring you to the proper understanding of what the proper answer should be to said scenarios? Please tell me more, as you seem to have found another side of these artistic expressions which contain combative physical and mental elements.

My understanding of WC is that it was designed to deal with combative situations of any hand-to-hand/non projectile extreme.

Originally posted by reneritchie
3) Devastating self-realization is, according to some, the core and key of art.
Devastating your own, or your opponent's? Could you explain this please?

-Savi.

Savi

03-02-2003, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Hendrik Santo
Originally posted by Rolling_Hand:
Savi wrote:

This Hendrik is so shallow there isn't enough water in his pond to skim a stone.

Where are Chum Kiu and Biu Jee in Hendrik's lineage?
Hendrik, I hope I am not misinterpreting this, but it looks like you are attempting to blackmail Rolling Hand or me. To me, it looks like you are either stating that I wrote the above quote, or that Rolling Hand is stating I wrote that as well. I did not state this, as we all can review any of my posts should they choose to do so. Hopefully this was not intended on your part.

With regards to curriculums, no - our ancestors did not develop the curriculum we follow. Our curriculum (see my earlier post on what it contains on pg 1 or 2 I think) serves to guide us on a more modern-day, systematic thought process in approaching the system. Our curriculum serves as another 'training methodology' to aide the students on their own time away from the sifu, sihingdai, and kwoon. It was developed by Master Meng and Master Loewenhagen for their todai and future generations.

In order to understand my statement here, you would have to see our curriculum to see how we incorporate it and how it is intertwined into the teaching strategy we use. This curriculum is for us alone, not followed by every kung fu family. Does this properly address your question?

-Savi.

Savi

03-02-2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Savi writes:
I would recommend from personal experience that you should seek out any of the sifu of my family for further instruction. Aside from their qualifications and certifications which are far from self-appointed, their depth of knowledge and physical skills in application are unparalleled, as that is what you seek. Again, I am speaking from personal experience with regards to THIS offering to you. S

I'd be very careful if I were you -- sometimes you get what you ask for. When I seek out "personal experience" from any sifu, I expect them to actually be able to perform, not talk a great game. BTW, I've been to the VTM. And I've seen Garrett. TN

Terence, Terence, Terence... This is an invitation to you. If you want to take shots at the HFY family AGAIN with insinuous comments, it only shows your opinions about yourself. Keep wandering through the night with your comments. It won't get you anywhere.

The only thing I am asking is that you accept the invitation. Are you so certain you know what you ask for? Let me put it this way...

So you've been to the VTM. You've seen Grandmaster Gee. But have you challenged the hands of the HFY teachers / instructors yet? And I mean challenge our skill. We are exactly what you look for and you will get MORE than you expect Terence. Don't believe me? Heed your own advice and try our hands for yourself. It will be a very educational experience. I know exactly what I am offering to you. We can walk the talk. "Put up or shut up." as you say.

Our doors are open to you Terence, unless you want to continue talking? I can personally show you what my family has to offer.

Peace yo,
-Savi.

TjD

03-02-2003, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Savi
Taken from 'Wing Chun Power' thread...

I'm confused about your statements Terence.

1. How is it a good teacher cannot tell you how to do something? Do you mean lack of verbal communication skills? This (verbal, face to face interaction) is what my family refers to as "Hau Chun".

2. How can they help you find it if they can't tell you in the first place? Do you mean they have to show you? That (physical experience) would be what my family calls "Sahn Sau".

3. What is a fixed curriculum? A lineage is a fixed curriculum (stated above)? I don't see what you mean. If you mean acknowledging and understanding the path which your ancestors have made for your generation is not important to understand (which you would then NOT understand the path you walk in the first place), I'd like to know why you think that is so.

4. On that note, as this ties directly to #3: What do you understand about the meaning of Saam Bai Fut (3 bows to buddha), and I don't mean its application. As I understand, one of the bows is to your heritage. Do you not think that is important? Could you help me out on this one? I think this could make for a good discussion.

Anybody else are welcome to add their thoughts!
Thanks,
-Savi.

jumping into this really late... but i think its all about the old saying:

give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day
teach him how to fish and he'll eat forever

if you are only hand fed techniques by your sifu, you'll never be able to create your own and have your wing chun grow and evolve. once you learn how to learn wing chun, you can teach yourself until the day you die - this is especially important since most sifu's i know arent immortal.

reneritchie

03-02-2003, 12:53 PM

Hi Savi,

"Changed my mind"

Certainly anyone's perogative.

"Rene, WC is everything."

That's not a very useful way for me to think about it. Everything is nothing. For me, that would make WCK useless. Like a rock being everything, or a hummingbird. WCK, IMHO, is a specific thing and while I may choose to layer other things atop it, or to project it as a metaphor beyond its essential nature, that it my choice, my projection, and not WCK.

"It is Life and Death, yin and yang. It is the art of Balance. Balance of Body, Mind, Spirit. Balance of Time, Space, Energy."

You call it that because you've been educated in that paradigm, and like any educational paradigm, it is both a help and a hinder, something that you can use to transcend ot to bind yourself. It is, however, no worse nor no better than any other paradigm. For me, WCK is WCK, it doesn't need the elaboration, the baggage.

"If your mind is chaotic when you are struggling to stay alive, are you really in Balance?"

How do you relate that question to this discussion, or are you starting a new topic?

"If not, you have a much smaller chance to stay alive! If your mind is clear, you can focus more in stressful situations. The Mind gives the Body and Spirit an opportunity to cooperate with each other. Then Balance can be restored. Then you can figure out what is the right thing to do."

Again, martial arts is a very small part of self defense. Plenty of people train for life and death with little or no knowledge of WCK.

"With regards to fighting a gun, I am not that stupid or naive Rene."

No, I'm "that stupid or naive Rene". (LOL! The power of the small as shown through the missing comma ;) )

"You were taking my words too literally."

It's okay. People seem to be projecting tons into what I'm writing. Just the nature of net discussion.

"I did not mean that WC can save you from a bullet. I was coming from the philosophical side of WC."

Is it the philosophical side of WCK or the philosophy you choose (or were taught) to see WCK through?

"Nothing can save you from a bullet, unless you do something before the gun or trigger is pulled - like running like you've never run before!"

How's your (generic) cardio? Do you have someplace safe to run to? Self defense, IMHO, is an *incredibly* serious topic, far beyond martial arts.

"The philosophy of WC helps us understand what is the correct action to take for the immediate Time and Space (the reality of the moment)."

Certainly one way to look at it.

"Does this help you understand where I am coming from?"

I have no problem understanding where you're coming from. I even like it, though for me it's just one (good) way of looking at things. Does that make sense?

"Rene, if Reality is not defined by Time, Space, and Energy... what is Reality defined by then?"

How do you choose to define it? At what scale? For what duration? Perception can also be a powerful defining element of reality, especially when we don't realize it.

"This is not packaging, and is so far off the mark it isn't funny - IF I am understanding you correctly. Can you then share with us what defines your WC style if it isn't governed by Reality (TS & E)?"

Savi, I respect your views, and what you've been taught, but it's just that. It's one approach, one way to teach something, probably better than some, maybe not as good as all. If you'd gone to a different school, you'd probably have a different set of buzz words, and they might serve you just as well. By the same token, my life and path gives me my own understanding, not just defined by WCK or by philosophical overlay. You can find me funny or amusing, and you think the approach you've been told, the package you've been given, is the only one. I doubt anything I say can or should change that, so this is one of those topics I'll wait 5 or 10 years and discuss with you again (and if how much has changed even in the last 3-5 years is any indication, it will be a very different conversation).

"WC, Painting, Piano lessons... All different creatures Rene."

We're getting ****her afield. They are or they aren't, it all depends on perspective. You can choose to see what is different or what is the same, but it's your choice.

" If I understand you thus far, you are telling me that when the time comes for you to choose life over death, a knockout over a kill, a submission move over a break, what is learned from painting and piano lessons can bring you to the proper understanding of what the proper answer should be to said scenarios?"

I don't think you really understand me thusfar. I think you have a core set of ideas that are very appealing to you, and what I'm writing doesn't jive with them, and so you're reading into them rather than reading them.

The above again is a deeply philosophical question. Is each moment connected to the rest? When life and death is on the line will it matter if you were never chosen first for softball or if you saw you're mother die or if through sudden elightenment you understand the fear and hatred of who you thought was your enemy and through that empathy, and the empathy with life that comes with it, decide you can never cause harm again, regardless of the circumstances?

Is it a simple, clear, comfortable world or do we put those delusions in place because we can't stand the alternative?

"Please tell me more, as you seem to have found another side of these artistic expressions which contain combative physical and mental elements."

Is life compartmentalized? Is the mind separate from the soul?

"My understanding of WC is that it was designed to deal with combative situations of any hand-to-hand/non projectile extreme."

WCK probably was designed to handle single or small-group non-ballistic civil combat of the kind found in 19th century Liangguang. But in the end, WCK is WCK. The rest is what you bring to it.

"Devastating your own, or your opponent's? Could you explain this please"

How would you devastate your opponent's self-realization?

Savi, let me ask you this--what is your goal in this discussion? And when you discuss, do you leave room that everything you have been taught and everything you currently believe may not be so? If not, how does that effect the first part of the question?

Savi

03-02-2003, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by reneritchie
Hi Savi, "Rene, WC is everything."

That's not a very useful way for me to think about it. Everything is nothing. For me, that would make WCK useless. Like a rock being everything, or a hummingbird. WCK, IMHO, is a specific thing and while I may choose to layer other things atop it, or to project it as a metaphor beyond its essential nature, that it my choice, my projection, and not WCK.
If everything is nothing Rene, the moment you call WC WC it is no longer WC. For the sake of communication we will call it WC, but I find no argument in your comment as everything is nothing, WC being useful is immediately useless for at that instance, the moment passed. Completely and honestly agree here, except for the self-contradiction.

"It is Life and Death, yin and yang. It is the art of Balance. Balance of Body, Mind, Spirit. Balance of Time, Space, Energy."

You call it that because you've been educated in that paradigm, and like any educational paradigm, it is both a help and a hinder, something that you can use to transcend ot to bind yourself. It is, however, no worse nor no better than any other paradigm. For me, WCK is WCK, it doesn't need the elaboration, the baggage.[/QUOTE]
I do not call it that Rene. Time, Space, and Energy are universal truths. They do exist, and are the roots/basis of understanding in my family's WC. If my paradigm is my baggage, and you state it is not needed, then the understanding suffers. You may call it luggage, that's your buzzword and reflects your mentality. I have no problem with that.

"If your mind is chaotic when you are struggling to stay alive, are you really in Balance?"

How do you relate that question to this discussion, or are you starting a new topic?[/QUOTE]
This goes into understanding your roots Rene. I understand my family's roots to be grounded in understaning universal truths such as Time, Space, and Energy and the very definition of Reality so that we may exist in that reality. Does that answer your question? What is your family roots focused around if I may politely ask? (seriously)

Again, martial arts is a very small part of self defense. Plenty of people train for life and death with little or no knowledge of WCK.[/QUOTE]
Most certainly Rene. Martial Arts contains many aspects to it from Combat, Health, and Philosophy. Why reference others though which are off the topic of WC?

"I did not mean that WC can save you from a bullet. I was coming from the philosophical side of WC."

Is it the philosophical side of WCK or the philosophy you choose (or were taught) to see WCK through?[/QUOTE]
It is a philosophy already contained within the roots of my family's WC, which are in Chan Buddhism. It is not seperate, or of any one person's idea.

How's your (generic) cardio? Do you have someplace safe to run to? Self defense, IMHO, is an *incredibly* serious topic, far beyond martial arts.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry Rene, you are mistaken. We do not have any sort of generic Cardio program. Your comments quoted directly above do not seem to be genuine or serious with regards to self-defense as the second sentence states.

"Rene, if Reality is not defined by Time, Space, and Energy... what is Reality defined by then?"

How do you choose to define it? At what scale? For what duration? Perception can also be a powerful defining element of reality, especially when we don't realize it. [/QUOTE]
I do not choose to define it in such a way Rene. As I am still in the process of actively learning and refining my kung fu, I do not give myself the luxury of creating my own definitions. I reference Reality and HFY's definition of it, which are rooted in Chan Buddhism.

"WC, Painting, Piano lessons... All different creatures Rene."

We're getting ****her afield. They are or they aren't, it all depends on perspective. You can choose to see what is different or what is the same, but it's your choice.[/QUOTE]
Avoided the question again... I'm not going to push this any further as you are not helping me understand the relationship between those and survival.

"Please tell me more, as you seem to have found another side of these artistic expressions which contain combative physical and mental elements."

Is life compartmentalized? Is the mind separate from the soul?[/QUOTE]
Another riddle to another question...

"Devastating your own, or your opponent's? Could you explain this please"

How would you devastate your opponent's self-realization?[/QUOTE]
Another question to the question...

-Savi.
read next post...

Savi

03-02-2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by reneritchie
Savi, let me ask you this--what is your goal in this discussion? And when you discuss, do you leave room that everything you have been taught and everything you currently believe may not be so? If not, how does that effect the first part of the question?
Rene,
Goal: I have chosen to create a new thread to discuss "Sifu" and "Roots" which leaves plenty of room for the role of a "Sifu", how WC is taught (which is very broad), the importance of "Roots", an opportunity for people to share their thoughts, and any other question people have that would like an answer. Fairly simple reason.

Perhaps because I enter this forum certain of the things I know might project an arrogant persona I guess. That does not mean I feel that everyone else is wrong. Every time I ask for a clarification from you, you avoid my query and give me the run around. Well, why do you post here? I most certainly appreciate your participation here, but when I ask a question of you, may I request a more simple, direct, and efficient answer instead of another riddle/question?

This is a WC thread for which I assumed WC is what we are discussing, not painting or playing the piano. You have avoided that question to every avail for which I was genuinely interested in finding out how you connect those to this topic. That's OK too though. I was talking about WC's purpose of understanding Reality, which falls under the "Roots" aspect of WC. My family's understanding of WC is that is teaches us Balance under every circumstance.

You did not answer any of my questions - which is perfectly fine. Perhaps I am coming on too strong in my approach to your questions/responses. But again you are stating the obvious: that there are many ways to learn WC; that my way is not the only way; that there may be a better way... these things are not lost on me. So I must assume I am coming on too strong. I will rethink my approach.

-Savi.

yuanfen

03-02-2003, 07:28 PM

Savi sez:This is a WC thread for which I assumed WC is what we are discussing, not painting or playing the piano.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends on what one means by wing chun...I dont see much wing chun -again unless wing chun is anything and everything-
which would make the term devoid of meaning.

There is that other forum---on southern kung fu which is general enough and yet allows different threads for clf, hung gar, southern mantis that might be interested in in the unique claims of the HFY folks.

reneritchie

03-02-2003, 08:12 PM

Savi,

Perhaps we are talking past each other. FWIW, I too feel you leave many of my questions unanswers, points unadressed, though I've grown used to that.

I didn't mean your goal with this thread. I meant deeper and more personal. Why discuss? Are you here to convert me to your way of thinking? Or are you here to consider mine? For me, it's a chance to analyze what I think, challenge my preconceptions, and evolve my understanding. If I remain the same at the end, I've failed.

"I will rethink my approach."

One thing to really consider is the difficulty the rest of us face in discussing things with VTM members. Say the wrong thing, and there's a large group of very sensitive posters ready to have at you, and the former-VTAA board somehow always close behind (http://www.vingtsun.com.hk/forum/treplies.asp?message=1980&all=True) Perhaps its not a big deal, but it can grow tiresome. I think it will take time, generosity, and real effort to establish the good faith needed for more mutually beneficial discourse.

reneritchie

03-02-2003, 08:16 PM

Joy - Many long-time sifu these days don't seem to chat much online, but leave it for their students. Do you have students online? I would assume they believe what you tell them with the same passion other students here believe their sifu. How do you handle them receiving different ideas on the internet? Do you ever worry about something they post, especially if attributed (correctly or not) to you or your system, causing problems?

yuanfen

03-02-2003, 09:14 PM

Rene- I stay on line though I often have mixed emotions about doing so. Ever so often we have a genuine comparison as to how different lines or teachers do things or a genuine newbie question
or a comparison between wing chun and other styles. Those are the precious moments that keep me me going on the list.

Several of my students have come and gone on the list. There is no party line. Not much discussion of kfo. Zero expectation of any party line- zero expectation of "taking up" for me or the way i do things. I have zero discussion with my sifu about KFO as well and he doesnt bother with lists.Most of his senior students are not on lists. None of my current ones are either..I have a few kung fu brothers on the list.
Zero private discussions about KFO. A healthy degree of individualism characterizes all. Again- no party line.

But the conversations with folks on the net- has resulted in meeting with wing chun and kung folks- person to person-
on both coasts and outside of the country as well- and I probably will drop by San francisco in April-if I solve some logistical problems. KJ, John and others are urging an informal gathering
on April 27.

desertwingchun2

03-02-2003, 10:05 PM

Rene - This is difinetly worth talking about.

One thing to really consider is the difficulty the rest of us face in discussing things with VTM members. Say the wrong thing, and there's a large group of very sensitive posters ready to have at you ...

First I have to ask is - who is "the rest of us"? If you are refering to every member of KFO who is not affiliated with the VTM, that is way too broad of a statement and simply not true. People on this forum who ask honest questions are given honest answers.

The problem I see is when the answers are given there is a small group ready to immediately initiate insults and challenges. Terence's comments on this thread are a prime example. There are others who are more subtle. But none the less detract from the discussion.

IMO the "empty tea cup" discussions were definetly a step in the right direction. Hopefully, they will be visited again soon.

-David

canglong

03-02-2003, 10:49 PM

Good question David, Yeah Rene who is "the rest of us"? You sound a little paranoid there Rene, refering to the link you posted earlier http://www.vingtsun.com.hk/forum/treplies.asp?message=1980&all=True I wonder how posting a link to another forum that refers to you as the No. 1 internet punk helps your cause or do you just enjoy the free advertisement that much?

as for the "rest of us" why is it that when I see people from other countries post messages opposing your views or friends of yours I can see kung fu brothers yet you see every single person that post opposing view points as either an enemy or a VTM card carring member or a troll and refer to them as such even when you know this isn't the case. Troll shouldn't even be in your vocabulary should it?

"4) Value those who disagree with you more than those who agree. As any writer should know, only the harshest criticism has value. The mutual admiration societies and philosophical rationalizers will hone your ego, not your craft."

t_niehoff

03-03-2003, 08:00 AM

desertwingchun2 writes:

The problem I see is when the answers are given there is a small group ready to immediately initiate insults and challenges. Terence's comments on this thread are a prime example. There are others who are more subtle. But none the less detract from the discussion. DW2

Yes, but let's look at the "given answers." I was not trying to single out anyone or any group in particular -- I was merely saying that *anyone* that holds themself out as an expert in a fighting method should, at the very least, be able to truly demonstrate their skills (I said the exact same thing to Marty in another thread about his WCK tumbling and knife defense seminar, and Marty is part of my family). But when someone like Savi writes (in his "given answer"), "Aside from their qualifications and certifications which are far from self-appointed, their depth of knowledge and physical skills in application are unparalleled . . ." **he singles himself and his group out by their claims**. Savi is making the claim of his teachers' "unparalled physical skills" with absolutely no proof. Who has Garrett fought? Or Benny (are we just supposed to accept the claims he makes on his website)? Am I a cad to ask **when folks make these claims**? Are these "insults and challenges"? If people want to make these sorts of claims -- including having a superior system of combat -- that's their perogative; just as it is mine to ask for them to provide proof (hyperbole is not proof in my book). TN

Now consider this -- Savi writes:

So you've been to the VTM. You've seen Grandmaster Gee. But have you challenged the hands of the HFY teachers / instructors yet? And I mean challenge our skill. We are exactly what you look for and you will get MORE than you expect Terence. Don't believe me? Heed your own advice and try our hands for yourself. It will be a very educational experience. I know exactly what I am offering to you. We can walk the talk. "Put up or shut up." as you say. Our doors are open to you Terence, unless you want to continue talking? I can personally show you what my family has to offer. S

Savi, I don't go around challenging folks to fights regardless of their claims -- I'm not the WCK police. I am saying instead that I expect someone that teaches a fighting method to be able to actually make what they teach work against real resistance; anyone, and lots of folks do, can make claim of "unparalled physical skills." We've all heard this nonsense before. Instead of making all these claims about how good you folks are in HFY, why don't you prove it? Go fight in a NHB. Show us all how good your stuff really is. Let's face it, if a HFY practitioner or "master" could whip on Rickson or even some lower-level NHB competitor, they'd be doing it, making a reputation, and reaping in tons of $ for their efforts. So your claims of "unparalled physical skills" 'just makes me laugh. TN

I'm St. Louis, Missouri, you and anyone in HFY is always welcome to pay me a visit and "personally show me what your family has to offer." But, I'm not iinterested in demonstrations with cooperative stuntmen of what you say you can do against real resistance -- I expect someone who *teaches* to be able to actually do it against real resistance. I'll also attend the next Friendship Seminar in Chicago (if they hold it). My only requirement is that we film any "demonstration" so that I can share it on the 'net with others. I've got nothing to lose -- I make no claims of "unparalled physical skills." TN

Terence

yuanfen

03-03-2003, 08:51 AM

"Unparalleled physical skills"?

Pretty sloppy use of language!!

canglong

03-03-2003, 09:09 AM

"I was merely saying that *anyone* that holds themself out as an expert in a fighting method should, at the very least, be able to truly demonstrate their skills " --TN

Terence, I would think that with 18 plus years involvement in the wing chun community as you say, you would over time gain some knowledge about more than just a few lineages professing to practice wing chun. You shouldn't still be running around wondering who does and does not have the right stuff. Not many would disagree with your point Terence it just seems that some of us believe you seem to want talent demonstrated to you for you own approval. I don't believe anyone owes you a thing credible masters show their students daily they have the right stuff and they neither require or desire your approval to continue to teach.

You should be mostly concerned with your own wing chun identity to build up a large core of credible practitioners says alot more about a person than their ability to bad mouth a few practitioners they might not consider their equal. If you find those you feel superior to try to help them you can do no more, if they except your help give it to them if they don't the fault will lie on them. Belittle them and not offer any help then I would say you were wrong. This way we may all be better off as I think you are trying to point out. I believe this is what my family does very well.

As for my own family and their skill follow the link ...

http://www.vingtsun.com.hk/forum/tr...e=1980&all=True

"how about robert chus skill?
many years ago, robert chu had all his students (about 10 of them) chi-saoed with benny meng, meng had defected them all easily. how did robert chu deal with this? he was there, but he couldnt do anything with someone like benny meng. meng is a true wing chun master and has had a very extensive martial arts training under many wingchun masters. meng is a real deal, but robert chu & his own students only could badmouth about meng from behind. " --- bob

Savi

03-03-2003, 09:31 AM

Rene,
More often than not, the points that I do not address I usually do not have any disagreements with. I see that as a good thing Rene. No point in debating something I agree with. That's why I don't address them. BUT sometimes I might overlook something you would see as relevant, but that's my fault then. I admit that. Or something you bring up whom I do not have any knowledge of, I cannot challenge.

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

Sifu Chaudhuri,
In an earlier post you have stated that other forums might be interested in our "unique claims." What claims are you addressing here? And certainly your opinion about HFY not being WC is clearly obvious with your reccomendation. Is Sifu Chaudhuri the overriding factor in saying who is and isn't Wing Chun. However, our family kung fu is named Hung Fa Yi WING CHUN Kuen. It is recognized by the Chinese Governement as one of the original children of the Shaolin Temple's Hung Fa Ting as Wing Chun. An article (The proof that Terence will have to wait on before he can challenge this "claim") will be forthcoming to the public about this statement.

Although you have admitted to having very limited exposure to first hand experience with the HFY family, I can accept your opinions about us at face value considering your limited experience in HFY. Hopefully one day Sifu Chaudhuri and I can have a cup of tea.

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

Terence,
In another thread about the Battle of Columbus, I made available to you a link providing the results of the 2001 and 2002 competition. Both Mike Matthews (2001) and Jeremy Roadruck (2002) came out as grand champion. Both are my Sisuk and both are disciples of Sigung Meng. Would you like to know what they used in the competition? Hung Fa Yi. There is your proof provided in another thread you seem to have overlooked.

You seem to know exactly what the HFY family is all about, don't you? You have the preconception that we are about making money, and the fact that we are not out making the headlines and racking in the trophies in the tournament circuit shows our lack of competence, right? You would like proof that we can walk the talk? And you expect us to prove it over the internet? Wait, let me show you how effective my "Cyber-Tan-Sau" is... You can be quite humorous Terence. It is not often someone can make me smile, chuckle, and shake my head simultaneously.

You are asking for proof...again...(sigh, back to this...) about the competence of the HFY family. Well, if you are looking for trophies go to the VTM and you will see the medals awarded to my Sisuks. You will see the photos just shy of the office by the entrance to the Museum part of the facility. Heck, you can ask my Sisuks face to face about the tournament! Go right to the source. And again, you can see the results at www.vtmuseum.org It is available to you. I will not go into another volley with you about proving something like physical skills over the internet. Competition results will not convince you, you need the physical experience to be convinced, and not from a novice.

Your "Put up or Shut up" campaign is quite pointless over the internet and only holds validity face to face. Not over the internet. Take your own advice Terence. If you feel the masters of the HFY family are all talk and no walk, and you HAVEN'T tried our hands to make such a claim... who is really doing all the talking?

Their todai experience it everytime they go to class. That is all a master really takes joy in, when both Sifu and todai both understand each other with a simple smile. Not making a name for themselves Terence. That does however seem to be what your objective is here on this forum. Would you like to talk about curriculums instead?

If you perceive my invitation to you as a challenge, that's your tea cup buddy! I have no intention to be aggressive towards you. As I said in an earlier post, your visit would be an "education experience." That's it. I reiterate Terence, It is an INVITATION. Perhaps that means something else in your vocabulary?

Think it over yo.
-Savi.

Savi

03-03-2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by yuanfen
"Unparalleled physical skills"?

Pretty sloppy use of language!!
Sifu Chaudhuri, are you really trying to find something (digging, in other words) to contribute here?

Regards,
-Savi.

t_niehoff

03-03-2003, 09:52 AM

canglong writes:

Terence, I would think that with 18 plus years involvement in the wing chun community as you say, you would over time gain some knowledge about more than just a few lineages professing to practice wing chun. You shouldn't still be running around wondering who does and does not have the right stuff. TJ

I do have a pretty good idea. ;) TN

Not many would disagree with your point Terence it just seems that some of us believe you seem to want talent demonstrated to you for you own approval. I don't believe anyone owes you a thing credible masters show their students daily they have the right stuff and they neither require or desire your approval to continue to teach. TJ

You use the term "credible masters" -- and my point is what makes them "credible masters"? Your say so? Their say so? Their students say so? I've seen "grandmasters" that couldn't deal with a good stiff jab. Others rolling on the floor. Others that I could push around in chi sao. These guys are going to teach us how to use WCK? LOL! Instead of assuming people have skills, all I'm asking for is to see their skills -- and skill means being able to use it against resistance. No BJJ instructor seems to have problems with that (and, btw, they tend to avoid using phrases like "unparalled physical skills" and "credible masters" without being able to point to when those things were demonstrated). TN

You should be mostly concerned with your own wing chun identity to build up a large core of credible practitioners says alot more about a person than their ability to bad mouth a few practitioners they might not consider their equal. If you find those you feel superior to try to help them you can do no more, if they except your help give it to them if they don't the fault will lie on them. Belittle them and not offer any help then I would say you were wrong. This way we may all be better off as I think you are trying to point out. I believe this is what my family does very well. TJ

I care about WCK because I am a serious WCK practitioner. I'm not interested in "buiding up a large core of practitioners" -- the grandmasters I referred to above have large number of students/grandstudents/etc. This is not a popularity contest. Nor does having a lot of students mean you are any good. WCK is a fighting method; it is a skill. That is what we should be concerned with -- developing skill, not collecting students. I am, btw, offering help. The way to improve the level of all WCK practitioners is by being concerned first and foremost with performance (i.e., skill) and not all the other stuff that is the apparent focus today. TN

Then you go on to put up this nonsense from the VTAA board:

"how about robert chus skill?
many years ago, robert chu had all his students (about 10 of them) chi-saoed with benny meng, meng had defected them all easily. how did robert chu deal with this? he was there, but he couldnt do anything with someone like benny meng. meng is a true wing chun master and has had a very extensive martial arts training under many wingchun masters. meng is a real deal, but robert chu & his own students only could badmouth about meng from behind. " --- bob

When did this happen? Never. Benny videotaped of his sessions with Robert Chu, including doing chi sao with Robert. Ask Benny to see it sometime. But for the record, Benny's never done chi sao with any of Robert's senior US students like Dimitri, Dzu, Dave McKinnon -- or even a chump like me. And in fact, one of the things that I found most interesting was how at the Ohio Friendship Seminar none of the "sifus" including Benny (although Rene and I did do chi sao a bit) bothered to get out and touch hands with we lesser folk -- even while Dzu, Dave, and myself were going at it until 2am. TN

Terence

t_niehoff

03-03-2003, 09:56 AM

Savi writes:

You are asking for proof...again...(sigh, back to this...) about the competence of the HFY family. Well, if you are looking for trophies go to the VTM and you will see the medals awarded to my Sisuks. You will see the photos just shy of the office by the entrance to the Museum part of the facility. Heck, you can ask my Sisuks face to face about the tournament! S

ROFLOL! TN

Terence

Geezer

03-03-2003, 10:06 AM

Savi Wrote>

In another thread about the Battle of Columbus, I made available to you a link providing the results of the 2001 and 2002 competition. Both Mike Matthews (2001) and Jeremy Roadruck (2002) came out as grand champion. Both are my Sisuk and both are disciples of Sigung Meng. Would you like to know what they used in the competition? Hung Fa Yi. There is your proof provided in another thread you seem to have overlooked.

Savi, t_niehoffs not interested in that information, I seem to remember him finding competitions amusing on another thread.

t_niehoff wrote>

And in fact, one of the things that I found most interesting was how at the Ohio Friendship Seminar none of the "sifus" including Benny (although Rene and I did do chi sao a bit) bothered to get out and touch hands with we lesser folk

Just in case you haven't seen this;),

http://home.vtmuseum.org/timeline/1999/may21-23_1999_b.php

http://home.vtmuseum.org/timeline/1999/may21-23_1999_a.php

Sheldon

t_niehoff

03-03-2003, 10:10 AM

Sheldon,

Your links didn't work (for me). FWIW, I don't recall you being at the FS (I was). Benny did teach a seminar on the YM chi sao "progression" -- is this what you are trying to show? He did not get "out on the floor" during open chi sao sessions and mix (and neither did the other "sifu" in case you think I'm only chastizing him). TN

Terence

Savi

03-03-2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Sheldon,

Your links didn't work (for me).... He did not get "out on the floor" during open chi sao sessions and mix (and neither did the other "sifu" in case you think I'm only chastizing him). TN

Terence
Funny terence, It worked (for me)...

Step by Step process...
1) Go to the VTM website
2) go to Galleries
3) go to Illustrated Timeline
4) go to 1999
5) go to May 21-23

You will find 3 pages of pictures with the Sifu(s) touching hands of several participants. Grandmaster Gee and Master Meng never touch hands with people? How many HFY seminars have you gone to??? I have been to at least 5 of them, and every one that I have gone to, they quite frequently used participants for demonstrations and tests and so forth...

Thanks Geezer,
-Savi.

Geezer

03-03-2003, 10:32 AM

t_niehoff Wrote>

I don't recall you being at the FS (I was)

And your point is......????

t_niehoff Wrote>

Your links didn't work (for me).

Try this?????

http://vtmuseum.org/images/photos/1999/99_5_21-23_8.jpg

and this

http://vtmuseum.org/images/photos/1999/99_5_21-23_7.jpg

That work for you????

Sheldon

Geezer

03-03-2003, 10:36 AM

Savi Wrote>

Thanks Geezer,
-Savi.

No worries......wait for it......any second now I'm going to be called a Troll;)

Sheldon

canglong

03-03-2003, 10:38 AM

Terence me thinks thou doth protest too much...

Geezer, if this is the tenth frame you have another ball coming.... the pins are saying OUCH. let the church say amen :D

Geezer

03-03-2003, 10:57 AM

t_niehoff Wrote>

If you want to measure your performance in WCK then do it -- fight (apply your WCK against persons offering you real resistance).

OK, like a challange match?????

t_niehoff Wrote>

Instead of making all these claims about how good you folks are in HFY, why don't you prove it? Go fight in a NHB. Show us all how good your stuff really is. Let's face it, if a HFY practitioner or "master" could whip on Rickson or even some lower-level NHB competitor

Hmmmmm......."competitor", so it's a competition right, NHB but it's still a competition??????

t_niehoff Wrote>

making a reputation, and reaping in tons of $ for their efforts.

That's because it's a competition, fighting someone that offers real resistance would not happen in a "competition"?????

t_niehoff Wrote>

I'm St. Louis, Missouri, you and anyone in HFY is always welcome to pay me a visit and "personally show me what your family has to offer."

Is this like the selective invite you had last year????

Sheldon:D

yuanfen

03-03-2003, 12:14 PM

Savi sez-And certainly your opinion about HFY not being WC is clearly obvious with your reccomendation.

((Clear enough))

Is Sifu Chaudhuri the overriding factor in saying who is and isn't Wing Chun.

((No. Its an informed opinion. Operationalization of core wing chun concepts are fairly recognizable to me. To date whats been posted by HFY and non HFY folks and other sources of info. directed my attention and interest away from HFY. Does not mean that I wish any ill for HFY folks. With claims of direct links to
shaolin, chan etc- I thought that the southern forum and shaolin forums may produce a more fruitful interaction than is the case here. That is just a list reader's judgement. ))

However, our family kung fu is named Hung Fa Yi WING CHUN Kuen.
((A name is a name))

It is recognized by the Chinese Governement as one of the original children of the Shaolin Temple's Hung Fa Ting as Wing Chun.

(Name recognition? Circular logic.Does not mean much to me. I am not unacquainted with the Chinese political system. One can buy and place a stone marker near the original shaolin temple.
I have met the relevant "minister" for wushu of the PRC back in the 80s. Wasa political hack- didnt know much about kung fu.Tourism and money are important values in PRC relationships to MA. They have destroyed a lot of TCMA and boiled out the martail content of lots of arts))

Although you have admitted to having very limited exposure to first hand experience with the HFY family,

((Admission? What does that mean. A statement of fact about what i think perhaps. I am not intrigued by the HFY family- nothing contrived- an honest opinion. At first I listened- then the same old same old list clutter ended my interest))

I can accept your opinions about us at face value considering your limited experience in HFY.
(i see no problem in your having opinions about my opinions))

((If as TN states...Benny has a tape of him and Chu doing chi sao- that may interest folks who read the post on "unparalleled skills". I am not sure that you are aware of the cumulative negative effect on many experienced folks of
claims of HFT's superiority over wc as an art, the presence of unparralleed skills among practitioners, its unbroken historical lineage, its "science", its link with Chan among other claims. It makes sense asa "sell"- but more perhaps to newbies. ))

((Frankly to let you know in part from where I am coming from...
I am very much interested in understanding TCMA not just wing chun. Irresoective of styles traditional kung fu skills take time to develop with careful and sustained instruction, correction and practice. I see gaps and intervals in the transmission of HFY. Writing up
a curriculum does not solve that problem. I do not doubt that
there are HFY folks who can take care of themselves. There are folks without any martial training who can do that- with skill BTW.)) Sorry for my keyboarding lack of skills.

Geezer

03-03-2003, 12:39 PM

Now correct me if I'm wrong;),

t_niehoff Posted>

Then you go on to put up this nonsense from the VTAA board:

"how about robert chus skill?
many years ago, robert chu had all his students (about 10 of them) chi-saoed with benny meng, meng had defected them all easily. how did robert chu deal with this? he was there, but he couldnt do anything with someone like benny meng. meng is a true wing chun master and has had a very extensive martial arts training under many wingchun masters. meng is a real deal, but robert chu & his own students only could badmouth about meng from behind. " --- bob

t_niehoff Wrote>

When did this happen? Never. Benny videotaped of his sessions with Robert Chu, including doing chi sao with Robert. Ask Benny to see it sometime. But for the record, Benny's never done chi sao with any of Robert's senior US students like Dimitri, Dzu, Dave McKinnon -- or even a chump like me. And in fact, one of the things that I found most interesting was how at the Ohio Friendship Seminar none of the "sifus" including Benny (although Rene and I did do chi sao a bit) bothered to get out and touch hands with we lesser folk -- even while Dzu, Dave, and myself were going at it until 2am. TN

Now I'm only going by the VTMs website, the is Sifu Mengs first visit to Sifu Chus,

http://home.vtmuseum.org/timeline/1998/march04-08_1998.php

and then this came about,

http://home.vtmuseum.org/timeline/1998/dec06-10_1998.php

So Bob is saying this happened in March and Sifu Meng had his first official visit to see HFY in December, so what Bob is saying was all done using Yip Man WCK;)

Sheldon

P.S. Just in case you want to see the whole timeline,

http://home.vtmuseum.org/timeline/1998.php

t_niehoff

03-03-2003, 01:16 PM

Sheldon,

Who is this "Bob" and how does this "Bob" know anything of what happened when Benny visited Robert Chu? And why do you believe some anonymous "Bob" when you have no information that indicates he is reliable? Provide the names of these students that Benny tossed around. I can check very easily. I've already told you that Dzu, Dave, Dimitri, etc. -- Robert's long-time students -- never did chi sao with Benny nor does anyone remember Benny dealing with any of Robert's students. And I told you that Benny has a tape of his chi sao with Robert. Of course you'll believe anonymous trolls that suit your agenda . . . . TN

And fwiw, form competitions, chi sao competitions, point fighting competitions, have absolutely nothing IMHO to do with skill in WCK (fighting). If someone wants to earn trophies and plaques and ribbons in competition, I think that's great -- then do it in something that accurately reflects fighting skill (where one actually fights against trained fighters), not by partaking in "my pretend fighting is better than your pretend fighting" events. I think it very revealing when folks who clearly want to compete (as they are actually seeking competitions) eschew "fighting events" in favor of "pretend fighting events". TN

Terence

Geezer

03-03-2003, 01:27 PM

t_niehoff Wrote>

Who is this "Bob" and how does this "Bob" know anything of what happened when Benny visited Robert Chu?

I don't know???? you're the one that posted the quote:confused:

t_niehoff Wrote>

And why do you believe some anonymous "Bob" when you have no information that indicates he is reliable?

I'm sorry...... so you're a reliable source :D

t_niehoff Wrote>

Of course you'll believe anonymous trolls that suit your agenda . . . .

Hey....you're the one that posted the quote????

t_niehoff Wrote>

And fwiw, form competitions, chi sao competitions, point fighting competitions, have absolutely nothing IMHO to do with skill in WCK (fighting). If someone wants to earn trophies and plaques and ribbons in competition, I think that's great -- then do it in something that accurately reflects fighting skill (where one actually fights against trained fighters), not by partaking in "my pretend fighting is better than your pretend fighting" events. I think it very revealing when folks who clearly want to compete (as they are actually seeking competitions) eschew "fighting events" in favor of "pretend fighting events".

Now, using you're words have a ganders at this,

t_niehoff Wrote>

Instead of making all these claims about how good you folks are in HFY, why don't you prove it? Go fight in a NHB. Show us all how good your stuff really is. Let's face it, if a HFY practitioner or "master" could whip on Rickson or even some lower-level NHB competitor

This does not equal this???,

t_niehoff Wrote>

If you want to measure your performance in WCK then do it -- fight (apply your WCK against persons offering you real resistance).

The key word being "COMPETITOR", now if you would be testing your skills then that would not be a competition because there's no title to be gained;) hence,

t_niehoff Wrote>

I'm St. Louis, Missouri, you and anyone in HFY is always welcome to pay me a visit and "personally show me what your family has to offer."

Sheldon

P.S.Will that be Yip Man or HFY you would like to order tonight????;)

Savi

03-03-2003, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by yuanfen
Is Sifu Chaudhuri the overriding factor in saying who is and isn't Wing Chun.

((No. Its an informed opinion. Operationalization of core wing chun concepts are fairly recognizable to me. To date whats been posted by HFY and non HFY folks and other sources of info. directed my attention and interest away from HFY. Does not mean that I wish any ill for HFY folks. With claims of direct links to
shaolin, chan etc- I thought that the southern forum and shaolin forums may produce a more fruitful interaction than is the case here. That is just a list reader's judgement. ))
Sifu Chaudhuri,
Unfortunately I was not a participant here before your interest in HFY degraded. I signed up here when you were already dispatching your less then humble remarks about the HFY family, so my impression of you was not in a good light. However I did eventually find out you were a WC Sifu and a professor to one of my friends in college - That helped me realize you were not just another shmoe on the internet spreading lies about my family. I am not here to win over your interest about this branch of WC, but my respect for you (being you are a WC sifu) holds more value to me than some of your comments.

WRT an informed opinion, how can you make a judgement that HFY is not WC if your understanding of it comes from an internet forum and a couple pictures and absolutely no prior training/lessons in the HFY? I am sorry Sifu Chaudhuri, but the fact that HFY has similar things to today's WC such as:

C/L theory, 2 line Jong Sau, Yi Ji Kim Yeung Mah, Loy Lau Hoy Sung, Dan Chi Sau, Cross-hand Dan Chi Sau, Two-Hand Chi Sau, Muk Yan Jong, Luk Dim Buhn Gwan, Baat Jahm Do, Siu Nim Tau, Siu Lim Tau, Chum Kiu, Biu Ji, Pak Sau, Tan Sau, Bong Sau, Fuk Sau, Laap Sau to name a few...

all listed here are still supporting and being supported by the overriding philosophy of saving Time, Space, and Energy to accomplish what is most efficient. Recognize any core concepts here belonging to Wing Chun?

...and a whole bunch more things that today's WC does not have such as:

Side Neutral Stance, Triangular theory, Ng Sin Jong Sau, Fau Kiu Kiu Sau, Deui Yeng Kiu Sau, Hei Gung, Jahm Jong, Time and Space Concept (big one here), Five Battle Array, Chin Guhm Sau, Saat Geng Sau, Half Arch Stance, Saam Mo Kiu just to name a few (and these mentioned here have been mentioned in previous threads as well)...

but also share parallels to some of the other styles out there like the ones who also lay claim to the Hung Fa Ting than say any of today's WC, but also includes some of today's WC history and whole lot more pre-Red Boat era, tells us otherwise that Hung Fa Yi is definitely Wing Chun - aside from my upbringing in the Yip Man/Moy Yat branch of Wing Chun which I am still learning and training today with the same vigor and passion.

All just a bunch of names or labels tied together from today's WC for a marketing agenda to take on the world? Really, how informed is Sifu Chaudhuri on Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun to not call it Wing Chun? Sifu Chaudhuri may be well versed in today's well known Wing Chun, but his opinion is not well informed on Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun, in my opinion.

Would Sifu Chaudhuri like to know more about HFYWCK even though this thread is not only about HFY? Feel free to start a new thread.

Regards,
-Savi.

t_niehoff

03-03-2003, 01:51 PM

Sheldon,

I don't want to play silly games with you. My point is that most VTAA postings, including this one by "bob" that you raised, is entirely fictitious. The VTAA is nothing more than a sounding board for anonymous trolls with agendas. Quoting a post there as "proof" of anything is rediculous. TN

Form competition, chi sao competition, and point-"fighting" competition -- none of which is fighting -- cannot in any way measure our ability to perform in actual fighting (applying WCK). The good karate people recognized that long ago (funny, wasn't that even Bruce Lee's point in the 60's -- 40 years ago?), and NHBs have demonstrated that once again rather bluntly. TN

Terence

Savi

03-03-2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by yuanfen
Savi sez-
Good use of the engrish ranguage.

I am not sure that you are aware of the cumulative negative effect on many experienced folks of claims of HFT's superiority over wc as an art, the presence of unparralleed skills among practitioners, its unbroken historical lineage, its "science", its link with Chan among other claims. It makes sense asa "sell"- but more perhaps to newbies. )) [/QUOTE]
Aside from your typos, please forgive me if you take offense to what is written by the HFY family as a smack in the face. It is not meant to be as such, nor is it our job to clean your cup before you read the articles.

The HFY family makes no comparisons of superiority to today's WC styles. My opinions, such as "unparalleled in physical WC skill" is my own opinion, and may not hold true for the HFY family as a whole. If people feel the need to compare themselves to the HFY family, that's their perrogative. Because we may share with the public things unique to the HFY system which are not a part of today's WC, *does not* mean that we think we are better or superior than others.

Perhaps in your dictionary informing or sharing is equivalent to selling I guess...

-Savi.

Geezer

03-03-2003, 02:19 PM

t_niehoff Wrote>

I don't want to play silly games with you. My point is that most VTAA postings, including this one by "bob" that you raised,

t_niehoff, I'm not playing games I'm just quoting things that "YOU" brought to everyones attention here, how is that something that I raised?????

t_niehoff Wrote>

Quoting a post there as "proof" of anything is rediculous.

Like I said "YOU" posted it here and then made comments against it, if you're so sure it wasn't true why did "YOU" post it here and why did "YOU" first put comments against it:confused:

t_niehoff Wrote>

Form competition, chi sao competition, and point-"fighting" competition -- none of which is fighting -- cannot in any way measure our ability to perform in actual fighting (applying WCK). The good karate people recognized that long ago (funny, wasn't that even Bruce Lee's point in the 60's -- 40 years ago?), and NHBs have demonstrated that once again rather bluntly.

OK, but "YOU" keep on bringing up NHBs as being the only credible way to prove it works and then "YOU" mentioned that the people involved were "COMPETITORS".:confused:
The only true way to test their skill to "YOU"(using "YOUR" words) is for them(whom ever it may be) to turn up on "YOUR" doorstep, challange and fight "YOU".
That would........in my book be a fight against someone that's "RESISTING"

Sheldon:D

tparkerkfo

03-03-2003, 02:40 PM

Hi Geezer and Terence,

Not to pick sides, I have had issues with both of you guys in the past. LOL. Not that I hold anything personal. LOL. The Chu family has issues with my lineage and the HFY people have issues with my questioning dispite the fact I stick up for them when it is called for.

But from my perspective, I saw Roberts students and Bennys together about 2 or 3 years ago. Heck, even Robert and Benny were there. Robert gave a small class, and Benny sat in. They talked privately afterwards about private matters, but they never touched hands. The night before we all had dinner togehter and Benny and his wife brought some photos.

In anycase, my point here was the students. The HFY students rolled and worked out with various people. I touched hands a little with a few of them. They did not dominate any one to the best of my recollection. There skills were not bad, but equal with many people at the seminar. If I remember correctly, the DID work out a little with some of Roberts students and they WERE impressed with some of the punching drills. But make no mistake, there was no dominating by either side from what I saw.

Take it for what it is worth.

Tom

tparkerkfo

03-03-2003, 02:45 PM

Hi Joy,

Earlier you suggested that perhaps the shaolin people would be better recpetive of HFY. Although that is a rather harsh statement, it kind of makes sense. The wing chun we all speak of is distilled though the red boats by people like Wong Wah Bo, Dai Fa Min Kam, Leung Yi Tai, Yik Kam, and others. HFY seems to skirt this a little and seems pre-redboat. Gee sifu told me that not all the stuff was transmitted to the red boat people, but was held with Tan Sao Ng, who most of our wing chun do not cite as having any significance.

So perhaps we are talking two distinct styles that don't really belong together. I mean HFY connection to Wing Chun may be as much as it is to Hung Gar, and hung gar is not on the wing chun list.

Tom

yuanfen

03-03-2003, 04:13 PM

Yes Tom. Southern systems have lots of things in common- without it all being wing chun.

yuanfen

03-03-2003, 06:29 PM

Savi- please see comments in brackets after your relevant text------------------------------------------------------

Sifu Chaudhuri,
Unfortunately I was not a participant here before your interest in HFY degraded. I signed up here when you were already dispatching your less then humble remarks about the HFY family, so my impression of you was not in a good light.
((I am by nature and long habit and cultivation given to discussing things and expect propositions to hold up or fall on their own merit. Humility is in the eye of the beholder. I am not Charles ****ens' Uriah Heep.I am humble to persons when appropriate- but ideas must have their own merit. Let's not dwell on me .))

However I did eventually find out you were a WC Sifu and a professor to one of my friends in college -

(( I hope that he/she survived my apparent lack of humility.
I hope that he/she learned something about independent but disciplined thinking and doing. I have been teaching wing chun for a long time and my students teach me something new -often.
I have been doing wing chun since 1976 and have been interested in different martial arts all my life- and my involvements have not just been academic- in the worst sense of that term. And I do visit with other wing chun lineages. My judgement calls are not ina vaccum))

That helped me realize you were not just another shmoe on the internet spreading lies about my family.

((Shmoe?In martial arts I dont wear my other hats.I am part of no comspiracy aginst HFY. There definitely appears to be some characteristic group behavior on the part of the VTM folks- I have never met Rene, Terence , Robert, Dave etc. My posts are independent posts. BTW- I have differed with others on many things so my focus has an independence of its own))

I am not here to win over your interest about this branch of WC, but my respect for you (being you are a WC sifu) holds more value to me than some of your comments.

((Thanks. Appreciate the former, understand the latter.I really dont compulsively seek agreements. One of my closest friends has opinions far removed from mine. If we met in some serious line of duty- he would probably have had me shot.
But that's another story.
Incidentally, your sifu challenged me in several posts- your place or mine etc....strange mo duk or Chan.
But barring some compulsory obligation -my colleague-friend-- we chat and disagree. He jas been an ambassador to two different countries. And neither one of us are unaquainted with the "real world".
One of the great failures of internet lists is the breaking down of serious conversations and ending up fast with ad hominem- name calling))

WRT an informed opinion, how can you make a judgement that HFY is not WC if your understanding of it comes from an internet forum and a couple pictures and absolutely no prior training/lessons in the HFY?

((Training sessions, lessons? i dont follow. One can make serious judgements on many things without lessons. One can tell the difference between the guitar and the sitar without playing either. One can fairly well conceptualize about the dark side of the moon without going there based on other evidence....invoving indirect confirmation))

I am sorry Sifu Chaudhuri, but the fact that HFY has similar things to today's WC such as:

(Similar and the same are or can be two different things))

C/L theory, 2 line Jong Sau, Yi Ji Kim Yeung Mah, Loy Lau Hoy Sung, Dan Chi Sau, Cross-hand Dan Chi Sau, Two-Hand Chi Sau, Muk Yan Jong, Luk Dim Buhn Gwan, Baat Jahm Do, Siu Nim Tau, Siu Lim Tau, Chum Kiu, Biu Ji, Pak Sau, Tan Sau, Bong Sau, Fuk Sau, Laap Sau to name a few...

((The center line theory that the HFT folks once articulated on the list was quite different from wing chun.. and the explanations
lacked economy and elegance the test of Occam's razor. Listing words is not enough. One can make mixes of wing chun and other things and lose the core. There are hybrids like wing chun do, jeet kune do that also lays claim to some of those concepts.
Hung Gar sometimes uses the ygkym.
By the way... since HFY claims a different line--- bat jam do is a distinctly Ip man term though double knives exist in much CMA.
A suggestion-
- why not comparatively in detail point out the similarities and differences between general WC and HFY differences in specific motions in everyday language. I have asked that before and I got in response that we dont have a common language in order to understand HFY terms))

all listed here are still supporting and being supported by the overriding philosophy of saving Time, Space, and Energy to accomplish what is most efficient. Recognize any core concepts here belonging to Wing Chun?

((Time. energy, space are frightfully complex concepts- using them as buzz words is not persuasive.))

...and a whole bunch more things that today's WC does not have such as:

Side Neutral Stance, Triangular theory, Ng Sin Jong Sau, Fau Kiu Kiu Sau, Deui Yeng Kiu Sau, Hei Gung, Jahm Jong, Time and Space Concept (big one here), Five Battle Array, Chin Guhm Sau, Saat Geng Sau, Half Arch Stance, Saam Mo Kiu just to name a few (and these mentioned here have been mentioned in previous threads as well)...

((There we go again- the deficiencies of regular wing chun! Buzz words again. One can manufacture many buzz words))

but also share parallels to some of the other styles out there like the ones who also lay claim to the Hung Fa Ting than say any of today's WC, but also includes some of today's WC history and whole lot more pre-Red Boat era, tells us otherwise that Hung Fa Yi is definitely Wing Chun - aside from my upbringing in the Yip Man/Moy Yat branch of Wing Chun which I am still learning and training today with the same vigor and passion.

((Fairly consistently and over time- I have been skeptical of much martial history. Even taichi which has one of the better literatures
has a tough time unravelling many historical claims and agendas.Less so recently.Most good martial artists were not and still are not scholars.

BTW I have read evry HFY exposition on this list thus far, I have
read the articles in the popular mags, I have seen some pictures
where a trained eye can judge things, and I have carefully talked to people who have seen HFY. An example of the latter- there were people other than Terence and Rene who were at Garret Gee's first open seminar. This is not a brief aagainst HFY. I can understand your loyalties and I have no problem with folks studying HFY.

All just a bunch of names or labels tied together from today's WC for a marketing agenda to take on the world? Really, how informed is Sifu Chaudhuri on Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun to not call it Wing Chun? Sifu Chaudhuri may be well versed in today's well known Wing Chun, but his opinion is not well informed on Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun, in my opinion.

Would Sifu Chaudhuri like to know more about HFYWCK even though this thread is not only about HFY? Feel free to start a new thread.

((No thanks Savi. Long post- no time to proofread for keyboard errors ))

desertwingchun2

03-04-2003, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
desertwingchun2 writes:

The problem I see is when the answers are given there is a small group ready to immediately initiate insults and challenges. Terence's comments on this thread are a prime example. There are others who are more subtle. But none the less detract from the discussion. DW2

Yes, but let's look at the "given answers...."

Terence

Terence, when answering in the affirmative what part of my post were you agreeing with? I'm inspired by your honesty. ;)

I was not trying to single out anyone or any group in particular

I was refering to the post where you challenged Savi's post line for line. How did you do that without trying?:confused:

You do have the perogitive to ask anything you like. (Thats the beauty of the Constitution) But you do not have the perogitive to receive an answer.

-David

Savi

03-04-2003, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by yuanfen
((I am part of no comspiracy aginst HFY. There definitely appears to be some characteristic group behavior on the part of the VTM folks- I have never met Rene, Terence , Robert, Dave etc. My posts are independent posts. BTW- I have differed with others on many things so my focus has an independence of its own))

You state “characteristic group behavior of the HFY folks?” Such as what are you referring? Are you referring to the fact that we seem to share a unified perspective on our understanding of HFY? Do you find something unbelievable about this? Perhaps there is some sense of unity in our family that might not exist elsewhere for some to view as strange, huh? Perhaps the Sifus of the HFY family are communicating quite well what they are teaching to their todai on a consistent level throughout each branch across the US? This thread is turning more and more into a discussion of old, but perhaps could relate to the “Roots” part of the thread…

Originally posted by yuanfen
((One of the great failures of internet lists is the breaking down of serious conversations and ending up fast with ad hominem- name calling))

So are you going to try and direct this discussion back to its original course? What is your view on curriculums?

Originally posted by yuanfen
((Training sessions, lessons? i dont follow. One can make serious judgements on many things without lessons. One can tell the difference between the guitar and the sitar without playing either. One can fairly well conceptualize about the dark side of the moon without going there based on other evidence....invoving indirect confirmation))

Unfortunately I have to disagree with you on this. HFY requires a different approach. No serious judgment can possibly be made about HFY because it is a multi-dimensional creature which requires a paradigm shift to properly offer an educated assertion about HFY. Your particular views on HFY come from your family kung fu, and because of this, your point of reference is not an accurate resource to judge HFY. A picture of HFY Jong Sau may ‘resemble’ some of today’s WC a bit. You can analyze a picture of it from any angle, but because there is no other WC around that has the exact operational characteristics of HFY Jong Sau, your depiction of HFY will never be accurate.

Originally posted by yuanfen
(Similar and the same are or can be two different things))

Most certainly this is the case and is exactly what I mean. HFY shares similarities, going by the distinction you addressed here.

-Savi.
More next post…

Savi

03-04-2003, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by yuanfen
((The center line theory that the HFT folks once articulated on the list was quite different from wing chun.. and the explanations lacked economy and elegance the test of Occam's razor. Listing words is not enough. One can make mixes of wing chun and other things and lose the core. There are hybrids like wing chun do, jeet kune do that also lays claim to some of those concepts.
Hung Gar sometimes uses the ygkym. By the way... since HFY claims a different line--- bat jam do is a distinctly Ip man term though double knives exist in much CMA.))
This could perhaps have been a fault of the posters of the HFY who could not translate the HFY definition of C/L theory at first exposure, or perhaps not. I have no recollection of that discussion. Wing Chun Do and Jeet Kune Do both are derived from Bruce Lee who we all know studied under GM Yip Man. Your comparison here does not hold.

HFY C/L Theory comes from the Tien Yan Dei (Heaven, Human, Earth) which is shared with the Chi Sim family as well. The C/L Theory has a physical role as well as a philosophical aspect attributed to the WC system. They both claim to pre-date the Red Boat Era. I am not fluent with any other families that might be associated with the Tien Yan Dei, but I am familiar (not an expert) with HFY and CS’s roots in this concept.

WRT you comment of the swords, the real name of the HFY swords is Hung Fa Syeung Baat Jahm Do. This is referenced in the article “Unraveling the History of the Butterfly Swords.”

Originally posted by yuanfen
((Time. energy, space are frightfully complex concepts- using them as buzz words is not persuasive.))
These are not buzz words Sifu Chaudhuri used to persuade anyone. Time, Space and Energy are the roots of HFYWCK to which the so-called buzz words were NOT adopted by recent generations – if that is your assumption. They take root in Chan. What were the exact Chinese terms used? I don’t know, but Time, Space, and Energy are apparently the closest and most accurate translations.

Originally posted by yuanfen
Side Neutral Stance, Triangular Theory, Ng Sin Jong Sau, Fau Kiu Kiu Sau, Deui Yeng Kiu Sau, Hei Gung, Jahm Jong, Time and Space Concept (big one here) …

((There we go again- the deficiencies of regular wing chun! Buzz words again. One can manufacture many buzz words))
Sifu Chaudhuri, are you now stating that we are ‘regular Wing Chun’? Hmmm… And yes, certainly one can manufacture buzz words. You seem to be blinded by words or phrases you do not care to understand, therefore dismissing them as buzz words.

It would take far too much room here for me to explain the philosophies of each term listed above, but know that all are intricately tied to these things: Time Space Concept, Saam Mo Kiu, Tien Yan Dei, and were not manufactured by recent generations.

Originally posted by yuanfen
BTW I have read evry HFY exposition on this list thus far, I have read the articles in the popular mags, I have seen some pictures where a trained eye can judge things, and I have carefully talked to people who have seen HFY.
Is this where you mean you are well informed? Forgive me for writing this, but that’s hardly believable considering you have no interest in HFY, and therefore your well-informed opinion is already invalidated based on your bias.

HFY cannot be fully understood with a “trained eye” or discussed with people who have seen HFY. Does your “trained eye” even know what to look for? Your eye would be trained in what branch of the Wing Chun tree to understand the HFY branch? Only an eye trained in HFY can possibly know exactly what to look for in HFY to judge its accuracy.

Can a few people you speak to bring you to a full understanding (what we call Weng Kiu) of what you are analyzing? There is only one way to fully understand HFY Sifu Chaudhuri, and that is through Hau Chun San Sau. There is no other way. There is an acorn from the HFY tree.

Take care and good night!
-Savi.

t_niehoff

03-04-2003, 07:31 AM

Savi writes:

HFY cannot be fully understood with a “trained eye” or discussed with people who have seen HFY. Does your “trained eye” even know what to look for? Your eye would be trained in what branch of the Wing Chun tree to understand the HFY branch? Only an eye trained in HFY can possibly know exactly what to look for in HFY to judge its accuracy. S

Can a few people you speak to bring you to a full understanding (what we call Weng Kiu) of what you are analyzing? There is only one way to fully understand HFY Sifu Chaudhuri, and that is through Hau Chun San Sau. There is no other way. There is an acorn from the HFY tree. S

One doesn't need to "fully understand" anything (I submit that "full understanding" cannot even be attained) to appreciate a great deal about a subject. I was present for a seminar where a WCK "grandmaster" was demonstrating some "technique" and I happened to be standing near to Dan Inosanto (and a few of his students) and overheard Dan say "that will never work" under his breath. And I knew exactly what he meant -- it wouldn't have worked. Similarly, most of the stuff I see in MA rags, websites, etc. just won't work against anyone with any skill. A "trained eye" -- which implies a trained, critical mind -- can see a great deal. TN

It would take far too much room here for me to explain the philosophies of each term listed above, but know that all are intricately tied to these things: Time Space Concept, Saam Mo Kiu, Tien Yan Dei, and were not manufactured by recent generations. S

We can all throw around vague terms that have specific meaning to us but is not in someone else's lexicon -- that doesn't mean they don't have that same concept either implicitly or explicitly (with some other name). Howw can you spealk for what others have and in the same breath say we cannot speak for HFY? ;) Do you have the concepts of "before-and-after" or "the third hand" or "the invisible hand" or "bow principle" or "the cone principle"? Chances are you do, but may call them something else or not even name them. BFD. I don't go around saying "what? if you don't grasp the cone principle -- which is only in my lineage -- you are missing a major portion of WCK". WCK is WCK. You can either make it work for you or you can't. TN

WCK is very small and very simple. Only it is difficult to make something so simple work. To make our WCK functional, regardless of lineage, we must all do certain things. If you have functional WCK you will know what they are; if not, you need to deal with situations -- i.e., resisting opponents -- that require functionality to find them for yourself. Then when you have the "trained eye" to recognize functionality, you'll be able to separate the wheat form the chaff, regardless of lineage or terminology or whatever. TN

Terence

captain

03-04-2003, 07:51 AM

what was the currency in mainlnd china
in the late 19th early 20th century?

Geezer

03-04-2003, 08:05 AM

t_niehoff Wrote>

I was present for a seminar where a WCK "grandmaster" was demonstrating some "technique" and I happened to be standing near to Dan Inosanto (and a few of his students) and overheard Dan say "that will never work" under his breath.

Isn't this classed as hear say???? and can you actually quote something that he allegedly said????

t_niehoff Wrote>

And I knew exactly what he meant -- it wouldn't have worked.

And how did you come to that conclusion????did you ask the Grandmaster if he would use you as a test dummy?????were you an active participant????

Sheldon;)

t_niehoff

03-04-2003, 10:52 AM

Sheldon stop stalking me.

Terence

Geezer

03-04-2003, 11:13 AM

I'm not stalking you, I'm just asking you questions!!!!!

If you're entitled to ask questions, why can't I????

We're all adults here;) no need to call foul play?????

Sheldon:(

Geezer

03-04-2003, 11:18 AM

t_niehoff Wrote>

Sheldon stop stalking me.

Quote Taken From Cambridge Dictionarys Online>

stalk (FOLLOW)
verb [T]
to follow (an animal or person) as closely as possible without being seen or heard

I'm not doing a very good job am I:D

Sheldon

Geezer

03-04-2003, 11:54 AM

***********************************************
Sheldon,
No one on here erases postings but me. If you have a question about something I have erased, feel free to PM or email me.

Sandman[Wing Chun]
***********************************************

reneritchie

03-04-2003, 12:00 PM

Joy,

Thank you very much for your reply. I think the absence of a "party-line" is one of the big factors in keeping things civilized. When you're dealing with people, its always easier than with parties.

"Name recognition? Circular logic.Does not mean much to me. I am not unacquainted with the Chinese political system."

I know some about it. It is, at best, self-serving and remarkably capitalist. At the risk of offending others (none of them HFY) I won't go further into it in public.

"There are folks without any martial training who can do that- with skill BTW"

That's an excellent point and one which, IMHO, mitigates a little the "show me" approach. Someone with a great pedigree and knowledge can be not much of an applicant, and someone can fight with little or no lineage or systematic knowledge at all. It will take time an a paradigm shift in training methods to produce large quantities who can do both to excellence.

David,

"Rene - This is difinetly worth talking about."

I think it is.

"First I have to ask is - who is "the rest of us"? If you are refering to every member of KFO who is not affiliated with the VTM, that is way too broad of a statement and simply not true. People on this forum who ask honest questions are given honest answers."

The rest of us saves me having to write out a very long list of people from different lineages, geographical locations, experiences, and perspectives who have experienced the same problem (you may not have been around long enough to remember them all, but its a considerable number, and its also people who don't typically share much else in common).

"The problem I see is when the answers are given there is a small group ready to immediately initiate insults and challenges. Terence's comments on this thread are a prime example. There are others who are more subtle. But none the less detract from the discussion. "

That's equally valid and I think its important, if anyone wants to move past the cycle, that we admit the fault rests with all of us, and take responsibility for our own part(s) in it. IMHO, gowing back several years now, few if any of us have much to be proud of with these long series of threads. We've all acted pretty badly at one time or another, and we seem to have trouble putting that aside.

"IMO the "empty tea cup" discussions were definetly a step in the right direction. Hopefully, they will be visited again soon. "

I agree, but the "empty tea cup" has to exist all ways. It has to apply to everyone in the discussion, or it will inevitably fail.

One of Terence's points is very important, though, IMHO. The VTM has made, and still makes, some very bold claims (bordering on hyperbole) which generate a charged environment welcoming refutation. If such claims were not made, the environment would not be so charged. Obviously, most of us probably feel that way about our sifu, sigung, or our system. But on a whole, we don't all go around posting it, inviting contradiction.

I think another important step would be to cut down on the hyperbole all around. It would make it easier to discuss the subject matter, and leave personal feelings out of it.

Tony,

Are you one of the people making those posts on the former VTAA board? If so, what about that environment and behavior do you find that makes it acceptable to you?

Savi,

"More often than not, the points that I do not address I usually do not have any disagreements with. I see that as a good thing Rene. No point in debating something I agree with. That's why I don't address them. BUT sometimes I might overlook something you would see as relevant, but that's my fault then. I admit that. Or something you bring up whom I do not have any knowledge of, I cannot challenge."

That's very fair. I suffer from much the same. If at any time you think I've missed something major, please don't hesitate to point it out to me.

"Aside from your typos, please forgive me if you take offense to what is written by the HFY family as a smack in the face. It is not meant to be as such, nor is it our job to clean your cup before you read the articles.

The HFY family makes no comparisons of superiority to today's WC styles."

I think Joy's point is an important one as well. Some of the ways HFY has been presented has been offensive to people from other lineages. Comments about "empty cup" can't change that any more than telling you to "empty your cup" about comments negative to HFY will make you accept them.

One of the things I've always tried to do in my articles and my presentations is never compare or may comparitive remarks about other branches. HFY articles in the past have, directly or implicitly, commented that other branches were less complete, less combat effective, less scientific, and just downright "less". The same way your early perceptions of Joy were colored by how he spoke of HFY, many of us had our early perceptions of HFY colored by how HFY material spoke about "others". You (general you) might believe this, of course, and I'm sure others believe the same about their respective lineages, but its not a wise thing to say. It's indiscrete, unkind, an unpolitic. Likewise, when people express this feeling (as Joy did to you about HFY presentation and you did to him about his comments about HFY), "empty your cup" is probably not as good a way to go as "that wasn't our/my intent, we'll certainly take it into consideration next time", and then actually to take it into consideration.

Savi & David,

You might want to speak with Tony about the wisdom in posting inaccuracies about Chi Sao exchanges between Robert and Benny, or even bringing it up at all. I spoke to both of them before and after that occasion. I probably still have some of Benny's emails about it lying around. Benny has it on tape anyway, so perhaps Tony should watch it and then come back and either edit the mention out of his post completely, or revise it accordingly.

Terence,

I'm not sure if you meant me as well, but I've always made it a point to do Chi Sao with as many people as possible at the Friendship seminars (even the ones where I've been rather badly injured prior to the event ;). It's a risky game, because you never know intent, but a risk worth taking, IMHO.

(FWIW - I touched hands with Benny in Victoria and with Gee sifu (*very* briefly) and several of Benny's students in Dayton. The VTM folks were good, better than most in fact (probably because, agree or disagree with them, they work their @$$es off and eat, beathe, and well, you know the rest, WCK). I've also touched hands with Robert, Dzu, David, you, and many of the rest of your group. Very different from the VTM, but very good (and Dmitri is a monster!) I've also been fortunate enough to touch hands with some YKS/SN seniors, Ken Chung and some of his people, Gary Lam and some other WSL folks, Hendrik, and some other folks. All different, all good. I've also met some that weren't so great. That brings me back to the uselessness of talking about "unparalleled skill" or "the best". It's all subjective. It depends who else you've experienced, and how you personally rank your experiences. Talking about relative merits shows only your own biases, your own preferences. Not to mention extenuating circumstances (were they injured, sick, holding back, trying to learn, trying to show off, having a good day, a bad day, being kind, being an @$$hole, different but the same, the same but different...)

Captain -

Qing dynasty currency. Are you looking for anything specific? Westernized language like Tael or Mace? Popular Mandarin terms like Yuan? Do a web search for "Qing Dynasty Currency" and you should find all sorts of interesting stuff.

Sheldon-

Far be it for me to interject something factual, but Terence didn't post that quote, Tony Jacobs (Canglong) did, following it up, ironically, with a tag line about "strength and honor". Perhaps you could follow up with him with your usual zeal?

Geezer

03-04-2003, 12:24 PM

Rene Wrote>

Sheldon-

Far be it for me to interject something factual, but Terence didn't post that quote, Tony Jacobs (Canglong) did, following it up, ironically, with a tag line about "strength and honor". Perhaps you could follow up with him with your usual zeal?

So as not to confuse everyone, which quote?????the one about Dan Insanto or the other ones where he talks about being on Flu Medication?????

Sheldon;)

P.S.The quotes posted with the Flu Medication at the end are taken from a post by t_niehoff on page two at the bottom????

P.P.S.If it was Tony Jacobs wouldn't it be a TJ instead of TN??????

Savi

03-04-2003, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
One doesn't need to "fully understand" anything (I submit that "full understanding" cannot even be attained) to appreciate a great deal about a subject.
This statement is true to the degree which is stated, aside from what is in parentheses. A variance of exposure to certain things may lead to “great appreciation”. However, by the comment I quoted above, it is only a reflection of your understanding, and not the consensus.

What I mean by “full understanding” is that it requires two qualifiers: 1) Physical experience and 2) Mental/technical knowledge.

One of the first wisdoms of the Shaolin Temple is Knowledge; perfect/complete knowledge. This means without complete knowledge of an element (like a technique for example) your reality is false; an illusion. In combat, a response driven by incomplete knowledge can be challenged against you. It’s like having a passing familiarity with applying an arm bar, and then trying to apply it on someone who actually knows exactly how to do it. They will counter you.

So in response to your submittal above, yes a “full understanding” can be attained.

Originally posted by t_niehoff
I was present for a seminar where a WCK "grandmaster" was demonstrating some "technique" and I happened to be standing near to Dan Inosanto (and a few of his students) and overheard Dan say "that will never work" under his breath. And I knew exactly what he meant -- it wouldn't have worked. Similarly, most of the stuff I see in MA rags, websites, etc. just won't work against anyone with any skill. A "trained eye" -- which implies a trained, critical mind -- can see a great deal. TN
Not to show disrespect to Master Inosanto, but you are following hearsay, no? Sheldon brought out a very strong point. Are you trying to use another person’s opinion as fact to prove a point?

Also, your example is quite different from mine. Yours were being that of analyzing an action, and having the chance to watch an application in motion. My example was that of trying to gain a full understanding (not a great appreciation) from a photograph; a still frame, a moment caught in time. Your example offers a much greater opportunity to reach a “great appreciation” vice mine.

Originally posted by t_niehoff
We can all throw around vague terms that have specific meaning to us but is not in someone else's lexicon -- that doesn't mean they don't have that same concept either implicitly or explicitly (with some other name). TN
You say vague terms with specific meanings, Terence? Sounds like Kuen Kuit to me. Is that what you are hinting at? What I gather from the quote above is that your WCK is as intricate and as detailed as HFY, just with a different label slapped on it right? Then how come there is no originating Red Boat WC [in technique and detail] that mirrors HFY to a T? Oh it must be a different package then…

Hmmm, labels, packaging, distribution, buzz words for marketing… all sound a sell to you? Sounds more like an attempt at blackmail to me; with you and a couple other people trying to turn the HFY family into some cheap gimmick out to make money. Gossip and scheming doesn’t float well in this river Terence, and I'm sure the moderator is growing tired of that.

Despite your opinion about the language of Hung Fa Yi, there is quite a bit more than you can possibly imagine which is involved in HFY. You can definitely learn the language as have I - for what I have been exposed to so far – but until then your remarks on misunderstood things related to HFY have no bearing on the HFY heritage.

-Savi.
Next post…

Savi

03-04-2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Howw can you spealk for what others have and in the same breath say we cannot speak for HFY? ;) Do you have the concepts of "before-and-after" or "the third hand" or "the invisible hand" or "bow principle" or "the cone principle"? Chances are you do, but may call them something else or not even name them. BFD. I don't go around saying "what? if you don't grasp the cone principle -- which is only in my lineage -- you are missing a major portion of WCK". WCK is WCK. You can either make it work for you or you can't.
I will not speak on a subject for whom I have no functional basis of knowledge to comment on Terence. I know for a fact that the majority of today’s WC has a C/L Theory and a Jong Sau. Do you find any debate in that? Again, you are assuming your WC has everything HFYWCK has, just in another format. Not so in this case because there are certain things totally unique to HFY like the Time and Space Concept. Do you have the TSC? What is your family version of the TSC Terence?

Originally posted by t_niehoff
WCK is very small and very simple. Only it is difficult to make something so simple work. To make our WCK functional, regardless of lineage, we must all do certain things. If you have functional WCK you will know what they are; if not, you need to deal with situations -- i.e., resisting opponents -- that require functionality to find them for yourself. Then when you have the "trained eye" to recognize functionality, you'll be able to separate the wheat form the chaff, regardless of lineage or terminology or whatever. TN
I have to differ with you on this Terence. You missed the Hau Chun San Sau acorn... You say WCK is small and simple. You say it is difficult to apply its simplicity. You say ‘we must all do certain things.’ What exactly do you mean? What is your WCK Terence? Can you explain what it is for us?

Why is it so difficult to apply something simple? Is it a lack of technical details? Is it a lack of an overriding philosophy to tie it all together? Is it an inefficient process of programming and deprogramming yourself? What “certain things” are you trying to reference? Will the Saam Mo Kiu philosophy offer any help for you? The SMK philosophy is another acorn you should make use of!

A “trained eye” can only identify what it is trained to see Terence. Is your eye trained to look for the details of the HFY system whether you see it in action or from a photo? Ony if you know what the details of HFYWCK are! Until then, you will only be able to see what you can recognize as similar to what you are familiar with. It will never be an EXACT and ACCURATE identification unless it is a trained HFY “eye” looking at HFY.

Unfortunately, by using your approach, you will have formed a less-than informed opinion and have misjudged your subject matter. Not a good strategy Terence.

Regards,
-Savi.

canglong

03-04-2003, 12:57 PM

Reneritchie,

Are you one of the people making those posts on the former VTAA board? If so, what about that environment and behavior do you find that makes it acceptable to you?RR

NO, have you ever seen a Tony Jacobs post without Tony Jacobs name attached,but I find it acceptable because its real as a word many people like to use here as individuals we have to sort and sift through to find our own truth where here we have moderators who moderate the truth as they see fit. I have seen many a thread go on and on way past their usefullness and many a good heated conversation cut off at the knees.

With reference to the quote in question I just copied and paste the link you so readily provided. If YOU didn't want people to read the quote why did YOU post the link in the first place?

So is troll in you vocabulary or not?

t_niehoff

03-04-2003, 12:57 PM

Savi writes:

One of the first wisdoms of the Shaolin Temple is Knowledge; perfect/complete knowledge. This means without complete knowledge of an element (like a technique for example) your reality is false; an illusion. In combat, a response driven by incomplete knowledge can be challenged against you. It’s like having a passing familiarity with applying an arm bar, and then trying to apply it on someone who actually knows exactly how to do it. They will counter you. . . . So in response to your submittal above, yes a “full understanding” can be attained. S

Well, take someone with "full understanding of HFY" and pit them against Rickson Gracie and I know who I'll bet on. ;) Human beings aren't perfect, our knowledge is never perfect, our skill never perfect. It comes down to being able to use what I bring to the table better than the other guy. TN

Not to show disrespect to Master Inosanto, but you are following hearsay, no? Sheldon brought out a very strong point. Are you trying to use another person’s opinion as fact to prove a point? S

The point was about a "learned eye", and surely Dan has one. And why do you guys bring up "hearsay" -- this isn't a courtroom and I heard what I heard (btw, even in a courtroom there are exceptions to excluding hearsay when the circumstances show reliability; someone's "present sense impression," which Dan's remark was, would be admitted as evidence in court :) ). TN

What I gather from the quote above is that your WCK is as intricate and as detailed as mine, just with a different label slapped on it right? Then how come there is no originating Red Boat WC [in technique and detail] that matches HFY to a T? Oh it must be a different package then…Despite your opinion about the language of Hung Fa Yi, there is quite a bit more than you can possibly imagine which is involved in HFY. S

WCK is WCK; there are lots and lots of books on chemistry (or any other subject), none "match to a T" yet they all have more or less the same information. The text/curriculum can vary -- we're not trying to memorize the text word for word (even if we did, that wouldn't mean we understand chemistry) but grasp the subject matter. And chemists don't argue about who learns with the best text; all they care about is becoming chemists. TN

Terence

Savi

03-04-2003, 01:07 PM

Terence, anything you would like to comment on in realm of WCK and not about a courtroom or chemistry? Or would you prefer to take up Gracie Jiujitsu instead? Feel free Terence. Why waste your time in something you feel less than competent with?

Back to the topic! Let's get to the 'root' of this Terence.
What is your understanding of WC's purpose/nature? This should fall under the "roots" part of the thread as it would help us understand where your WCK roots comes from, and I don't mean specific people/ancestors. What is the purpose or nature of the WCK that you are a part of?

-Savi.

t_niehoff

03-04-2003, 01:13 PM

Savi writes:

Terence, anything you would like to comment on in realm of WCK and not about a courtroom or chemistry? S

I often contribute to the technical threads. But I'm sure you know that. TN

What is your understanding of WC's purpose/nature? This should fall under the "roots" part of the thread as it would help us understand where your WCK roots comes from, and I don't mean specific people/ancestors. What is the purpose or nature of the WCK that you are a part of? S

WCK is a kuen faat. TN

Terence

reneritchie

03-04-2003, 01:18 PM

"have you ever seen a Tony Jacobs post without Tony Jacobs name attached"

Does that mean you don't post there, or you don't use the "Tony Jacobs" name there?

"So is troll in you vocabulary or not?"

Is this rerouting to dictionary.com again?

If you're wondering whether I think you're trolling or not, I'm flattered my opinion matters so much to you. FWIW I don't think you're trolling right now. I think, rather, you invested a lot of yourself into a romanticized construct and when its challenged, instead of coming to an honest understanding of it, you lash out.

I think in 10 years you will have much more perspective, and will look back at the way your posted, here and now, and regret it.

And I'm sorry I can't help you with that beyond, apparently, being the target you've fixated your venom spewing on.

Peace,

Geezer

03-04-2003, 01:22 PM

t_niehoff Wrote>

The point was about a "learned eye", and surely Dan has one. And why do you guys bring up "hearsay" -- this isn't a courtroom and I heard what I heard (btw, even in a courtroom there are exceptions to excluding hearsay when the circumstances show reliability; someone's "present sense impression," which Dan's remark was, would be admitted as evidence in court ). TN

I found this......

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - HEARSAY RULE - PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION EXCEPTION
By Judge Stephen C. Cooper
People v Henrickson, 459 Mich 229 (1998) 12/28/98

Return to District Court Review Menu
Return to Calhoun County Courts Homepage

Facts:
The Defendant was charged with one count of domestic violence for the beating of his live-in girlfriend. On October 8, 1994, the victim called 911 claiming that the defendant had beaten her and that she was going to the hospital. The police met her at the hospital, interviewed her, and then took pictures of the injuries. A few days later, the victim retracted her story and informed the prosecutor that she will refuse to testify, claiming her fifth amendment rights. The prosecutor continued with the case and used the 911 call as evidence of the abuse under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. The defendant objected. The District Court allowed the evidence. The Circuit Court reversed. The Court of Appeals upheld the Circuit Court. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the District Court's ruling.

Ruling:

Present sense impression is admissible under MRE 803(1) which states that a statement "describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter" is excepted from the hearsay rule. The Court stated that "the admission of hearsay evidence as a present sense impression requires satisfaction of three conditions: (1) the statement must provide an explanation or description of the perceived event, (2) the declarant must personally perceive the event, and (3) the explanation or description must be ‘substantially contemporaneous' with the event." The Court, by looking at the facts of the case, found that all three requirements were met.

The Court also ruled that there must be independent proof of the event before the present sense impression evidence is admissible. The Court stated that this rule is similar to the rule that requires independent proof related to the admission of the excited utterance exception. The Court ruled that the pictures of the injuries was independent proof that the abuse occurred and therefore, the 911 call was admissible.

Taken from this site,

http://courts.co.calhoun.mi.us/98dis001.htm

Nicely

Sheldon;)

Savi

03-04-2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Savi
...What is the purpose or nature of the WCK that you are a part of?

-Savi.

Originally posted by t_Neihoff
WCK is a kuen faat. TN

Is that it? OK. The purpose or nature of Wing Chun is that it is a fighting method. Hey, great discussion here! Thanks Terence :)!

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

Rene,
You seem to be in a bad mood today. I have no idea how you perceive Mr. Jacobs's posts as being so hostile that you have to resort to implications of him being venomous.

He reiterates an unanswered question, brings to the table quotes and or comments on from previous posts - simply to make sure he has an accurate understanding of you and this is how you respond to my sidai. OK. For the record, Tony does not have fangs.

-Savi.

Sandman2[Wing Chun]

03-04-2003, 01:34 PM

Everyone posting on this thread,
Please take a deep breath, count to 10, and try to calm down.

Sheldon,
I'm the only person on this forum who currently deletes threads. If you have a problem with something I have deleted, you need to PM or email me about it.

Geezer

03-04-2003, 01:36 PM

Savi

03-04-2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Sandman2[Wing Chun]
Everyone posting on this thread,
Please take a deep breath, count to 10, and try to calm down.

We're cool Sandman! We're cool!

Take care,
-Savi.

canglong

03-04-2003, 01:40 PM

You are so bent on reading what you want to read I guesss you missed that little word at the front of my post.....Which part of no don't you undersatand Rene? I like how you left that part of my post off your reply. Then you never even mention it was you that posted the link first your selective memory kicks in on your post sooooo neatly. hmmmmmm

I am wondering how your willingness to acknowledge as well as directly call people trolls jibes with Rene's rule number 4.

"4) Value those who disagree with you more than those who agree. As any writer should know, only the harshest criticism has value. The mutual admiration societies and philosophical rationalizers will hone your ego, not your craft." RR

Hey Rene lets see you make a post without using the noun I six times :D

Geezer

03-04-2003, 01:43 PM

Sandman2[Wing Chun] Wrote>

Sheldon,
I'm the only person on this forum who currently deletes threads. If you have a problem with something I have deleted, you need to PM or email me about it.

It seems to me that things are only deleted after someone informs you.
Hey......I'm not always right;)

Can I start breathing now I'm starting to turn blu........

I can only count to 9

Sheldon;)

P.S.Sandman2[Wing Chun], I noticed that t_niehoff's comments are still there on the bottom of page 2????????

planetwc

03-04-2003, 01:56 PM

Let me take a crack at this one...

If it were easy to do, then it wouldn't be 'kung fu" would it?

Development of skill is hard work, irrespective of the style or lineage--something I think we can all agree to.

WCK IS small and simple. The work of it is in making skill of this YOUR OWN.

And Savi, you can't have it both ways. It's not "mainstream WCK" is inefficient and missing philosophy, technology, jargon, mumble, mumble whereas HFY WCK has it all. Because if it does have it all, then are we to gather that you are ALSO the equal in skill of your sifu and your si-gung Benny Meng and your Grandmaster? Because of superior HFY WCK technology?

I don't think you'd make such a claim. Your skill, your si-hings skill, your sifu's skill, your si-gung's skill and your grandmaster's skill result from training dedication and lots of hard work. That is why it is Kung Fu.

And if there is a given of core principles to WCK and core shapes, then those are the certain things we must do when expressing WCK otherwise we are doing something else.

360 Spin Kicks are not part of Wing Chun, so it is something we would not do to express WCK. A tan sau shape as a dispersal is someting that is part of Wing Chun and IS something that we would do to express WCK. Your tan sau may be different from mine, but conceptually, if they are about dispersal, then there you have it. Something we both must do, if we are expressing our WCK.

Make sense?

Originally posted by Savi

I will not speak on a subject for whom I have no functional basis of knowledge to comment on Terence. I know for a fact that the majority of today’s WC has a C/L Theory and a Jong Sau. Do you find any debate in that? Again, you are assuming your WC has everything HFYWCK has, just in another format. Not so in this case because there are certain things totally unique to HFY like the Time and Space Concept. Do you have the TSC? What is your family version of the TSC Terence?

I have to differ with you on this Terence. You say WCK is small and simple. You say it is difficult to apply its simplicity. You say ‘we must all do certain things.’ What exactly do you mean? What is your WCK Terence? Can you explain what it is for us?

Why is it so difficult to apply something simple? Is it a lack of technical details? Is it a lack of an overriding philosophy to tie it all together? Is it an inefficient process of programming and deprogramming yourself? What “certain things” are you trying to reference? Will the Saam Mo Kiu philosophy offer any help for you?

A “trained eye” can only identify what it is trained to see Terence. Is your eye trained to look for the details of the HFY system whether you see it in action or from a photo? Ony if you know what the details of HFYWCK are! Until then, you will only be able to see what you can recognize as similar to what you are familiar with. It will never be an EXACT and ACCURATE identification unless it is a trained HFY “eye” looking at HFY.

Unfortunately, by using your approach, you will have formed a less-than informed opinion and have misjudged your subject matter. Not a good strategy Terence.

Regards,
-Savi.

yuanfen

03-04-2003, 02:14 PM

Snips fromSavi"s words followed by response in brackets.
---------------------------------------------------------------
HFY requires a different approach. No serious judgment can possibly be made about HFY because it is a multi-dimensional creature which requires a paradigm shift to properly offer an educated assertion about HFY.

((Pretty wordy and I am not at all sure what it means. Whya paradigm shift if it is wing chun?? Different wing chun lineages
are able to explain their varying approaches to center line, stancing and motions))

Sifu Chaudhuri, are you now stating that we are ‘regular Wing Chun’?

((No read again. Its HFY's own spin and mix. Reminiscent of early TWC days--- with additional fuzzy metaphysics thrown in))

Time Space Concept, Saam Mo Kiu, Tien Yan Dei, and were not manufactured by recent generations

((One can claim compatability (un proven yet in the HFY posts) of
HFY concepts with contemporary physics...but it took much evolution and sufferring(Galileo) to march through flat earth, Aristotlean, Newtonian, Einsteinian and post Einsteinian concepts
of space time relationships and their meanings.. Stretches the imagination to think that the HFY sifus thought of all this))

There is only one way to fully understand HFY Sifu Chaudhuri, and that is through Hau Chun San Sau.

((In that case my relative ignorance of HFY is indeed bliss))

shanti

reneritchie

03-04-2003, 02:14 PM

David,

"360 Spin Kicks are not part of Wing Chun, so it is something we would not do to express WCK."

Unfortunately (and literally, because it happened a few years back on the WCML), if someone's sifu claimed there was a 360 Spin Kick in WCK, and others thought not, that person would more likely think everyone else was missing it, and was attacking his sifu, and then react poorly.

If 1 out of 100 people think something, they're usually pretty sure the other 99 are idiots.

"And if there is a given of core principles to WCK and core shapes, then those are the certain things we must do when expressing WCK otherwise we are doing something else."

WCK is just a name. Anyone can use it (well, except for the TMed versions ;) for anything they like. And if one day the people doing WCK-Bo outnumber the rest of us, we'll be the one's thought crazy (much as happens with martial vs. hippie Tai Chi in some areas).

Savi

03-04-2003, 02:14 PM

I appreciate what you said, and...

*I have absolutely no debate over what you said.* I agree with your perspective. Keep in mind I never said kung fu was easy to do. I never said HFY is superior in any fashion. As far as I go, if there is ever an implication that I feel someone has stated, I'd ask for clarification first as opposed to thinking the latter is the case.

I asked about this:

"Why is it so difficult to apply something simple? Is it a lack of technical details? Is it a lack of an overriding philosophy to tie it all together? Is it an inefficient process of programming and deprogramming yourself? What “certain things” are you trying to reference?"

BUT I NEVER stated that HFY has those things either David! Do you see where I am coming from? I was simply asking Terence questions, and that's all. Sorry if I was coming across as thinking I or the HFY was better than everybody. My mistake if that's the case. Thanks for pointing it out though.

I have never stated that HFY has everything either, or that I am equal in skill as my Sifu, or Grandmasters. I am FAR from their skill level! And you are right on the dot, I would never make such a claim.

Everything you have said I most definitely see eye to eye with. Kung Fu means skill and effort (generally speaking of course). Not to talk about me, but I spend a minimum of 35 hours a week training at my Sifu's kwoon. So with respect to your comments, I wholeheartedly agree!

Did I miss anything you addressed that we still don't agree with?

-Savi.

Savi

03-04-2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by reneritchie
Unfortunately (and literally, because it happened a few years back on the WCML), if someone's sifu claimed there was a 360 Spin Kick in WCK, and others thought not, that person would more likely think everyone else was missing it, and was attacking his sifu, and then react poorly.

If 1 out of 100 people think something, they're usually pretty sure the other 99 are idiots.
As you have decided to post this on the thread which implies you think this to be relevent to the parties at hand, unless I am wrong, this is also your opinion about the HFY family, no? I say that because today's posts have been about the HFY and your timing of your latest post implies such.

May I ask for a clarification on your approach here Rene?

IF I am right Rene, this is quite a poor judgement of character - should you be judging my family in such a manner. Perhaps you meant to post this somewhere else.

still cool here sandman...
-Savi.

canglong

03-04-2003, 02:26 PM

Rene, people that disagree with you are now hypocrites? Rule number 4 lasted what 2 seconds but I'm the hypocrite. Even when people I disagree with ask me questions I try an answer them rarely do you answer my questions or stop yourself from using the word troll. I believe there is a good reason you understand the meaning of hypoctite.

"4) Value those who disagree with you more than those who agree. As any writer should know, only the harshest criticism has value. The mutual admiration societies and philosophical rationalizers will hone your ego, not your craft." RR

Savi

03-04-2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by yuanfen
HFY requires a different approach. No serious judgment can possibly be made about HFY because it is a multi-dimensional creature which requires a paradigm shift to properly offer an educated assertion about HFY.

((Pretty wordy and I am not at all sure what it means. Whya paradigm shift if it is wing chun?? Different wing chun lineages
are able to explain their varying approaches to center line, stancing and motions))
Are you now interesting in learning about HFY? It's OK if you do Sifu Chaudhuri, as I would welcome the interest and discuss further your newly discovered avenue.

Originally posted by yuanfen
((One can claim compatability (un proven yet in the HFY posts) of HFY concepts with contemporary physics...but it took much evolution and sufferring(Galileo) to march through flat earth, Aristotlean, Newtonian, Einsteinian and post Einsteinian concepts
of space time relationships and their meanings.. Stretches the imagination to think that the HFY sifus thought of all this))
Your quote above is a stretch Sifu Chaudhuri. You are searching in the wrong direction with the wrong context. HFY concepts originate from Chan Buddhism.

Originally posted by yuanfen
((In that case my relative ignorance of HFY is indeed bliss))
Apparently you are not interested anymore? We must be finished then. See you on another thread.
-Savi.

reneritchie

03-04-2003, 02:39 PM

Savi,

No offense, but you spend far to much time reading into my posts than reading them, looking for implication rather than explination. You also seemed to ignore a vast amount of the rest of what I wrote in the last few posts. But that's okay. It's, unfortunately become the norm.

You claim to want to discuss WCK, our roots, our sifus. Look at your posts. Is that what you're spending your time discussing? I'll ask again: What is your (greater) purpose in discussing on the 'net? Do you seek information or affirmation?

Tony,

First, since you're so fond of vocabularies, look up "humor" (note the emoticons, and if you're not familiar with them, look "emoticon" up as well). Second, you're not disagreeing with me. You're unhappy with me for some reason real or imagined, and lacking the courage to discuss it with me openly and directly you follow me around and make petty personal swipes at me. Not too cool.

reneritchie

03-04-2003, 02:47 PM

Since its become obvious this type of discussion results only in frustrating me and further pi$$ing off the HFY bunch, I've decided to try and refrain from discussing anything to do with HFY or personal behavior with them anymore.

(Plain WCK, flavor, politics, and BS free, will always be welcome, time and interest permitting).

Geezer

03-04-2003, 02:48 PM

I Posted>

Rene Wrote>

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheldon-

Far be it for me to interject something factual, but Terence didn't post that quote, Tony Jacobs (Canglong) did, following it up, ironically, with a tag line about "strength and honor". Perhaps you could follow up with him with your usual zeal?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm still waiting to find out if I quoted the right party.........Rene?????

TJ=Tony Jacobs, TN=Terence Niehoff
Seems simple enough?

Rene, seeing as your answering questions, did I post the quote connected to the right person or not????:confused:

Hey, just to let you know, I'm just asking this question to make sure I can correct it if needed.........or is the lack of your response to this question because I am right?????

Sheldon;)

canglong

03-04-2003, 03:02 PM

When you make use of an emoticon its fun and games when I do it its mean spirited an nasty. oh so lets see you can dish it out but you can't take it and I should be mindful of that, so noted. Discuss what you never answer my questions to keep the ball rolling. Your post usually just hash over your earlier arguments then when someone new comes along like my sihing Savi all you do is ridicule. Who here doesn't know that Chaudhuri, sifu doesn't want to visit a HFY kwoon raise your hand. That and NHB belt would look quite nice on Terences wall or that Opera boats were red.

"4) Value those who disagree with you more than those who agree. As any writer should know, only the harshest criticism has value. The mutual admiration societies and philosophical rationalizers will hone your ego, not your craft." RR

You posted that not me, then why I ask you why you refer to people as trolls then the end result it the little back and forth we just had but I am the bad guy to quote Terence Please.

I ask again discuss what?

reneritchie

03-04-2003, 03:04 PM

Sheldon:

I no longer view your posts as sincere, so I tend to ignore them. Also, since you're past master at quotes, I felt certain you could look back a page or two and find:

Sheldon wrote to Terence:

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is this "Bob" and how does this "Bob" know anything of what happened when Benny visited Robert Chu?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know???? you're the one that posted the quote"

planetwc

03-04-2003, 03:32 PM

No worries Savi, we are cool. ;)

Take care,

David

Originally posted by Savi
I appreciate what you said, and...

*I have absolutely no debate over what you said.* I agree with your perspective. Keep in mind I never said kung fu was easy to do. I never said HFY is superior in any fashion. As far as I go, if there is ever an implication that I feel someone has stated, I'd ask for clarification first as opposed to thinking the latter is the case.

I asked about this:

"Why is it so difficult to apply something simple? Is it a lack of technical details? Is it a lack of an overriding philosophy to tie it all together? Is it an inefficient process of programming and deprogramming yourself? What “certain things” are you trying to reference?"

BUT I NEVER stated that HFY has those things either David! Do you see where I am coming from? I was simply asking Terence questions, and that's all. Sorry if I was coming across as thinking I or the HFY was better than everybody. My mistake if that's the case. Thanks for pointing it out though.

I have never stated that HFY has everything either, or that I am equal in skill as my Sifu, or Grandmasters. I am FAR from their skill level! And you are right on the dot, I would never make such a claim.

Everything you have said I most definitely see eye to eye with. Kung Fu means skill and effort (generally speaking of course). Not to talk about me, but I spend a minimum of 35 hours a week training at my Sifu's kwoon. So with respect to your comments, I wholeheartedly agree!

Did I miss anything you addressed that we still don't agree with?

-Savi.

desertwingchun2

03-04-2003, 04:27 PM

Rene writes:
The rest of us saves me having to write out a very long list of people from different lineages, geographical locations, experiences, and perspectives who have experienced the same problem (you may not have been around long enough to remember them all, but its a considerable number, and its also people who don't typically share much else in common).

Fair enough. I haven't been online very long so I did not and do not know to whom you were referring. I didn't think you were speaking for all KFO members not affiliated with the VTM. Thats why I asked.

"The problem I see is when the answers are given there is a small group ready to immediately initiate insults and challenges. Terence's comments on this thread are a prime example. There are others who are more subtle. But none the less detract from the discussion. " - DW2

That's equally valid and I think its important, if anyone wants to move past the cycle, that we admit the fault rests with all of us, and take responsibility for our own part(s) in it. IMHO, gowing back several years now, few if any of us have much to be proud of with these long series of threads. We've all acted pretty badly at one time or another, and we seem to have trouble putting that aside. - RR

It says alot that you agree with my point. So then why isn't Terence ever called a troll?? ;) I'll definetly take responsibility for my part. I don't go back years but I have no problem moving past the cycle of insults and challenges.

"IMO the "empty tea cup" discussions were definetly a step in the right direction. Hopefully, they will be visited again soon. "-DW2

I agree, but the "empty tea cup" has to exist all ways. It has to apply to everyone in the discussion, or it will inevitably fail.- RR

Yup

One of Terence's points is very important, though, IMHO. The VTM has made, and still makes, some very bold claims (bordering on hyperbole) which generate a charged environment welcoming refutation.- RR

I don't know how important this point is. Hyperbole is defined as -exaggeration for effect. "For effect" is defined as for show; to influence others. If the claims were/are hyperbolic how does that create a charged environment? They may welcome refutation but why? If the claims are/were exaggerations to influence others why would Terence or anyone else care? It stands to reason they just simply wouldn't be influenced. But I digress ...

If such claims were not made, the environment would not be so charged. - RR

Is this the standing rule for anyone's claims?

Obviously, most of us probably feel that way about our sifu, sigung, or our system. But on a whole, we don't all go around posting it, inviting contradiction.

Hmmm .... yea inviting contradiction isn't very wise.

I think another important step would be to cut down on the hyperbole all around. It would make it easier to discuss the subject matter, and leave personal feelings out of it.

And how! I think we covered that with the "empty tea cups all around" and I still agree.

-David

Savi

03-04-2003, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by reneritchie
No offense, but you spend far to much time reading into my posts than reading them, looking for implication rather than explination. You also seemed to ignore a vast amount of the rest of what I wrote in the last few posts. But that's okay. It's, unfortunately become the norm.
Sorry Rene, but do you really know how I read and how much time I spend thinking about what I read? I am merely relating to the flow of the posts on this thread, and then your post about 1 person's way versus the majority thing puts your comment within its context. If you would please help me understand what I have apparently delved too deeply in, rather than point your Tan Sau at me, I think we would understand each other's points better.

Again forgive me if I do not challenge every word Rene writes! If your comments are directed towards someone else and you are expecting me to address it, I do not follow that particular logic.

Originally posted by reneritchie
You claim to want to discuss WCK, our roots, our sifus. Look at your posts. Is that what you're spending your time discussing? I'll ask again: What is your (greater) purpose in discussing on the 'net? Do you seek information or affirmation?
Rene, I think you need a day off the internet as your posts are clearly demonstrating a great degree of frustration. Seriously. No one here in the HFY family are getting riled as you might be perceiving.

My recent posts have been about HFY. Do you take offense to that? Terence and Sifu Chaudhuri were the ones asking about it, not you. So I discuss with them HFY as I am a member of the HFY family. If you want to contribute to the discussion of it, feel free.

AND... is it any of your business my goal in discussing anything on the net? I'll tell you anyways despite your recent decline in civility. People have questions and comments, I have questions and comments. It is the Gong Wu which I was born into, Rene. Would you like me to leave the Gong Wu, or just this forum? The US constitution does hold to me, and I prefer to have freedom of speech Mr. President.

You should heed the moderator's advice and take a breather. Cool off bro...
-Savi.